AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: tsig

form_srcid: tsig

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: tsig

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2006/09/01 13:40:25, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,18:39)
so, it seems that the general agreement is that alcohol is required to deaden the nerves before one can successfully navigate a complete thread on UD?

would that be the consesus opinion?

yes!! budwieser draft is my choice

Date: 2006/09/01 15:49:11, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 01 2006,18:51)
O-kay. Got a couple shots in me. (Burnett's Vanilla Vodka, in case anyone cares) Let's see if it can handle some full frontal tard:

For us strict creationists, ID could be used as a wedge to overcome Darwin and evangelize people. But that’s clearly not the intent of IDs
Comment by faithandshadow — September 1, 2006 @ 12:21 pm


(slowly picks self off floor)

I'm okay...I'm okay... need another shot or two...

That's really an original idea.

They should run with it but watch out for wedgies. DOVER

jref psycho ninja

Date: 2006/09/08 15:39:17, Link
Author: tsig
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 03 2006,21:41)

Wake me when the nutter is finished.

Can't be bothered by facts.  

You asked for 'em and you got 'em, then ignore them.

Typical fundie behavior

I see where you got you title "Rev"

Date: 2006/09/09 15:57:59, Link
Author: tsig
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 08 2006,23:39)
Friend of yours, Paley?

Didn't think you had any.

Is that all you got.

Try reading.

Why should I accept your word any more than the guy who delivers my pizza.

Date: 2006/09/11 15:40:50, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 11 2006,15:39)
Well Mr. Paley. I am a tad worried about apearing on your side.

However I do think that the muslim agenda is pretty much anti-western values.

Oh well. Lets see where this leads.

I find it strange that people who are anti-fundamentalist make exceptions for muslim fundies.

Yes. The muslim agena is to rule the world, it is plain in the Qu'ran. This is not just fundie belief, is the living doctine of every muslim.

We in America have CAIR. Just think of the name, the implication is that they are entitled to deal with the rest of us as a soverign power

Yes. The muslim agena is to rule the world, it is plain in the Qu'ran. This is not just fundie belief, is the living doctine of every muslim.

We in America have CAIR. Just think of the name, the implication is that they are entitled to deal with the rest of us as a soverign power

Date: 2006/09/19 10:59:27, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 19 2006,13:52)
I know it's off topic but right now there is a documentary on the French-German TV about YECs and other IDers. No ambiguity here: they are considered as wingnuts.  :D

Hey, there's Behe talking about his mouse trap.  :p

Interesting, Bruce Chapman admits that the DI wants science to be compatible with christianity. Oops.

LOL, a guy from AIG is babbling on the Grand Canyon.

confusing his mouse trap with the mouse

Date: 2006/09/20 08:05:32, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 19 2006,15:24)
[quote=stevestory,Sep. 19 2006,15:05]

While I do not believe the majority of British muslims preach violence. There seems to be a wierd World reaction to a speach by the pope.

A large percentage of muslims seem to be saying...."If you say Islam is intolerant we will resort to violence".

Muslims believe that you sumit to Islam or the follower of Islam by violence where possible or by lying when needed.

Date: 2006/09/20 08:39:38, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2006,12:44)

Thanks for the overwhelming snowflake.

I now believe therr must be a designer, after all could just chemistry do that????????

Well maybe.

Date: 2006/11/04 21:01:43, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 02 2006,09:38)
Quote (improvius @ Nov. 02 2006,09:31)
Ah, but the caveman states quite clearly (assuming the translation is correct) that FedEx doesn't exist yet.  Now, it is certainly possible that there was an error in translation - or that perhaps a later scene proving the existence of FedEx at roughly the same time period had been edited out.  But the current copy of the commercial does not support your YECFedEx hypothesis.

Oh, FedEx did in fact exist at the time.  The use of the word is proof in itself.  That caveman was just a FedEx atheist. (a-FedEx-ist?)  Either that, or the video was shot just pre-flud, and FedEx was created just post-flud from the pidjin-kind.  I bet you didn't know that the pidjins dun had a FedEx allele, didja?

I do miss sargent kate

Date: 2006/11/11 16:48:47, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?


Improv ... you can pretend I agree with you that RM Dating and Deep Time is valid, but it doesn't make it true ... any more than pretending Humans evolved from Pond Scum makes that true.

Again, RM dating has nothing to do with the real age of rocks.  My comment was intended to mean that if you don't believe in God, then why not pick a good fairy tale and pretend it's true?  Perfectly logical course of action.

"Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?"

Dave, you just equated your god with Hitler.

Date: 2006/11/11 17:46:57, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,11:51)
Dammit, I work so hard on my beautiful graphic, improvius goes to all the work of making it work for me and no one even says yay or boo. I am not going into computer graphics now and it is all your faults.

Also, there is a different mutation rate when you are dealing with sexual selection as opposed to cloning.

yeah, BWE great graphic.

Date: 2007/10/12 10:54:33, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Rob @ Oct. 12 2007,08:59)
Has anyone ever seen mindless/impersonal process generating living forms?

My wife has complained about that.

(Oh, the blessings of anonymity.)

Has she dusted you yet?

Date: 2007/10/25 11:46:15, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 23 2007,10:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 23 2007,09:16)
Tina asks Batshit77:




8:42 am
Bornagain are you OK? What are you trying to say here and why?

Insert your own punchline, really.

I think BA77 needs to switch back to decaf. Urgently.

It's amazing how much Christian wingnuts quote CS Lewis these days. (Must be the Disney movie of 'Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe' got them all riled up.) Sure don't see them quoting the hippie longhair stuff in Matthew Chapter 5. It's like CS Lewis is some postmodern Apostle Paul.


thought C. S. Lewis was very profound when I was 17.

Reading him was like looking into the mind of god.

A rather small god.

Date: 2007/10/30 23:26:47, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 30 2007,14:27)
From the readers of hard science fiction and the talkers-about of hard science:




2:16 pm
DaveScot,,,you seem to have a excellent grasp of hard evidence for the Genetic Entropy principle!

…If I may, I would like to add to your hard evidence....

Emphasis mine.

sort of makes a tear come to your eye.

Date: 2007/11/07 04:00:38, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:56)
Hey a bonus question, what's your take on the Discovery Institute?

That's kind of a silly question.  I think the Discovery Institute it great.  Though, I do prefer some of ID proponents over others.  And, no, I won't be sharing more on that comment.

If you don't share with us how will we know?

God may hold you responsible for our souls as you did not teach us.

Date: 2007/11/08 23:10:30, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 07 2007,12:49)
The ID community has its hands full right now.

This UD quote is beautiful in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.

sounds like a circle jerk.

Date: 2007/11/08 23:16:48, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 07 2007,13:32)




2:20 pm
Does ID expect Plasmodiae to decay to the point when they are no longer capable of being pathogenic?

I’ve always thought of it as God coming back and recharging organisms from time to time to keep entropy from making them all mutate into oblivion and die. I don’t know if it happens every generation (think: at conception) or every hundred generations (think: Noah’s Ark), but it seems pretty clear that God’s energy is required to keep the whole bowl of wax moving forward.

How was it for you, sweetheart?

Let's bet god on the cum

Date: 2007/11/09 00:39:30, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Nov. 08 2007,13:15)
Yeah, and if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bust his ass a'hoppin'

The fact that frogs do not have wings proves id.

Date: 2007/11/11 18:35:05, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 09 2007,15:46)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2007,15:41)
BarryA knows no shame:
Darwin at Columbine

...One of O’Leary’s interlocutors more or less accused her of cherry picking her data to push her personal religious agenda.  Apparently this person believes this case is an aberation, and it is unfair to suggest a connection between Darwin’s theory and a school shooter’s self understanding as an instrument of natural selection.  Not so.

As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, I read through every single page of Eric Harris’ jounals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.”  There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles...

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


You are an attorney. Let's follow the implications of your argument.  

Because Eric Harris was obsessed with and cited concepts drawn from evolutionary theory as justification for his actions at Columbine, it follows that belief in evolutionary theory ("Darwinism") contributed to his horrible, violent acts.  

Ergo, more generally, when disturbed people do disturbed things, such as shooting and murdering schoolmates, we should accept at face value their own account of the motivations for and causes of their behavior.

It follows that belief in Christian concepts such as God, heaven, hell, and eternal damnation results in mothers drowning their children.  

Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub. Although she knew that what she was doing was illegal, she nevertheless thought it was the right thing to do to save her children from eternal damnation.

You might protest that this was an aberation. But a thorough psychiatric evaluation conducted by one of the country's leading forensic psychiatrists (Philip Resnick) showed that she was obsessed with religious concepts and the implications thereof for her children.

I am not suggesting that Yates' actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Christianty. It is, however, clear that at least some of Jesus' followers understand “heaven, hell and eternal damnation” and the attendant moral structure of Christianity as a license to kill those whom they fear are at risk of eternal damnation - even their own small children. Nothing could be more obvious.


Barry, I hope the above illustrates for you how mistaken and, frankly, ridiculous your reasoning is. As disturbed people do disturbed things, they often draw from their environment to formulate delusional, idiosyncratic systems of thought that they believe motivate or justify their actions. However, in the 21st century we understand that disturbed people often have poor insight into the actual basis of their own motivations and behaviors, and are often unable to discern the distortions that may be introduced into their thinking by their disturbed mental state.  Nevertheless, it is the mental disturbance that accounts for the behavior that follows, not the ideas that were recruited into a disturbed or distorted system of thought by a mental illness into which the individual has no insight.

Shame on you, Barry. Shame on you.

RB - Thank you.  You can do both serious and comedy!  Who knew? (Probably everyone except me!)  

It's gonna be hard to turn that post into a LOLCat though...


We are killing yr bodize

but saving yr soles

Date: 2007/11/19 23:23:07, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 19 2007,10:14)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2007,08:15)
I dare you to keep a straight face..

*Suppresses grin - for various reasons*Poachy egg-on-face:
PaV, I don’t think this is a very good argurment, given the liberals fondness for thinking porn is free speech.

Hence, the "neuter" thread at YoungCosmos, BTW. They're upset that somebody, somewhere might be having some fun. (But that would be me. Sorry.) :D

If the balls aren't  connected to the will there is no sin.

Praise Prius.

Date: 2007/12/04 14:54:04, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 03 2007,15:29)
Short FTK:

"Science has not answered every single question that IDers can think of in regards to the flagellum. Therefore, it can't have evolved, evolution is false, and ID is true!"


God in a bacterium tail. How small do the gaps get..

Date: 2007/12/04 14:56:34, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,15:44)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 03 2007,15:29)
Short FTK:

"Science has not answered every single question that IDers can think of in regards to the flagellum. Therefore, it can't have evolved, evolution is false, and ID is true!"


[in a very patient voice]

No, Arden, that is not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that evolutionists have been stating that the evolution of the flagellum been explained in evolutionary terms.  

At the OK lecture, it happened again.  The audience was told that biologists know full well how the bacterial flagellum arose without the need for intelligent design, but that is not true.  Klebba was insinuating that Dembski is a liar...he's not.

Now, it is interesting to me that you beat up on Sal for jesting and not providing an entire quote, yet you have no problem with guys like Klebba doing what he did.

Pot meet Kettle.

How small does your god have to be?

Date: 2007/12/24 17:00:21, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 24 2007,08:53)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 24 2007,08:44)
Patrick, to his credit, admitted that the EF doesn't work for peanut butter sandwiches, even though we know they are 'designed' (sallyT had just made one for her kids).

Did you see this at OE?

Man, is he gonna eat that sandwich?

Date: 2008/01/10 22:46:41, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 09 2008,12:18)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 09 2008,12:13)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 09 2008,11:57)
DT contemplates the force of gravity again, and ends with this attempt to read the mind of God.        
Now let’s go a little farther to where I part company with the absolute material reductionists. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you’re a creator of universes and the physical laws therein. You’re omniscient and omnipotent. You set the wheels turning knowing the exact path of every particle. There would be no surprises at all. That’s kind of boring isn’t it? Like watching paint dry. I’d go crazy if there were absolutly nothing I didn’t know about the entire universe past, present, and future. So the creator figures out a way to end the boredom. He crafts the universe so it eventually produces intelligent agents with free will. Determinism ends where the free will of “rational” man begins. We’re the wild card that keeps the creator of the universe from going bonkers due to knowing too much. We’re the only thing that makes the universe interesting for an otherwise omniscient entity.

How’s that for a philosophy? It’s unique to me as far as I know but that’s probably only due to my ignorance of philosophy and religion. Someone else, perhaps many others, might have surmised that the free will of rational man is the only non-deterministic thing in the universe and that it was intentionally invented to keep an otherwise deterministic universe full of surprises for someone that knows absolutely everything else about it.

We're here because it would be boring for the Telic Entity otherwise...

Physics? Math? Philosophy? Mind-reading?  Dave covers it all!

This is dumb beyond words.  How did god (aka space lizard) fill his time during the first couple billion years prior to man showing up on the scene?  

That's an awful long time to watch the paint dry, especially with no football to watch on the weekends.

This is what's so cool about IDC, the more you talk about it, the more you contemplate it, the more you debate its merits, the dumber it looks.

edit because people who edit are cool:

Another thing, it looks like the UD tards are finally getting around to identifying ther traits of the intelligent designer (space lizard god):

He/she/it is omniscient
He/she/it is omnipotent
He/she/it is easily bored
He/she/it does not like watching the paint dry
He/she/it therefore creates things to entertain himself to relieve the boredom

You know, if I were the god/lizard I would have created myself a hot babe in a tight skirt and called it a day.  to hell with humanity, dinosaurs and cells, I want to kill my boredom with a hot chick for all eternity.

I could worship your god

Date: 2008/01/13 16:35:28, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 12 2008,12:34)
If it flies, the science is good. If it crashes, the science is bad.
Seems as if Gil accepts some kind of selection, though only with respect to airplanes.

I wouldn't want to be Gil's test pilot.

I can haz edit?

Date: 2008/01/13 18:20:34, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 09 2008,01:12)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2008,23:44)
I'm in ATL tomorrow night if any of you shoitehawks want a beer.


If anyone is at the Weda Bay Yatch Club front porch of the exploration camp on Pulau Halmahera in the Maluku Is. group, Indonesia  tonight the beer is free .....only one thing .....bring women!

Does Lou count?

Date: 2008/01/30 03:08:21, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 29 2008,15:20)
Well we Evolutionists know whats in store for them, an ETERNITY in PEER REVIEW.

And hostile critics, to boot!!!  Jolly good show.  

FtK, do you think Jesus ever masturbated?  

If he did then is it a sin?  if he didn't was he really human?  I have a little boy who likes to get into the front of his diaper.  Is this sinful?  Did Jesus root around in his diaper?  I've often wondered this.  Seems like just plain old pooping in your pants probably isn't a sin, but what if you do it to get back at your parents when you know you shouldn't, say like a three or four year old?  Is that a sin?  Did Jesus do that?

Jesus's poop was holy and his semen divine.

added edit

Date: 2008/01/30 22:02:23, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 15 2008,11:37)
I guess I should link to the page with the "challenge" as well, though I assume one can get to it from the "FAQ":

This is added in edit, because I'd like to point out that it's quite a lot of money that they are using to get Xian schools to force kids to fill the theater seats:

0-99 ticket stubs submitted = $5 per ticket stub

100-299 ticket stubs submitted = $1,000 donated to your school

300-499 ticket stubs submitted = $2,500 donated to your school

500 ticket stubs submitted = $5,000 donated to your school

They're going to point to the numbers and claim the movie is popular, when they're paying as much as $10/ticket, and $5/ticket minimum, to have the schools force the kids to their dishonest "flick".

Glen D

I predict that a lot of churches are going to be left holding a bag of ticket stubs.

Date: 2008/02/02 02:47:51, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 01 2008,02:16)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 01 2008,02:04)
The buggers just 404'd the entire debate thread!  Luckily, I saved it:

Excellent work, Ceiling Cat. You ARE watching, apparently...

The other debate thread is still there, but it doesn't have any of the "We just got pwned" comments.

Shall we give CeilingCat a rub under the chin.

Truly you see all, record all.

Many blogs thank you.

Date: 2008/02/02 03:05:42, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 01 2008,15:55)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 01 2008,02:16)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 01 2008,02:04)
The buggers just 404'd the entire debate thread!  Luckily, I saved it:

Excellent work, Ceiling Cat. You ARE watching, apparently...

The other debate thread is still there, but it doesn't have any of the "We just got pwned" comments.

Omniscience is a wonderful thing, but it has a dark side.  For instance, I know exactly what Ann Coulter looks like nude.

Remember god exists only in your head so feed your head.

When you see god next remind her that he owes me $666.

Anywhen, anywhere??

Date: 2008/02/02 03:10:32, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 02 2008,00:46)
Yes, good job, Ceiling Cat! This place is a virtual clipping service, and you grabbed an important snippet. That disappeared post is going around the web. Sleep well, Dembski, dear. Freedom of speech and all that.

I can't help but wonder how Ftk feels about her suggestion being deleted... You know, light bulbs have to be finally going off over there over the heads of the commenters, but I'm not holding my shimmies until they get a clue! :O

I always thought of your shimmies as reflections of reality and that if you shimmied with just the right harmony the world would change.

or not

edit not

Date: 2008/02/03 14:25:58, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 01 2008,15:55)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 01 2008,02:16)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 01 2008,02:04)
The buggers just 404'd the entire debate thread!  Luckily, I saved it:

Excellent work, Ceiling Cat. You ARE watching, apparently...

The other debate thread is still there, but it doesn't have any of the "We just got pwned" comments.

Omniscience is a wonderful thing, but it has a dark side.  For instance, I know exactly what Ann Coulter looks like nude.

For the love of sanity keep that to yourself.


Date: 2008/02/10 18:58:54, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 09 2008,21:50)
Some new guy is suggesting a hermetic branch of ID based on Wallace's writings.

Hahahahahahahah. They want to revive occultism! Genuine occultism! It's been years since I've heard about Hermetic anything outside of an Umberto Eco book. Quickly, to the batcave! I've got some old copies of the Goetia and similar ilk, we can all do some chanting to invoke a few spirits of wisdom and victory for the great cause of Darwin. I mean, they're invoking the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus! We must act soon to defend ourselves from this eminent supernatural attack!

Though ... I'm glad the IDers have decided to formally admit that they're the modern descendants of all the world's old magicians and exorcists, and to fight fairly and cleanly by using disembodied spirits. Good, clean sorcery is definitely the way to go. We'll get some chickens and cut their heads off, and hang people off of pendulums, and stuff, rather than grisly ad campaigns and things of that nature. Ad campaigns are clearly a piece of post-enlightenment culture, and going back to the prior way is much better in total.

Motto of the ID crowd:

If it's old, it's gold.

Date: 2008/02/10 21:18:56, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2008,20:01)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 10 2008,19:17)
Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Feb. 10 2008,17:39)
The sad part about our decreasing engineering graduation numbers is that we are paying engineers very well due to that shortage.  My company offers bonuses to get an engineer to sign on.  

So, what's going on?  Why the shortage?

It's the same thing with geologists. I don't know about other  companies, but BP offers some sweet incentives for employees to get geology degrees.

How much you think they'd pay FTK's buddy Walt Brown?

To go to work for them or to stay away?

Date: 2008/02/10 21:30:28, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,18:01)
Go ahead, Rich...


Pure eloquence almost Shakespearian

Did you study Rhetoric and Composition to achieve this level.

Date: 2008/02/10 22:23:11, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 05 2008,23:22)
I shouldn't have worded it that way.  

A more subtle lie instead of an obvious one?

Tell me, does God approve of bearing false witness?


FtK has already said she is going to teach her kids to lie when they go to school so she obviously thinks lyin'-for-jesus is ok.

Date: 2008/02/10 22:37:56, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 09 2008,17:50)
Creationists never admit mistakes.

They never make mistakes. They're inerrant.

Seems funny protestants hate an infallible Pope but welcome innumerable preachers and private revelations.

Yes I'm an ex-catholic atheist.

Date: 2008/02/21 19:38:51, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 20 2008,23:00)
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 20 2008,22:54)
Denyse explains that her impairments are due to poverty:
It costs something to have a mind.

No free hunch theorem?

Nothings free with Denis(buy my book) O'leary. You want a hunch you'll have to get in line and pay like all the others.

Date: 2008/02/26 11:26:21, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 25 2008,17:34)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 25 2008,08:46)
jerry explains why moms think he's creepy. Only he doesn't.      
When I was in New Zealand with the US Navy, I was assigned duty in Wellington for a meeting of high level politicians. I was outside the parliament building behind a 3 foot high barricade to fence off spectators. I was in civilian clothes and a little girl with her mother said I was a secret service man. She was very cute and after a few minutes she got a little fresh but still cute. I told her if she didn’t be have [sic] I would spank her on her “fanny.” In the US this an affectionate term for one’s bottom and used to be a common women’s name. But in New Zealand and a lot of ex British countries it means quite the opposite anatomically. The little girl, the mother and a lot of others got hostile. So watch out.

Um, jerry . . . I don't know quite how to explain this but . . . Using the term fanny is only part of the problem.  Consider: what if you had told a little girl you didn't know that you were going to spank her on her "bottom"?  

That's not OK either.  See?  Either way, someone's going to pull out the mace.

It's actually illegal to hit a child at all here in New Zealand, thanks to wide ranging sweeping reforms due to the anti-smacking legislation (which of course, predictably did nothing to prevent the hideous abuse of a toddler recently who was thrown into a washing machine, among other things).

But Jerry just establishes that he's a moron, because you firstly don't threaten other peoples children in public and secondly it's best to realise that words mean different things in different countries. He's probably lucky he didn't say it to some little Samoan or Maori girl, otherwise he would have had a stint in a New Zealand hospital.

If evolution is true, how come we still have plant eating bugs?

Does this mean that plants that eat bugs are the result of sin? I'm wondering what came first (because most creationists I've spoken to insist that insects obviously don't get included in the whole all animals were vegetarian thing), bugs that ate plants or plants that ate bugs due to mans sin. QUICK, TO THE SCIENCE LAB TO FIND OUT. We'll need a woman (Kristine?), a man, a talking snake and an apple. Maybe some plants and a few beetles. Let's see which eats the other first, plants or the beetles due to man eating an apple (at the direction of a woman who is herself, taking orders from a talking snake).

Talking snake here, bring on Kristine et. al.

Date: 2008/02/26 11:31:35, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 26 2008,00:33)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 21 2008,15:29)
davetard posts the new requirements at UD that educated people must show us your papers...or else...

if you make any claims of having relevant credentials while remaining totally anonymous you’re out the door (you will have to substantiate your claim, retract it along with having it edited out of your comment, or say good-bye). The choice on that is yours. If you earned a degree I’m willing to let you fall back on it if you feel the merits of your arguments can’t support themselves but you at least have to prove you earned that shingle.

This is tremendously unfair! If someone wanders into UD and says "I THINK DARWIN IS STUPED I DIDNT EVOLVE FROM NO MONKY AND I KNOW THIS BECASUE IM AN ENGINEER I FIX TELEVISOIN SETS", why doesn't Dave demand a full set of credentials from them? :angry:

If you can fix tvs all you have to do is fix one to prove it.

You only need the paper to show why you can't.

Date: 2008/02/27 13:23:54, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 27 2008,12:02)
DaveScot: There’s just no means of escaping the second law. Only intelligent agency is capable of gaming the system to make the improbable into the probable.

By Dave's argument his dogs are more intelligent than he is. They are gaming the system to get free food and lodging.

Great pic!

Date: 2008/02/27 14:14:33, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 26 2008,16:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,15:13)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:08)
I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.

My goodness.

(1) did he travel back in time to Sparta, as they culled the weak?
(2) Is it natural selection, *cough* "Darwinism" or artificial selection that mankind has known about through for example animal husbandry, for thousands of years?
(3) Is there any long debunked creationist canard you think we haven't heard?

And more to the point, Kevin: science tells us how the world works, not how it ought to work.
Had Hitler worshipped Darwin's name in his book, that wouldn't falsify the theory of natural selection.

Is it so hard to understand?

He wouldn't have killed 6 million of his best workers.

Date: 2008/02/27 14:17:19, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,16:23)
Oh, Welcome Pharyngulans!



Have broom will travel

Date: 2008/02/27 15:00:26, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 27 2008,02:20)
Kevin should get hot on the case of why the ID scientists were EXPELLED from their own ID journal. I mean, they must have been expelled, right, no doubt by some horrible Darwinist. Now that's a hell of a conspiracy we're running, infiltrating their own journal and rejecting all their revolutionary research.

We just don't tell everyone about our plans. We are the NWO.

Now that you have went public watch out for cats.

Date: 2008/02/27 15:11:27, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Okay, here’s a question with an unfortunately long lead-up: The way I see it, one reason ID is so controversial is that it argues mind precedes matter in the form of a creative intelligence; whereas classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter. Intelligence is one of the last things to appear on the scene.

But when confronted with the question of how life began, many evolutionary theorists allow that perhaps Panspermia had something to do with it. This theory is broadly accepted as a scientific possibility even though it also posits that mind came first and matter—at least the highly organized arrangements of matter we call living things—second.

So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not? What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID? Would the theory be more acceptible then? And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable? After all, both argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth. We can argue all day about what the nature of that intelligence really is. But that’s beside the main point: Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not? Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes. Two different answers to the same question. I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not. That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists, that they’re a bunch of liars, etc. But once again, that’s beside the point. Never mind their methods or their ethics. Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?

If you really want to know here's how it happened.

Two molecules were chemically attracted. They made a copy and here you are.

Replicators are a given in the right chemical environment.

Once there are replicators. Evolution.

Date: 2008/02/27 15:18:59, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 27 2008,12:34)
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,08:56)
When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics?  When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it.  I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?

In my professional experience, they are so eager for reviewers that they
1) Will let in anyone who says they’re a reviewer from such-n-such rag/paper (although I have never actually tried this, of course - I have ethics)
2) Give out free tickets to the public
3) Throw t-shirts at the crowd
4) Distribute press packets

Actually, non-disclosure agreements do have precedent – such as the secret audience preview of Gone with the Wind. However, I think that was verbal, simply to not reveal the plot, etc.

It was the ending.

Date: 2008/02/27 22:34:19, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 27 2008,15:50)
Quote (tsig @ Feb. 27 2008,14:18)
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 27 2008,12:34)
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,08:56)
When marketers want to publicize movies they want the public to go see, don't they usually, well, invite critics?  When I hear that a movie was not screened it always means they have a dud on their hands and they dont want people to know it.  I wonder how many non-disclosure agreements Lucas forced people to sign before watching the original StarWars?

In my professional experience, they are so eager for reviewers that they
1) Will let in anyone who says they’re a reviewer from such-n-such rag/paper (although I have never actually tried this, of course - I have ethics)
2) Give out free tickets to the public
3) Throw t-shirts at the crowd
4) Distribute press packets

Actually, non-disclosure agreements do have precedent – such as the secret audience preview of Gone with the Wind. However, I think that was verbal, simply to not reveal the plot, etc.

It was the ending.

*Brightens* Okay, smarty-pants! It was not the ending – after all, everyone knew that (and really, the last line in the film is rather like an ID “prediction,” no?). It was the “will they-won’t they” say that other line.

Yes, that famous line, which could also express the audience’s attitude toward Expelled when it finally opens, the possibility of which hovers like a vulture over Stein’s anguish over losing his money, doesn’t it? :D

edited for common sence

Date: 2008/02/29 14:39:32, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 29 2008,05:23)
Is Underwhelming Evidence completely dead?  The last twenty three posts were authored by Denise OLeary.  Two of them have a single response and one has eight.  The rest?  Nada.  What gives?

Most interesting title for a post: "And so what if Grandma was an ape?", asks the "Toronto-based journalist; grandmother; Roman Catholic Christian."  Interestingly, she puts down Chuck Norris with her reply.

I sense a split in the movement. Dave seems restless. How long will he allow his world shattering IQ be hidden under the Dr DR?

Date: 2008/04/01 18:06:25, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 01 2008,12:50)
JohnW - I had wanted to say that I only sort that sort of statistical suggestion from biologists, but then I realised this might not be the best place for that observation.

The whole comments thread is excellent.  Denyse gets slapped down by an anonymous Baylor insider ("The Fork").  She complains that the insider is anonymous, so Francis Beckwith backs The Fork up.

My guess is that The Fork is someone who has crossed Dembski in the past, and who has decided to hide from him in the canteen.

Dembski has enemies he hasn't even met.

Date: 2008/05/05 16:19:37, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 05 2008,15:11)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,12:53)
1. GG is not YEC.
2. The totality of GG's research output makes creepy Avalos' look absolutely anemic by comparison, yet he received tenure.
3. Dawkins' last research output is dated to the Thatcher administration, yet I've not seen calls for his ouster from Oxford.
4. Phil Plait is a jackass.

Any questions?


Do you genuinely not understand how the tenure process works, or are you just playing dumb in hopes of winning your argument?

As someone currently in academia, I just bitch-slapped your half-assed assertions back to the unlit corner where they belong.

It's entirely possible for a grad student to be ignorant of how tenure review really works (I didn't know when I was a grad student).

'Bitch slapping'? Yeesh, gotta do something about those anger issues, Robert.

Does he wear a dress when he does the bitch-slapping?

Date: 2008/05/26 07:38:09, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 25 2008,16:02)
The Weed of Tard bears bitter fruit.

Sal, you never should have brought Frank Tipler to UD's attention.  Now they're all quoting him and ID looks dumber every day.

ATTENTION DAVE REDFORD: There are TWO multiverse theories.  The one hawked by David Deutsch is Hugh Everett's "every time there's a quantum event, the universe splits in two" multiverse theory.  That's often referred to as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The multiverse theory that might help explain the "fine tuning" problem is the one where new universes split off from this one on occasion, not umpeen gazillion times per femtosecond ala Drs. Everett and Deutsch.

Key difference: In Many Worlds, each universe has the same laws of physics.  In Multiverse, each universe has its laws of physics assigned more or less at random and they very radically from universe to universe.

CeilingCat is teh Shadow and teh Shadow knows. (insert evil laugh)

Date: 2008/06/02 10:23:02, Link
Author: tsig
All I get is closed for maintenance.

Date: 2008/06/02 11:27:39, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 02 2008,10:28)
Quote (tsig @ June 02 2008,11:23)
All I get is closed for maintenance.

Seems ok to me.

I've been having trouble accessing several different sites today, though.  I've been wondering if there's not some major DNS attack going on.

Wiped out all cookies still get the down for maintenance message.

Are the fundies on attack?

Date: 2008/06/02 11:38:33, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 02 2008,11:31)
What link are you using?

I'm doing fine at

Click the forum it will say closed for maintenance.

Date: 2008/06/02 11:59:18, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 02 2008,11:44)
Quote (tsig @ June 02 2008,12:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 02 2008,11:31)
What link are you using?

I'm doing fine at

Click the forum it will say closed for maintenance.

They got a forum????

Oh look!  Well, it uh... looks like the forum is down for maintenance.

***whistles obliviously into the air and walks away***

If the air had a prayer we could talk .

Date: 2008/06/02 12:03:59, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 02 2008,11:23)
I'm with tsig. All I get is closed for maintenance, and I have for the past 3 days.

I wonder if there is something up?

Thanks for a real answer.

Date: 2008/06/09 16:59:50, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,13:18)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 09 2008,13:05)

OM, did you miss my post some time ago?  I stated that I wouldn't debate YE arguments over here because I've been told it's a total waste of my time by several posters.  

Why the heck spend all that time and energy when everyone reading this forum is rabidly pro-Darwin and gets their jollies watching YEC's stand in front of a firing squad?  I can't defend myself against a whole forum of Darwin supporters.  There's not enough time in the day.

I'll eventually get to a few creationist issues over at my blog, and you can come raise holy hell over there.  But, at least I know there are a few people reading over there who haven't completely closed their mind to anything other than Darwin worship.

If you had any arguments you would only have to debate one
Darwin supporter.

Date: 2008/06/09 17:31:38, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,16:41)
Thanks for that answer.

But it doesn't jibe with other statements you have made (and which I could dig up, if needed). In fact, it is internally inconsistent. You state that belief in Darwinism is not going to send you to hell. Then you state that it can lead people away from God. Please explain that distinction. Relative to Hell, how much further away from God can you get?

Common descent and macroevolution obviously doesn't turn everyone away from God, so what's to explain?  If my only concern was that someone might go to hell if they believe in common descent, I'd merely take up with the theistic evolutionists.  They're certainly not going to hell.  No where in scripture does it say a thing about what one has to believe in regard to creation and evolution.  A belief either way has no impact on a person's eternal life.  None.  

The problem is that I'm a seeker of ~truth~.  I believe it exists, and I find common descent lacking in empirical evidence.  So, I support a very critical analysis of  evolutionary thought.  

More to the point, if your problem with evolution is that you think it will take YOU further away from God, why do you persist in the self-delusion that your concerns are in the realm of science and education?

????  I don't think that evolution will take ME further away from God.  What the heck are ya talking about?  I persist in my concerns about science and education because I think one should always seek the truth.  I'm not convinced, by any means, that Darwinism provides us with the truth.

You'll never look at the science if you think that it will shake your faith.  Why pretend to do so, and blather on about retroviruses and such, when the real problem is that you don't want to be led away from God?

Honey, I don't know why you continue down this line of reasoning where I'm concerned.  If evolution is the way in which God created the world, it certainly will not shake my belief in an ultimate Creator of the Cosmos by any means.  I might reconsider my interpretation of the 1st book in scripture, but that's not going to effect my relationship with God.  Design is as obvious as the nose on your face...even atheists see it.  They merely consider it an illusion.

And, don't act as though I've never "looked at the science".  My gosh, I've been at this at least 5 years now.  I'd have to be blind not to have considered the scientific aspects of this debate.  They're discussed every single day.  Hell, you've even sent me an entire biology textbook that I've poured over on several occasions.

You should have tried reading and understanding the text instead of pouring on it.

Date: 2008/06/09 17:43:05, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,17:11)
Quote (argystokes @ June 09 2008,17:04)
Design is a theory in regard to the origin of life.  It has absolutely no bearing on considering microevolutionary changes in organisms.  It’s like comparing apples to oranges here, Dave.  No one is questioning microevolution or commonality between organisms when discussing the inference of design.

So ID makes no scientific predictions at all. Yes, we already knew that, but it's nice to hear it restated by an advocate.

Not exactly.

Open minded lurkers, start by reading these links.

All your links are argument by assertion.

It looks designed to me so it must be designed.

Or arguments from ignorance

I can't figure it out so it must be designed.

Date: 2008/06/11 11:30:24, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Louis @ June 10 2008,13:37)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,21:36)
Quote (Louis @ June 09 2008,14:31)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,20:26)
Oh, hey, here's an interesting question.

PZ provided this statement in regard to Vox's post about his invitation to debate PZ:

Wait -- I complain about the absence of intelligent arguments for God, and Vox Day pops up his little pin head and squeaks about miracles and bleeding statues and liquefying holy relics?

Vox, you don't qualify. You're a pathetic little twerp with delusions of grandeur.

Now, I ask you...  Do you find that Vox said anything remotely close to that in his post.

Hmmm...don't ya think a retraction is in order?  Compare this to the little hissy Lou had over my words in regard to Genie.

I will await for someone of integrity to say a few words on this matter.  Thanks. :)

Close to what? Your interpretation of what PZ said?

You demonstrably can't read for basic comprehension as your dishonest misquoting of me at your website months ago proved conclusively (as if that added nail in the coffin of your honesty was even needed).

Why should ANYONE take you, or Vox seriously FTK? a question you seem incapable of answering.

Guess what, we KNOW whay you can't answer it too. It's because you lack anything to support your asinine claims with. All you can do is wave your hands, obfuscate and hope people fail to notice your lack of substance in the smokescreen you try to generate.

Now, have you, for the UMPTEENTH time, found a scientific topic you wish to discuss? No? You surprise me.


I believe I had started down an avenue of discussion with you here.

Then do what I asked a billion or so years ago, pick a suitable topic (one that could in principle be decided upon by the evidence) and we'll discuss it pleasantly and simply.

Wading through your myriad misconceptions about evolutionary biology is not such a topic. You've been lead to water before FTK and have yet to drink. Hence comments re your bad faith behaviour. Demonstrate otherwise, take the hard road of actually doing the work.


She's afraid to get near the water because a. she would float b. she would dissolve.

Date: 2008/06/11 11:48:45, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ June 11 2008,09:19)
Shut up, OM.  If you're implying that Walt should do something like that...HE HAS!  Although KCFS wouldn't agree to participate in judging or anything, we still pulled it off for about 3 months.  

Oh, and...



HAWT...Look at those eyes!!  Yummy.

And, if you think he's hot, you should see his wife!!!  WOW.

Get a room. menage' a trois anyone?

Date: 2008/06/11 11:57:37, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ June 11 2008,09:44)
Can't stop ya, so go ahead.  You post that sucker every time I say something you don't want to think about.


Has a nice ring to it, no?  It would bring you a bunch of new traffic.  Then you could share your vast scientific knowledge with some newcomers!

Better yet why doesn't Vox register here and annihilate the little minds here. Without doubt he could demolish all arguments with his brilliant ad homs then skewer the strawmen he raises.

Be careful FtK, VD is a sexually transmitted disease.

Date: 2008/06/11 12:01:07, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ June 11 2008,10:25)
No, I post that sucker as "the openminded lurkers" can see for themselves how scared you are of even thinking about the basis for what passes for "belief" in your mind.

Um...right, and I'm pretty darn sure there are exactly 0 "openminded lurkers" floating around this particular site.  

I'd be scared too if the foundation for my worldview rested on Walt Brown's "science".

??  That's certainly not the case.  I find his work extremely interesting, but I've repeated ad naseum that I don't know how old the earth is.  But then, scientists have struggled with that question as well. Just over one hundred years ago, they thought that it was about 100 million years old. Then they changed their minds, and decided it was 500 million years old. Then they changed their minds a couple more times >>>1.3 billion years, 3 billion, and then 4.55 billion.

No doubt, they think they've got the number right this time, but I think I'll wait around for the next round of data to come in before I succomb to the faith of scientists that they've landed the absolute correct age of the earth.

So I don't blame you for being scared. Pity you perhaps but not blame.

It's not fear, luv.  It purely stems from the fact that it's an absolute utter waste of time.  Posting the doubts I have in regard to common descent and the age of the earth at a venue like this would be like you going into an hard core fundamentalist church where Kent Hovind was speaking and trying to convince those close minded folks listening to him that the earth is billions of years old.

On the BW you said you wanted to escape to respond to one of my posts. Well, go on then!

I did.  I was responding to the comment you made in regard to my belief that common descent has no impact on any field of science other than it prompts one into a particular mindset in which they believe they are predicting things that couldn't be predicted if they adhered to common design rather than common descent.  

Oh and FTK debates happen all the time in science, via journals etc where people can argue their case back and forth round and round. Unfortunately you can't really "debate" religion as it's fixed and unchanging. What's to debate?

Sigh...PZ stated that he'd never heard any convincing arguments that support the belief in God.  He said he'd like to hear some.  Well, Vox would like to enlighten him.  So, let's give them the venue to discuss the issues a bit.  

I'd offer my blog, but of course my IQ is probably the equivalent of a sloth, or so I'm led to believe by the fine folks here at AtBC.  So, I'd probably never be able to pull it off.

Actually I expect even sloths learn that fire burns.

Date: 2008/06/11 12:20:26, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 05 2008,18:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 05 2008,18:08)
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 05 2008,17:00)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 05 2008,17:30)
I think we've come back around to where Skeptic made his board debut.

A semantic quibble:

In order to "come back around to" a given point, one must first leave that point.

I stand corrected.

C'mon over to Janie's place later, and you won't be standing...


Lou you are sick but in a good way.:D

Date: 2008/06/12 12:55:40, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,08:27)
Damn, 5 lies in the course of a couple days?  Wow, I'm a mess, no?  

I can feel those flames of hell even as I'm writing...

That's not the flames of hell. Teh stupid, it burns.

Date: 2008/06/15 18:01:56, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (olegt @ June 13 2008,06:13)
Dr. Dr. quotes an endorsement from Ann Coulter mentioning that "Bill Dembski [is] often called the Isaac Newton of intelligent design."  U r doing it wrong, Ann: he is the Isaac Newton of information theory.

How many of teh endorsements were written by the Bill himself?

Date: 2008/06/15 18:15:46, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Marion Delgado @ June 13 2008,13:12)
I forgot to add, there is indeed a good infidel. His name is Steve Fuller, he lives in Warwick, England. He's fully vetted and up to speed with the latest and most exciting conclusions from irreducible complexity to the explanatory filter to the endless wonders of the bacterial flagellum. And he understands the philosophical underpinnings of Design and the nihilistic alternative.

He sounds the very model of a modern major general.

Date: 2008/06/15 18:23:16, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (olegt @ June 13 2008,16:06)
Access to information is a double-edged sword.  Without teh interwebz, we'd never hear any farting noises from Dr. Dr. Dembski and would never have guessed that Gloppy is running the Evoinfo Lab.

Or that you can do lab work in a post office box.

Date: 2008/06/20 21:50:44, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (k.e.. @ June 19 2008,22:46)
Quote (olegt @ June 20 2008,05:41)
Salvador has plans to rewrite Maxwell's equations.  Darwinism will be toast and the Earth will be young again.  

In other news, God used electricity to make stars and galaxies.  No word on the size of his utility bill.  


Sal just sees reality as a rhetorical word game he would debate the color of the sky is green until the clouds come home.

The whole trick of religion is to devalue any test for truth to the point of complete idiocy.

Once the acolyte is thus innoculted from reality they are mere vegitables to be milked :> for the cause.

I think I might start my own religion and do a Ken Moon Dembski.

Think of all the benefits, all the drugs and sex you want paid for by the congregation and defended by the most powerful man on earth.

Then you'd have to put up with people like Sal.

Date: 2008/06/22 18:45:26, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (stevestory @ June 20 2008,22:24)
[quote=tsig,June 20 2008,22:50]
Quote (k.e.. @ June 19 2008,22:46)
Quote (olegt @ June 20 2008,05:41)

Think of all the benefits, all the drugs and sex you want paid for by the congregation and defended by the most powerful man on earth.

Then you'd have to put up with people like Sal.

I think I was a teenager when I first espoused that 'cult leader' was the best job in the world. (It helps to know that I'm from Lake City, Florida, where the End Timers' cult relocated). Yeah, you've got all the free cash, and free sex with the teenagers, but the fact that you've got to be in character 18 hrs per day is a real downside. And dealing with your Salvador types without blowing a gasket...that takes a special mindset.

I once started my own church but I discovered that I didn't like being around people who believed in me.

Date: 2008/07/04 16:53:31, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ July 04 2008,10:11)
And, of course, it doesn't even apply because Forrest's speech was not going to be in a public school, but was rather going to be a public event.

So, you would have no problem with Dembski speaking about the same issues at said event?


[for clarification, let me rephrase that...

So, you would have no problem with a teacher emailing other teachers about a lecture given by Dembski on the same topics as Forrest would address?]

No problem at all. But I guess you would fire them.

Date: 2008/07/07 14:19:24, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,18:16)
Will I shock anyone by revealing that Jerry Pournelle was an engineer? I doubt it. And he appears to be an idiot when it comes to science:

Pournelle has expressed support for several viewpoints that differ from the general scientific consensus. These include skepticism on a significant human contribution to global warming and on evolution, and he has advocated research to directly investigate Peter Duesberg's controversial views on the cause of AIDS. Pournelle has also commented on possible links between race and IQ (as evident in Lucifer's Hammer and The Burning City). He emphasizes that in some cases, particularly when the effects of wrong decisions could be disastrous, contrarian research by competent researchers is valuable as insurance.

Although claiming not to be a proponent of Intelligent design, he argues (in opposition to many critics) that it can generate falsifiable hypotheses that contribute to the understanding of evolution. He regards proposals to teach Intelligent Design in public schools as less damaging to education than the expert-dominated, centralized educational systems he sees as a prerequisite for banning such proposals. Pournelle has made several references in his blog to Hoyle's fallacy as an argument against Darwinian evolution.

I have three engineering degrees but always made a living as and electrician. Nobody argues with an electrician about power on an outlet.

Date: 2008/07/16 11:38:36, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Louis @ July 16 2008,10:33)
Quote (Tom @ July 16 2008,16:26)
Oh, and that book you recommended is priced at $254.50 .  Holy shit.   Do you suppose I could find it in a library somewhere or would I have to break a commandment and steal one from a university.

You've already broken one commandment, so what's the big deal in breaking another. :D

My thoughts exactly when reading FTK's comment.


FtK has given us a perfect example of ID at work "It looks like a fish to me" is just the same as "It looks designed to me" so she is just applying the methods of her masters.

Thanks FtK for showing us how ID theory is applied in the real world.

Date: 2008/07/16 18:33:52, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (raguel @ July 16 2008,15:13)
Well, I guess it's pile on time again.  :)

I find it odd that a non-scientist/biologist can look at tiktaalik and think "fish". I see that flat head and think "alligator". I don't see any part of that fossil that makes me think it's a fish. That fact may be a sign that I'm ignorant of some basic understanding, but it's my honest reaction and I'm curious as to how anyone not trained in the relevant fields would have a different view that I do (not that I'm saying no one can; I just want to know what I missed that others, with no background, can clearly see.)

It seems to me that paleontologists are always looking in the wrong place for something. I'd imagine Shubin was in the wrong place to find  rabbit and kangaroo fossils, but somehow managed to find tiktaalik instead.

After lecturing everyone about close- and open-mindedness, FtK appears to be close-minded to concepts like consilience and models. If it weren't for things like paleobiogeography, maybe common design, whatever that is, would be just as good a model as common descent. After all, an intelligent designer (who seems to be very smart, very powerful, very long-lived, and has access to mind-boggling transportation systems) would not be so restricted as evolution. If it really didn't matter where one looked to find any given "lineage", then that would be a very powerful support for common design IMO. So while I didn't get a direct reply, I consider this an answer to my earlier question (re: a test to show which is the better model: common design or common descent).  :D

Can't you see that huge hook in it's mouth.

Sure sign of an intelligent fisherman.

Date: 2008/07/16 18:46:01, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 16 2008,17:54)
Quote (Ftk @ July 16 2008,17:52)

Would someone mind putting a little arrow on that fish showing me exactly what part of the fossil is a wrist bone?  Then I'll try to think of a fish with a "wrist".  Kay?


Here's a clue.

They found more than one fossil of Tiktaalik. Over 20 of them, in fact. Nobody said that the one with the most complete skull had the most complete wrist...

So you admit you evodevils just found a piece here and a piece there then put them together and made up the story.

How do you know that SATAN didn't put them there to fool you??

When you're burning in hell and we're enjoying BBQ then we'll see who laughs last!!!

My God is a God of Love!!!!!

Please, just buy my product.

Date: 2008/07/31 18:24:46, Link
Author: tsig
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 29 2008,11:47)
Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,05:21)
Quote (Chayanov @ July 28 2008,23:49)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06)
What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so".

I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'?

Because their pastor told them so.

Hehe, good one.

Actually, I can read.  I read what the Bible says on the subject.  As I trust in God, I trust in His Word.  That is the reason why I believe.

I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word.

I'll take that as basically meaning "I admit it's all a just-so story, but it's the one I choose to believe because it gives me warm fuzzies".

Wait till he discovers that if he reaches lower he can have some real warm fuzzies.

Date: 2008/08/11 20:16:09, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 11 2008,18:40)
I spent the past two weeks with some geologists around Mammoth Lakes, California near Yosemite.  I saw more obsidian than I thought was possible, huge blocks the size of cars.  I had a devil of a time in Devil's Cauldron, Devil's Fingernails and Devil's Dandruff.

That said, I think that none of the ID "proponents" actually believe the stuff.  They just hate "Darwinism" and possibly modern science itself since they are disenfranchised. Creationism failed, creation science failed and, now, ID has failed.  The re-constructionists are stuck with "academic freedom" and "viewpoint discrimination" as a result until they can come up with a new scheme.

I can't imagine that Behe, for example, makes a lot of $$$ off the scam.  Small potatoes over what he could pull in as a real professor, given his writing ability which I think is admirable.   Too bad he chose the low road.  He coulda been a Zimmer!

Dembski is simply a classic failure.  He probably faked out a lot of his teachers pretending to be smart because of his great fashion sense, but in the end couldn't stand on his own.  Dembski's drain-spiraling career is an open and mostly shut case.

Wells, however, being the most odious joker in the deck of fools seems to have found his niche in a bible college where he can churn out idiots books for IDiots, "teach" a little, do no research and masturbate in private cashing royalty checks on Thursday.  Win-Win-Win, I say.

As for Medvid, bless his ignorant heart, I think he'll drop off the DI payroll sooner than you can say "fucking idiot."

So the theory of ID is:

1. make up stuff

2. write books about the stuff you made up

3. profit!!??

(edited for editing)

Date: 2008/08/17 12:55:39, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 14 2008,13:11)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 14 2008,12:11)
Do we get to assigne weather to pixies because there is no theory or law of weather?

Dave might want to distinguish between the study of elementary forces and particles, and the study of complex processes. Even gravity gets dicey when you have more than two bodies interacting.

Are you bringing up again that drunken fling he and Bill and/or Denyse once had?

The mental images sear the inside of my eyes.

You are truesy evil and your mother's worse nightmare.

Date: 2008/08/18 11:17:00, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Guest @ Aug. 16 2008,21:32)
From The evolution of Jeffrey P Schloss:

<quote>tsig (to Flint): I think my big invisible being can beat up your big invisible being.</quote>

But how can you tell if/when he does, if they're invisible? :p


<quote>iml8: Please provide me with any persuasive evidence that the Moon isnt made of green cheese.</quote>

The astronauts what landed there didn't fall in the holes in the cheese.

Oh wait, you said green, not Swiss.

Never mind.




Being invisible has never stopped people from seeing god. Besides my BIB(big invisible being) talks to me all the time and I feel him in my gut. What more do you want than my unsupported word?

I may break out in tears or become defensive and emotional if you do not agree with everything I have written.

So it's on your head.

Date: 2008/08/18 12:39:29, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 18 2008,11:53)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 17 2008,14:13)
8 AM, my very first Bio class since 9th or 10th grade (1983ish?).

So, is this how the prof opened up the first lecture?

More importantly, how did you answer?

I just noticed the picture on the wall and I have seen this cartoon many times. I like the banana, nice touch.

Date: 2008/08/22 19:32:25, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,15:51)
Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?

They are wasting their time.

There's not a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.

Just look at molecular motors.

Consider the coke can and how it is intelligently designed for the human hand and how the tab on the top seems perfect for opening. Goddidit.

Date: 2008/08/22 19:34:59, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,15:51)
Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?

They are wasting their time.

There's not a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.

Just look at molecular motors.

Do molecular motors take molecular mechanics?

Date: 2008/08/22 19:48:25, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 18 2008,18:59)
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 16 2008,17:55)
Did you even read what I said?

Not only did I read what you said, I went and read up on "Garden of Eden" patterns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just blowing you off. This interface between chaos theory and life is a subject that I have grappled with often.

In fact, it is safe to say that my understanding of it is still a "work in progress".

What continues to drive me on is an unshakable belief that a natural explanation will be found, that will fall squarely within the realm of science.

Debunking darwinism does not mean accepting religious creationism. All it means is that Darwin was wrong and we've got to keep looking for scientific explanations.

Not to play devil's advocate, but how is that possible when ID completely removes itself from the realm of science?

Saying Darwin was wrong is one thing, and one I fully support, but saying he's wrong because of some unknown and undetectable intelligence is nothing more than faith.  You might as well throw your lot in with YECs because you're playing in the same scientific ballpark.

Not trying to snipe here, but I'd really love to see just one example of how ID can be reconciled with scientific investigation.

What is Darwin wrong about?

Date: 2008/08/25 18:00:40, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 25 2008,08:10)
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 25 2008,08:07)
Budweiser is to beer what ID is to science.  A thin, watered down version of real beer, without any real taste, that only survives because it is backed by a huge marketing budget that targets the uneducated masses.

I respectfully disagree.

Despite its abundant faults, Budweiser IS beer. It works as a beer, if the purpose is merely to get some ethanol into your system.

ID is NOT science. It doesn't work at all.

You mean there might be another reason to drink beer?

Date: 2008/08/25 18:19:05, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (EyeNoU @ Aug. 24 2008,12:01)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 24 2008,05:53)
Davescot makes fun of the Google trends for, focusing in particular on the  google searches and websites visited.  Unfortunately, he didn't show the same information for Uncommon Descent.  Luckily, I am providing it for you:

And what can we learn from this:

1.  Despite what Dembski would like for you to believe, there is no groundswell of international interest in intelligent design.

2.  Despite what O'Leary would like for you to believe, there isn't even any Canadian interest in intelligent design.

3.  The second most popular associated website for UD is  This means that the tards are wandering out of the group home.  It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine who the tards are and which website is the group home.   ;)

4.  Readers of UD aren't searching for anything.  And if that isn't a meta-commentary on the whole ID movement, I don't know what is.

5.  The spike in hits in April related to the release of "Expelled" was quickly followed by a return to previous levels, putting paid to the fervent wishes of the ID crowd that the movie would lead to an uprising against the Darwinist cabal.  Sorry, FtK, better luck next time.

If you were going to make fun of of another website's data, would common sense tell you to run your own site first to save possible embarrassment later? Also mdoesn't that graph look similar to the EKG of someone on life support?

It's from the movie "Flatliners". Just think of Dempski as the protagonist and all of ID makes sense.

Date: 2008/08/25 18:30:38, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 24 2008,23:20)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 25 2008,00:14)
Quote (Physicalist @ Aug. 24 2008,20:51)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 24 2008,22:48)
Banned by Patrick at OE: common, he goes (or used to go) to OE fairly frequently

I expect I'll regret asking this, but what is OE?

OE is overwhelming evidence

You had to ask, now you have to look. It will drive their hit count to the roof.

LOL I think O'Leary said they get 200 hits per day. Which is roughly the traffic you'd get if you started a Canine Scat site. Which pretty much says it all.

"Canine Scat" would be a  great name for a band.

Or maybe "Felix Scat"

Date: 2008/08/26 16:18:34, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 25 2008,20:01)
"successor as head atheist"???

Head atheist?

Is that like the leader of all those what don't collect stamps?

It's like being head vampire and we all know who that is.

Date: 2008/08/26 16:20:18, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (ERV @ Aug. 25 2008,22:44)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 25 2008,20:01)
"successor as head atheist"???

Head atheist?

Is that like the leader of all those what don't collect stamps?

I dont want to be the head atheist.  I want to be the boob atheist!  YAAAAAAY!!!! *claps giddily*


I have got to go to sleep......

then you have to show us what you got!

Date: 2009/01/06 12:15:46, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 05 2009,15:00)
What branch of logic is it that holds that when all your premises are the exact opposite of reality that your conclusions must therefore be true?


Date: 2009/01/18 22:50:46, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 16 2009,05:55)
Hmmm, for some reason the copying and pasting I did above with the full rules of MC and the full research output of ID seems to have gone wrong.

I'll get onto our technical department and get back to you.

Sorry for any inconvenience, but they will both be published any day now, I assure you.


read mod warning deleted

Date: 2009/01/18 23:45:46, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 18 2009,18:32)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 18 2009,09:44)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 18 2009,12:35)
The main problem with his explanation is that it is too general...This is not a detailed, worked out, settled pathway.  It is a hypothetical, general attempt.

Woop, there they go. Who's gonna need 'em more, Pittsburgh or Baltimore? That's today's truly interesting question.

I've always asked for detail Bill.  You know that.  Don't pretend that I've moved the goalposts just because your example doesn't actually meet the criteria of my original challenge.

Problem is, when you are given detail you fail to understand it.

Date: 2009/01/18 23:48:33, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 18 2009,18:54)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Jan. 18 2009,09:35)
What I'd like to know Daniel, is why YOU disagree with these verdicts.  How much research have YOU YOURSELF done into these areas?  How do YOU know that the settled science is wrong?  Is it based on YOUR OWN study of these subjects or is it based on someone elses opinion?

Instead of just whining about how people on this informal discussion forum won't provide you with an exhaustive list of references (why should they spend days working for you), how about you go out and read some real textbooks on the subject which will provide references for you to follow up, then you should be able to find out why this is "settled science".

Like Bill, I'm no scientist, but I've done my share of reading - both pro and con - on these subjects.
One thing I've learned is that if you want to know the weaknesses of an idea you must listen to its critics.  Proponents never tell all.
For instance, if you want a sense of what's wrong with the "genes first" RNA world abiogenesis hypothesis, don't just read "genes first" papers, instead read this.
If you want to know of potential problems with the theory of evolution, you need to listen to its critics.  The same goes for creationism and ID.
As you can see, I'm here... surrounded by critics of my beliefs.  Although I may not always let on, I'm weighing every (legitimate) criticism to see if it has merit.
I'm not one to blindly follow anything or anyone (one of the reasons I no longer attend church), and I really am interested in opposing ideas because, in the end, I just want to be right.
For this reason, I'm reluctant to accept anything as "settled science" on face value.  I have to see the actual science, listen to its critics, weigh the evidence pro and con, then I'll make up my mind.
My main problem is that I'm a man, and whenever I feel someone is disrespecting me without merit, I get my back up.  I need to work on that, and I'm trying to publicly acknowledge when I'm wrong.  It's not an easy thing to do, believe me, but I need to know when I'm wrong or I'll never be right.

If you do not understand the science how can you judge it?

Date: 2009/01/18 23:59:11, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 18 2009,11:35)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 17 2009,17:24)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 17 2009,20:01)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 17 2009,10:54)
BTW, you've also never responded to this summary of work on the evolution of the blood clotting cascade supplied by Kenneth Miller. You look like you could use some exercise; get under those posts and start running.

This is an interesting scenario - one that, for the most part, ignores random mutation as a mechanism and instead relies on gene duplication and exon shuffling (both saltational mechanisms - i.e. big changes, all at once) to do the heavy lifting of getting the basic cascading system in place.
That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence. Because the selective value of the plasma protease is pretty low (it doesn't help clotting all that much), most of these changes make very little difference. But one day, through a well-understood process called "exon shuffling," a DNA sequence known as an "EGF domain" is spliced into one end of the protease gene. EGF stands for epidermal growth factor, a small protein used by cells throughout the body to signal other cells. EGF is so common that just about every tissue cell has "receptors" for it. These receptors are cell surface proteins shaped in such a way that they bind EGF tightly.

The fortuitious combination of a EGF sequence with the plasma protease changes everything.

I'd like to point out that this is essentially what I predicted early on in this discussion.  I said, (paraphrasing) that scientists would be forced to appeal more and more to saltational mechanisms in order to explain complex organization.  

In short, the key to understanding the evolution of blood clotting is to appreciate that the current system did not evolve all at once. Like all biochemical systems, it evolved from genes and proteins that originally served different purposes. The powerful opportunistic pressures of natural selection progressively recruited one gene duplication after another, gradually fashioning a system in which high efficiences of controlled blood clotting made the modern vertebrate circulatory system possible.

"all biochemical systems"?  Even the first ones?  I'm guessing he means all existing biochemical systems.  If not, then that's an unfounded statement.  The rearrangement of existing functional organization is not the same as the creation of functional organization.  But, (before I'm accused of moving goalposts again) this still qualifies as an attempt to explain how the existing cascade system evolved from a non-cascading system.  It would seem that such a pathway would be amenable to experimentation in simple vertebrates.

The bottom line is that Miller has summarized substantial research documenting the evolution of a complex biological system by means of a natural pathway. You demanded documentation of a plausible pathway for "any" such system. Now you've got it.

Your challenge has been met.

The main problem with his explanation is that it is too general.

He says that the cascading system started with a copied gene, so that two proteins were working together, then one mutated so that it complemented the other, then part of another gene got spliced into the original so that now we have control...

This is not a detailed, worked out, settled pathway.  It is a hypothetical, general attempt.  Miller quotes from Doolittle who has been working on the blood clotting system for 40 years.  Does Doolittle think the pathway is "settled"?

I could, for example, give a similar explanation for the evolution of the mammalian brain.  Start with something similar but simple - the Trichoplax.  Posit some whole genome duplications along with the "witches brew" of mutations, gene duplications, exon shuffling, etc, and viola - the mammalian brain!

Like I said before, the proof is in the pudding.  Once the experts decide on a settled, verified pathway, then my challenge has been met.

Could you tell me just what the designer did and when did he do it? I want details, exactly what molecule did he move? What forces were involved? How long ago did he do it and how did you arrive at that figure?

Date: 2009/01/21 12:41:37, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 19 2009,08:57)
Fuller's posts bring out quality stuff to the surface!  allanius writes:
Having said that, modern science is providing an induction of providence of its own accord. The blood clotting cascade is not only good but “very good.” The manufacturing capability of the cell is “very good” to the point of being astonishing. Light and gravity are both “very good” and in fact beyond human understanding. Hearing and sight are engineering marvels.

Light and gravity beyond human understanding?  What century is this guy living in?

Sounds like they're drifting in the dark.

Date: 2009/01/21 12:59:20, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 21 2009,04:20)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07)
@oldmanintheskydidntdoit: I feel  honored that you remember me from PT, however you should know that one of my postings was censored, because I wrote that Carl Zimmer was wrong. It seems like you're the one who forbid open criticism.

“The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search”
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks I

Abstract: Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search.

assisted search = intelligent designer

This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles.

Nils, what these papers show is that despite a degree in Philosophy of Science and ten+ years in the field of ID, Dembski still doesn't understand how evolution works.

He thinks living things are searching for the infinitismal portion of all possible genomes that will construct an organism capable of reproducing.  He is wrong!

The fact that Dembski came from parents and has managed to reproduce himself shows that his DNA is already in the sweet spot!  ALL living organisms that successfully reproduce are in it.  They don't have to search for it, they just have to stay in it.  They do this by making only small changes to their genomes when they reproduce.

Tell this to Dr. Dr. Dembski so he can finally stop making a fool of himself.

Thanks for that comment CC I had never thought of it that way before.

Pls mak teh learnin stop it hurz! lol

Date: 2009/01/21 13:08:47, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 21 2009,08:17)
Phew.  I've been away from AtBC, visiting the US of A (I'm astonished.  Some Yanks are even able to form whole sentences).  I'm back, and luxuriating in Dave's tard:

ne of the things that might be argued is Darwin’s notion of blended inheritance vs. Mendel’s particulate inheritance. I’m not convinced that on the whole blended inheritance is wrong. How would you explain children from one black parent and one white parent having skin color intermediate between the two? Mendel’s particulate theory would have both black and white children being produced from that couple but not children with intermediate skin pigmentation. Clearly blending does happen at least in some characters which are more complex than to be controlled by single alleles. Skin pigmentation in humans is obviously one of those more complex characters.

Um Dave.  You might want to talk to your mate Bill about a guy called Ronald Fisher.  He showed why you're wrong over 90 years ago.  Basically, if you have lots of Mendelian genes having a small effect on a trait, you have a quantitative trait, and selection acts on the variation.  oh, and we have 90 years of evidence to show that this works as a model and explains the variation we see.  This kicked off the whole neo-Darwinist movement.

Of course, we don't want to let the facts get in the way, do we?

Didn't Mendel get some pink peas? Hybrids seem to be "blended" in DS's term.

Date: 2009/01/21 13:16:06, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 19 2009,22:15)
It all just seems incredibly planned to me.

So your mind is the measure of the universe?

Date: 2009/01/21 13:21:40, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (khan @ Jan. 20 2009,18:13)
It's a matter of his level of knowledge versus ours.  We can understand some of it, but we'll never understand most of it.  It's above our level.
If we can reconstruct a completely natural pathway for the origin of some intricately organized system, God is no longer required.

How big is god's penis?

Since man is made in gods image I would think you could take the size of the average male as a guideline unless you have a female god then I will investigate and get back to you.

Date: 2009/01/21 13:35:48, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 21 2009,13:20)
Quote (tsig @ Jan. 21 2009,11:16)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 19 2009,22:15)
It all just seems incredibly planned to me.

So your mind is the measure of the universe?

Well, since Daniel seems to be claiming that he thinks basically the same way as God, I'd guess his answer is yes.

The world is to big for their minds so they have to cut it up in small chunks.

They are playing with the shiny things on the beach while the whole ocean of truth lies unseen before their eyes.(tnx to Isaac Newton)

Date: 2009/01/21 22:27:56, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 21 2009,14:30)
Quote (tsig @ Jan. 21 2009,11:21)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 20 2009,18:13)
It's a matter of his level of knowledge versus ours.  We can understand some of it, but we'll never understand most of it.  It's above our level.
If we can reconstruct a completely natural pathway for the origin of some intricately organized system, God is no longer required.

How big is god's penis?

Since man is made in gods image I would think you could take the size of the average male as a guideline unless you have a female god then I will investigate and get back to you.

Well, if he's made in man's image of a perfect being,  I suppose the answer must be "Big".

I'm more interested in knowing what he uses it for.  Sex (if so, with whom?) or just peeing?

Well Jesus is god's son.  Unless you want to believe that whole "virgin" thing.

Date: 2009/01/25 23:15:31, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 25 2009,21:20)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2009,22:15)
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 25 2009,21:58)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 25 2009,18:16)


Just in case you haven't been receiving admiring private email, I love the new avatar.

All the boys (except Arden) here are no doubt too jealous and homophobic (except Arden) to note it.


I didn't want to feed his ego with too much admiration.

Thank you for keeping me grounded, Khan.

Is that what they're calling it now?

Date: 2009/01/25 23:17:38, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2009,22:11)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 25 2009,21:17)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 25 2009,19:53)
Earlier this season there was a brilliant episode of My Name is Earl where the ex-wife tries to win a science fair by disproving evolution. Her plan:  Making a fish try to evolve legs to get the food she has placed out of reach.  Unfortunately for her she uses a tadpole.  Her conclusion on seeing the results: "I guess we don't have to go to church any more."

I very much imagine our friends at UD at that level in their efforts.

But she actually performed the experiment.  Doesn't that put her one up on the UDenizens?

LOL yep. They would just sit around and blog about what would happen.

They would let her do the experiment and then quote mine the result claiming that ID predicted it all along.

Date: 2009/01/28 03:38:03, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (huwp @ Jan. 27 2009,17:19)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 27 2009,17:08)
No. The sweater is not the tent.  But, you are in luck because I used my mad google skillz to find a picture of the creation of the ID Big Tent.  

Whilst I am in awe of teh mad google skillz, I'm not sure I'd describe that picture as tasteful.  I'm just glad we didn't get something from your horse collection.

However, I suppose it really could depict the genesis of the ID Big Tent.

Well I always thought it referred to the Big Top, the biggest tent in the circus.

Bring in the clowns
Too late
They are here

Date: 2009/01/28 03:56:45, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 27 2009,18:20)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 27 2009,19:12)
OK, here you go:

Input "problem";
Weigh all possible options;
Choose those that best meet your criteria;

Seriously though...
I don't think man can write one.

Not because it's God either.  But, because intelligence makes so many choices based on so many variables, we couldn't even write an algorithm to mirror our own design processes.

And you're the one demanding more detail than supplied by the complex, multiyear research program that Kevin Miller described vis the blood clotting cascade.

Daniel, you DO understand how ridiculous this is, don't you?

The Devil is in the details leaving god in the gaps.

Date: 2009/01/31 13:03:44, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 28 2009,12:12)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 27 2009,23:02)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2009,22:02)
Please don't entice me to do the hard tard.

I'm getting too old for the straight stuff.

"Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever?"

--Dan Daly, USMC, Belleau Wood, France, 1918


Davey eat your heart out, you miserable excuse for a pimple on a real Marine's buttocks...

Semper Fi to a real marine.Dan Daly Wiki

Dave isn't qualified to lick Daly's balls, though he might want to.

Date: 2009/01/31 13:05:03, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (khan @ Jan. 28 2009,12:43)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2009,13:27)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 28 2009,07:20)
Second, I feel honored of being compared to Salvador Cordova.

That's it. I've got to bail. I can't take this concentration of tard right now. Back later.

"A man's got to know his limitations."

But he shouldn't pander to them.

Date: 2009/02/02 23:39:47, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 02 2009,13:08)



1:11 pm


   You say we can never rule out all chance hypotheses. That is true but, happily, we don’t need to.

Nevertheless, it is what the explanatory filter requires.

I love that guy.

How long can it last?

edit:added nothing

Date: 2009/02/03 00:09:43, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 01 2009,16:44)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 30 2009,17:11)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 30 2009,16:27)
why isn't it right to at least postulate the possibility of God based on the sheer number of believers in the world throughout history?

Since consensus apparently decides reality for you, I assume that sometime in the next couple decades, when the number of Muslims passes the number of Christians, you'll switch to Islam?

Also, there's close to a billion Hindus. I assume you 'at least postulate the possibility' that it's true?

The number of believers in the supernatural - be they Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Christian or whatever - only reinforces my argument that these beliefs are there for a reason and therefore merit serious consideration.

Why do so many ancient traditions embrace creation as a mechanism as opposed to natural forces?  

Consider this:
A)  No one has ever seen anything supernatural.
B)  Everyone has seen natural forces as work.
C)  Most people still credit the supernatural with all ultimate origins.

Why is that?

Sounds like and argument from "collective ignorance"

Date: 2009/02/03 00:55:47, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 02 2009,18:01)
damn.  i bet we had another exercise and recreation major with a minor in biblical exegesis who was going to destroy the foundation of modern biology and frikkin deadman ran him off.

gaaah.  can't even punt the fundie around here you guys poke a hole in the ball.

i bet it comes back.

Now yoy know how Charlie Brown feels when Lucy yanks the ball away.

He came, he saw, he bailed.

Date: 2009/02/03 01:10:54, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2009,21:13)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 02 2009,18:40)
I read the paper.

It describes another working biosynthetic pathway for lysine within Thermus thermophilus - which is, I'm guessing by the name, a hot water bacteria.

They then do what virtually every (recent) paper I've ever read on the subject of evolution does: they create a phylogenetic tree based on similarities of genome sequence among any number of organisms.

So they've shown varying similarity of sequence.  

So how does this support your 3 step pathway?          
(1) an initial ATP-utilizing sequence leads to
(2) the Miyazaki-based alpha aminoadipate Lysine producing sequence in archaeons
(3) and gives rise to to the DAP lysine pathway in E. coli

Similarity of sequence doesn't translate into workable biosynthetic pathways in totally different organisms.  It also doesn't explain how we got here from there.  How did we get from (1) to (2)?  From (2) to (3)?

If you truly want to meet my challenge, it's not enough to point to working systems and say "connect the dots yourself".  You've got to actually show a concrete workable pathway between them.  Otherwise all you've done is blow smoke.

Gee, Daniel, you've conveniently ignored what I said here:
Plug the paper title into Google Scholar, for example, and you get immediate hits describing models of how the DAP and AAA lysine-production routes came about.

See, 'cause if you'd actually bothered to do that, you'd have gotten the IMMEDIATE hits that you could have followed up on.

I've said I'm unwilling to do your work for you or "teach" you because you've already shown me that you will then just simply move your goalposts to "where did THAT come from?!?!" in search of a place to insert your God of the Gaps (I can suggest, nevermind) You forget that I've already TRIED that route, Denial, and I didn't like your goalpost-shifting and other games. The VERY FIRST thing you then asked for was a molecule-by-molecule explanation of abiogenesis itself. This meant that not only would i be spoon-feeding you, I'd have to write a whole fuckin' textbook worth of posts just for you to make a face, spit up, and demand that I work backwards until you found your Gap to stick a God in.

ANYWAY...IF you'd bothered to follow up on your own, in your terrible thirst for knowledge (*snort*), what would you have found?

Why, you'd find things like:

Fondi M, Brilli M, Emiliani G, Paffetti D, Fani R. (2007) The primordial metabolism: an ancestral interconnection between leucine, arginine, and lysine biosynthesis.BMC Evol Biol. 2007 Aug 16;7 Suppl 2:S3.

Miyazaki J, Kobashi N, et al.(2002) Characterization of a lysK gene as an argE homolog in Thermus thermophilus HB27 FEBS Lett. 2002 Feb 13;512(1-3):269-74


Velasco AM, Leguina JI, Lazcano A.(2002) Molecular evolution of the lysine biosynthetic pathways. J Mol Evol. 2002 Oct;55(4):445-59

and hundreds more. we come to the real questions. WHY didn't YOU do that?

(1) Are you so intellectually lazy that you needed ME to plug the Nishida article into Google scholar and follow the citations? Or
(2) Are you so intellectually dishonest that you won't actually read material bearing on the problems you claim to be interested in? Or
(3) Is it both?

Hell, Denial, let's be honest're NOT INTERESTED in anything but "witnessing" and you're not interested in even straining your dainty intellect even to plug a cite into Google Scholar as I suggested...because the results might not be pleasing to you and you'd get the vapors. Piss off.

You broke one now you trying for another.

Dan will never try to match your "pathetic level of detail" He feels perfectly happy to poke questions at people without listening to the answer, after all the has the Truth.

Date: 2009/02/05 23:27:32, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 04 2009,12:28)
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Feb. 04 2009,17:35)
In the interests of fairness I've been thinking about their main gripe that the Darwinian process of natural selection gets a free ride without question, while ID has to prove itself. And I have to admit that it does, to someone like me, seem that this is true.

I've been following the evolution/ID wars for about four years, but I've not seen anyone offer any kind of mathematical evidence that natural selection is doing the job. We get evidence for evolution itself - that's easy, fossils, tree of life, etc - but it seems like people just assume natural selection is doing the job of changing one species into another.

Since I'm not a creationist, I know the difference between personal ignorance and reality, and therefore, just because I don't know how natural selection is shown by scientists, I'm not going to assume it isn't. But I would like to know what to say to creationists who bring this up. Why do we say natural selection, and not some other force? Why can we be so sure? Is there some kind of proof-by-induction where we can mathematically represent populations, selection, mutation, reproduction, etc, and show that these processes result in new forms?

I even tried doing it myself, but that was hard. Also, all my attempts to simulate evolution have failed. So basically, I'm running on faith, but a skeptical faith - one that knows the ID side is pushing a pile of crap and lying about it, and that scientists have no reason to lie. But even so, I feel like an evangelist, preaching what I believe instead of what I know. I feel no better than the side I'm fighting.

So that's my question. What is the evidence for natural selection being responsible for evolution? How strong is it? What should we expect to see if natural selection is responsible for evolution? What would we expect to falsify it?

That is what's commonly known as a bloody good question.

I am by no means an expert, but if you were to look up the work of R.A. Fisher you'd certainly get a mathematical treatment of natural selection from the early part of the 20th century. Bill Hamilton's work (particularly on sex/caste ratios in social insects if memory serves) is also mathematically based. Work from there. (I'm picking two easily found "big names" of yore for a reason!)

As for evidence that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, you enter into one of the most contentious areas of evolutionary biology. Natural selection is far from the only mechanism of evolution, you have lateral/genetic drift (of particular import in microorganisms) and there is a great debate about the "evolution of evolvability" and modes of speciation etc. I've recently bought E.O.Wilson's "Sociobiology" and am working through it, there's a good deal of population stats in that.

The problem with the question is, for a relative non biologist like me, I can't think of a shorter answer than a textbook. Maybe Albatrossity or one of the other biologists around can give you a better (and shorter) answer. I can only point you to the things I've read and taught myself about evolutionary biology which might not be the best sources. Rather than quote you umpteen books here's a Wiki start!


Bill Hamilton

R. A. Fisher

Kin Selection/Hamilton's rule

Price equation

I suppose I could witter on about how sex/caste ratios in social insects confirmed exactly what was predicted by a specific "selfish gene" hypothesis (edging out other "group selection" hypotheses etc) but I won't! I'm not sufficiently expert to give a short answer!



ETA: fo course I've missed out Hardy Weinberg stats, allele frequencies, genetic studies.....yadda yadda yadda. It's a big topic!

The fact that we are here seems a good argument that we are here.

Date: 2009/02/11 06:20:28, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 11 2009,06:03)
Why is the sky blue, daddy? Why does a boy's winky look different? Where does music come from? Why does Kitty kill mices? Why have the requirements for a BSc.Ed. fallen so drastically?

Why is water wet? why does fire burn? how high is up? Why are you coming at me with a knife daddy?

Date: 2009/02/24 20:49:29, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,15:37)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,14:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

Spiritually blind? Fuck off you patronising twat.

There are no "sides" in this. It's about the evidence. Scientists follow the evidence, creationists and other clowns try to shoe horn it into their preconceived notions of what they want to be the case. It ain't science no matter how pretty their degree certificates look.

Good riddance.


I'm trying to understand why you would get so flustered Louis.  Are you a believer?  If so, why would you curse me?    It's called the Adamic nature, or the flesh.  I have it too.

And if I were not being dissected like a lab rat I could for a minute give into that nature and do the same, but I choose not too.  

You insulted me in one of your posts by inferring that I "play" with myself.  I have a wife Louis.  And I did ignore that as I have many insults.  Y'all have a great life.

He didn't curse you so I'll do you the favor:

Oh mighty dark lord may you seek RFJE's soul and take it for your own. Blind him and bind him in your almighty self and let him dwell in hell forever.

Date: 2009/03/10 08:32:49, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 09 2009,13:02)
Archived for your amusement (available only through cache):
This is Google's cache of It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 8, 2009 03:45:29 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more

Text-only versionThese search terms are highlighted: expelled by the academic community for their These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: in the film host ben stein tracked down scholars including dembski who have been persecuted or  

Dembski: evolution hypothesis, not theory

Posted on Feb 16, 2009 | by Benjamin Hawkins
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--On the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, William Dembski, research professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, challenged Darwin's famed theory of evolution during a seminary chapel service.

Christianity and Darwinian evolution put forward "radically different worldviews," Dembski said Feb. 12 at the Fort Worth, Texas, seminary. "I think the real challenge for the church now is not the atheistic Darwinists ... but it is now the church itself and Christian higher education embracing this semi-materialistic worldview."

According to Dembski, every worldview involves a creation story, a problem, a solution for that problem and an expected culmination. For Christians, this involves a world created by a wise God and marred by the sinfulness of man. As the solution to sin, the Son of God entered the world as Jesus Christ and died for the redemption of man. In the end, Christ will return and the creation will be renewed.

"Evolution comes to us and challenges us right at the point of creation," Dembski said, calling evolution a "secular creation story." Darwin wasn't the first to think of a creation that evolved, Dembski added. In fact, some ancient Babylonian myths recount how the waters commingled and evolved "into higher gods." Similarly, Darwinian evolution explains that the process began "with material forces moving about and evolving into something higher."

This materialistic worldview, Dembski said, has been infused even into Christian culture. However, he added, "If you get your starting points wrong, you can count on everything downstream going amiss as well." As a result, some theistic evolutionists, who believe in God while also supporting Darwin's theory of evolution, hold to an unbiblical theology. For example, some have denied the fall of mankind and argue that man's problem is a selfishness caused by the process of natural selection, Dembski said.

The widespread acceptance of Darwin's theory can be seen in the support it has gained in academic circles, even at schools and universities with Christian backgrounds. Some schools even refuse to teach any alternatives to Darwinism, he said.

This same concern was aired in the 2008 documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." In the film, host Ben Stein tracked down scholars, including Dembski, who have been persecuted -- or "expelled" -- by the academic community for their support of Intelligent Design, a research discipline that flies in the face of Darwinism.

Despite this widespread support of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dembski noted that it is a hypothesis. A theory, he said, should both explain what a scientist observes while also gaining support from independent evidence.

"In fact, there is very little evidence for the power of natural selection," Dembski said, adding that the existing evidence concerns small-scale evolutionary changes like the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

As for Intelligent Design, "It is not creationism," Dembski said. "It's engineering." ID entails research that seeks to discover evidence of design, or engineering, within nature. For example, no human engineer has designed technology that can hold as much information in such a compact way as the DNA found in cells, he said.

After Dembski's message, Paige Patterson, Southwestern's president, noted that the College at Southwestern encourages students to explore all worldviews so that they may examine them according to a biblical worldview. Students in the college learn about Intelligent Design, Patterson said, but also are required to read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species."
Benjamin Hawkins is a writer for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. To access Dembski's chapel message, access Southwestern Seminary's chapel archives at

Independent dense.

I wonder if the Pres is having second thoughts about having a loose cannon like DR. DR. around.

Date: 2009/03/14 09:50:37, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Principia @ Mar. 14 2009,09:33)
His whole resolution argument is itself dependent on subjectivity.  If you keep zooming in at ever higher resolution of a mountain sculpture, you'll just be seeing surfaces with lots of cracks and defects.  Consider being an ant on Mars crawling on that structure.  Could you tell if it's designed?  Zoom in further and all you see are crystals.  Zoom in further and you see atomic nuclei.

At what level of resolution do you stop?  Well, until you design-meter goes off apparently.  

One way to get around his "assumption" argument is to ask simply: How do you construct a design-meter?  Suppose you want to codify His design-sensing algorithm into a computer.  What information is required?  It's quite obvious:
1) You need knowledge of human designs
2) You need knowledge of human minds and their design techniques

You can't get around this subjectivity.

The DI will keep looking for whatever it is they're looking for and will tell us what it is when they find it.

Although we can now but see thru a glass darkly the outline coming thru looks a lot like christ.

Date: 2009/03/15 16:55:28, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 15 2009,16:31)
How long before they announce this was all "street theater"?

Yes, they threw Dave under the bus.

Date: 2009/03/16 21:55:01, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 15 2009,19:00)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 15 2009,15:25)
Should we be sending DaveScot a formal invitation to join us here in the forum of the banned?

I have no use for D'Tard at all. Nor he for me.

I think we should start a pool for when DS stages a return to the warm pile of manure that is UD.

I do not like thee David Scot

The reason why I ain't quite got

But this I know I ain't forgot

I do not like thee David Scot

Date: 2009/03/18 08:39:23, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 17 2009,04:44)
Quote (Skullboy @ Mar. 17 2009,00:38)
What's the real story with Gil? I listened briefly to one of his recordings and he plays advanced piano pieces at least adequately. I think he edited a magazine about hang gliding. He was apparently somehow involved in a noteworthy computer chess project, and now seems to work in engineering though I don't think he ever took a degree in it.

It sounds very impressive, but when you read the things he says on UD, he really seems kinda dumb.

Is he some rich kid producing vanity recordings and holding sinecures? Or (to turn the cynicism back his way) does he really understand the concepts and justifications of simulations and just posts bogus lying-for-Jesus refutations that he figures UDers can't or won't recognize as such?

When Gill says that he helps the military simulate airdrops for improved accuracy (which I seem to recall he claims to be doing) what he means is that he helps by sweeping the floors and emptying the trash so those computer nerds can work their magic.  Sir, yes sir!

Nah, he was what they dropped. He was the Intelligent Drop.

After enough high speed impacts he moved on to the other ID.

Date: 2009/03/26 13:49:02, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 25 2009,15:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2009,13:59)
Dembski gives props to Granny Spice:


William Dembski


1:43 pm
Thanks Denyse for posting this. I recently saw the conventional cant about Gage recycled by Patrick Grim for some Teaching Company lectures on philosophy of mind.

B. L. Harville: Please elaborate. Phineas Gage is the most well known case of what? Fundamental change in personality and moral outlook? That’s precisely the point in question. Have other people’s personalities fundamentally changed through brain injury? That may be, but please provide some case studies.

In any case, the burden on the materialist is to show that mind is nothing but brain and therefore injury to brain injures the mind. For the dualist to challenge this it is enough to exhibit a counterexample, not that brain injury never affects personality.

Apparently, WmAD still doesn't seem interested in providing pathetic levels of detail.  For a guy who thinks he is going to revolutionize the entire scientific academy, he is one lazy SOB.

Well he is going around in circles that is revolving so he is undergoing a revolution.

Date: 2009/03/26 14:54:28, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 26 2009,00:04)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 25 2009,20:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2009,13:01)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 25 2009,12:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2009,11:53)
How many Dembskis of error does this provide? can we tell?
I think we have a winner here.

Just as we have units of various forces and such in Webers, Telsas, Guass and more, I hereby nominate "Units of Error" to be known as Dembskis.

Bravo sir!
Uh, where have you been?    

Error in dembskis

That error might be measured in a unit called "dembskis" that scaled things in terms of orders of magnitude came up in discussion of errors in an essay by Marks and Dembski. The reference unit of error for the measure is taken from the case mentioned above in the M/N ratio calculation note, where Dembski had an error of about 65 orders of magnitude. "Dave W." formalized the notion with an equation, and W. Kevin Vicklund suggested using a rounded-off value of 150 as the constant in the denominator, based upon Dembski's figure of 10^150 as a universal small probability. Thus, the final form of quantifying error in dembskis (Reed Cartwright proposed the symbol ?) is

? = | ln(erroneous measure) - ln(correct measure) | / 150

There is not yet a consensus on what to term the unit, but two proposals being considered are "Dmb" and "duns".

For Maya:

What the hell are you blabbering about?

Of course you'll bring up a "just so" story to cover your tracks.

Is this another way to bring out that "peer review" nonsense that you seem to worship almost as much as Darwin?

Answer me these questions and lets see if you can actually answer or are you going to slink away and snivel victory?

1:  Are you still beating seal pups for beer money?

2:  Are you still stealing money from primary school kids for beer money?

3:  What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?

Let's see if you can answer them.

Is that better Maya?  Am I ready for UD yet?   :D

Which one - an African, or a European swallow?

I always wondered how much the swallow wasn't carrying.

Date: 2009/03/26 15:11:10, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2009,10:15)
A retired muslim vet airline pilot.

Never trust a retired suicide pilot.

Date: 2009/03/27 21:04:16, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 26 2009,23:11)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 26 2009,10:44)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 26 2009,08:08)

I understand you are a retired airline pilot.


The day an airline puts someone like Joe behind the controls is the day I start taking the train.

Maybe he worked for that Tibetan airline that sacrificed the goat to fix their mechanical problems....or maybe he was the technician?

He was the goat. He sacrificed his virginity.

Date: 2009/03/29 11:15:33, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 29 2009,00:59)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 28 2009,18:19)
Some good jerrytard (I especially like how seriously he takes Haldane's joke about giving his life for two brothers or eight cousins):

You have to understand that all the Darwinists or anti ID people who come here and probably any where cannot defend Darwinism. So they never try. There has been sort of a UD Challenge to anyone who could be the first to provide a coherent defense of Darwinism.

No one has stepped up to the plate. So your statements asking for a dialogue will go unanswered since a dialogue requires two or more and the anti ID people never come forward. They are experts at deflection, nit picking, sniping from afar and changing the subject.

Sorry to see you go. I have just read Allen’s long description of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and so far what Allen has written represents nothing ID can’t live with. I like what he has written but it just seems like genetics and micro evolution. Nothing controversial.

I doubt Haldane’s observation about brothers and cousins. I can’t imagine a Darwinist dying for anything in this world. They are generally atheists and after dying, well there just isn’t anything there for them so why would they. They will become an extinct species because someone once said to me that if you are not willing to die for something then you will be eliminated by those who are willing.

Come back when you can.

How can you defend something that exists only in the minds of creotards?

Jerry needs to watch "Patton" again.

Date: 2009/03/29 11:17:58, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 29 2009,04:47)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 29 2009,02:40)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 28 2009,21:58)
For the record I am still not convinced that jerry is not the deepest covered tard explorer on the planet.  

sometimes it seems almost obvious that he actually knows better than what he is claiming, and not only that knows why he knows better.  yet he can't make some connection or link that is more or less an instinct in other people.

we're potty training a littlun right now and the example comes to my mind of a child learning to pee standing up, then going to the potty and getting perfectly prepared, then pooping their britches.

that's jerry.  i'm pretty sure mine poops in them on purpose, sometimes, for reasons that only 2.5 year old little boys know.  whether or not jerry is a sock puppet i do not know, but sometimes i get the feeling that he is pooping his pants on purpose.  but man what delivery of tard, deadpan and earnest, and then he gets the other tards beating each other with their dumbing hammers.  his points he often abandons and morphs a claim into another claim and clucks and tsks about atheists when pushed.  

no one can seriously be this dumb.  they can be this ideologically committed, but before we can really estimate how much that sort of thing actually contributes to some real amount of science denialism, you have to make sure that you aren't getting played for a fool.

to point and laugh at jerry is one thing, he need not be real (if he is not then we would be having this conversation anyway because someone would have had to indent him, possibly even a footnote or an addendum) for that to be justified.  but if he be real, then his brain and body may be useful to science.  if that shit is real then something is seriously wrong with that dude and all the other tards we suspect are real.  the evil darwinian atheist conspiracy might just send some moving vans out to their residences to "convince them" to come down to the secret laboratory for a "briefing".

but i am still leaning towards odds jerry being a poe somewhere around .3

as always jerry pm me.  

matter of fact nahhh fok dat.  i don't want to know.  marvelous performance you wonderful sly bastard.

I'm starting to think that Erasmus is jerry.  Fess up, Ras.

i would be very proud of that.  i would not however be able to keep it quiet.


perhaps YOU are jerry keiths?  whats with the questioning, and the accusing, the pointing, the askance looking and the talking behinding the hand?

Maybe we are Jerry. He has been conjured out of the collective minds here and takes life from our emotions.

Or he's a real tard.

Date: 2009/04/01 18:09:41, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (k.e.. @ April 01 2009,17:39)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2009,01:22)

Holy FUCK!!!

He fell for the two rocks contain more information...

..... no no folks not just any old information but Shannon Information.

What a frikken turkey.

He wouldn't know <k.e.. rolls eyes> "Shannon" Information if one bit his both his arses.

Hey Joe

Rocks contain Rock OK?

Joe has smart rocks.

Date: 2009/04/01 18:13:19, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 30 2009,03:12)
As of now, kairosfocus has 'contributed' 8,220 words to the Simulation Wars thread.

4,755 of them follow this statement:
There is actually very little point in onward extension of the issues over minutiae of Weasel and/or the latest neo-Weasel, the real matters on the merits having long been settled.

KF, seek professional help immediately.

It looked to me like the Weasel won the war.

Date: 2009/04/03 20:01:04, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ April 02 2009,09:06)
Mr Dawkins set his up to answer a challenge, from Hoyle and others, on the problem of achieving complex bio- functionality. He did so by arguing that cumulation of micro-increments in function was enough.

Not entirely correct, Hoyle thought it was impossible for complex bio-functionality to occur at once and at random (the tornado in the junkyard) and that this was what evolution was supposed to have done. Dawkins was demonstrating why this notion of evolution is a fallacy by providing a simple illustration of the power of cumulative selection as compared to a random search.  WEASEL doesn't model evolution, it corrects a fallacy about evolution.


Date: 2009/04/08 04:46:50, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (k.e.. @ April 07 2009,04:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2009,07:18)
God. hmmm. You can bring the prime mover forward to the universe itself. Or push back to infinite regress.

Spinoza was re-circumcised for that idea.

He didn't know about the Big Bang ...the one where god had a few fingers burn't off and lost a sandal.

I heard he was injured "down there" and couldn't get it up anymore. That's why he's so weird about human sex.

Date: 2009/04/08 05:14:45, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 07 2009,22:17)
isn't that an old one?  

how about this
I disagree that physical law is capale of creating biological platonic forms. These forms arise by design, not by physics. However, Denton is correct that such platonic forms exist in biology.

that's quite pathetic, really.  poor sal, needs to get laid

All of his dates have been Platonic.

Date: 2009/04/28 06:17:55, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 27 2009,17:48)
Quote (khan @ April 27 2009,12:36)
Quote (keiths @ April 27 2009,13:24)
Denyse the environmentalist:

How Darwin Worship Helps Animal Extinction

Is she really this stupid?

If I die tonight, the most urgent thing I want to say is this: Putting animals on the same plane as humans not only disses humans but dooms animals.

still behind, but this may have already been addressed

don't ever do this

it's really really really bad

travesty of sorts

terrible idea

He gonna eat that snake?

Date: 2009/04/28 06:19:48, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (dhogaza @ April 27 2009,18:23)
If I die tonight, the most urgent thing I want to say is this: Putting animals on the same plane as humans not only disses humans but dooms animals.

Hmmm ... I wonder what she thinks of the idea of putting them on the same Ark as humans?

PETA would burn the Ark to save the animals.

Date: 2009/04/28 06:22:01, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 27 2009,18:59)
Tee-hee. With "respectable grandmother" Densey getting dissed even by the regs at UD for her inane, incompetent posts, Walter ReMine Throws his latest (fourth) diaper in the ring   to see who gets knocked unconscious and believes him.

It's typical, of course: erect three strawmen and knock them down in turn all the while displaying the usual  unsupported, uninformed insouciance. It's not even tilting against imaginary giants that are really windmills -- it's tilting against windmills that don't even exist, themselves.

They have studied their Quixote well. Real windmills can hurt you.

Date: 2009/04/28 06:39:22, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 28 2009,04:30)
If I die tonight, the most urgent thing I want to say is this: Putting animals on the same plane as humans not only disses humans but dooms animals.

Yeah, it makes the plane too heavy to take off and everything dies in the crash and fire.  Maybe that's what's driving all those animals extinct.  Or maybe they'd just rather die than be locked into an aluminum cylinder with the Honorable Grandmother.

Denyse, "plane" = something you fly in.  "plain"  = what you wanted to say. i.e. on the same level.


"Plane (geometry), theoretical surface which has infinite width and length, zero thickness, and zero curvature."

Why yes I always beat dead horses don't you?

Date: 2009/04/28 07:17:06, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 28 2009,06:54)
Oh well.  "Plain" as in Seringetti Plain - flat surface with all the animals running around on it.

Hey, that would pass muster at UD.

They just call it plain because it's boring.

(added Y)

Date: 2009/04/28 07:45:08, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 26 2009,21:41)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,19:57)
Now - all you have to do is show me a detailed natural evolutionary pathway that meets these two criteria.  

Wup wup wup wup, whoa, boy. If you are serious about leaving it to scientists to determine what is settled science, you need to leave to them the determination of when sufficient detail to reach that settled status has been attained.

What we have here, otherwise, is a naked attempt to reserve for yourself a backdoor through which you can abscond by inserting your own judgment: "I asked for a detailed account. This isn't detailed enough."

Isn't that called the Behe Bitch?

"It just ain't detailed enough for me"

Date: 2009/04/28 07:47:06, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 27 2009,19:10)
Quote (JAM @ April 26 2009,21:54)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,17:59)

Please do.

1. acetohydroxy acid synthase (x 3 isozymes)
2. acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase
3. dihydroxy acid dehydratase
4. multiple transaminases that use both isoleucine and valine as substrates

Thank you JAM for that.  I've only just begun to look at these enzymes but I am immediately struck by the fact that we have not defined terms here.

How do you define "specific" in a biological sense?

One of the many dictionary definitions of "specific" is "Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose."  This is more in line with the meaning I have in mind.  It doesn't necessarily mean "exclusive", although those are related terms.  An enzyme becomes more specific as more substrates, reactions and products are excluded.   It also doesn't mean "unique".  Specificity is relative not absolute.  One of the abstracts I looked at has even defined a "specificity ratio" for the three isozymes you mentioned.

What "specific" means to me is the level to which an enzyme is ideally suited for the job it does.  If it is limited to one substrate and one product, then I'd call it "highly specific".  If it will accept a limited amount of substrates or produces a limited amount of products, it is just "specific".  If it will accept a wide range of substrates or will produce a wide range of products, it would be "non-specific".  

I don't see where the enzymes you cited are non-specific in that sense.  For instance the three isozymes of acetohydroxy acid synthase--as near as I can tell--are limited to two substrates and two products each, thus meeting my definition of "specific".  What's more, they complement each other, with one being more effective at producing acetolactate when pyruvate levels are low, thus enabling a bacterium to cope with poor carbon sources.  So they vary in their specificity for both product and substrate.

But all of this is moot if we don't agree on the definition of "specific".  So again JAM, how do you define "specific"?

Just go ahead and define it any way you want since you'll change the definition in a few posts.

Date: 2009/04/28 07:50:09, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 27 2009,19:10)
Quote (JAM @ April 26 2009,21:54)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,17:59)

Please do.

1. acetohydroxy acid synthase (x 3 isozymes)
2. acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase
3. dihydroxy acid dehydratase
4. multiple transaminases that use both isoleucine and valine as substrates

Thank you JAM for that.  I've only just begun to look at these enzymes but I am immediately struck by the fact that we have not defined terms here.

How do you define "specific" in a biological sense?

One of the many dictionary definitions of "specific" is "Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose."  This is more in line with the meaning I have in mind.  It doesn't necessarily mean "exclusive", although those are related terms.  An enzyme becomes more specific as more substrates, reactions and products are excluded.   It also doesn't mean "unique".  Specificity is relative not absolute.  One of the abstracts I looked at has even defined a "specificity ratio" for the three isozymes you mentioned.

What "specific" means to me is the level to which an enzyme is ideally suited for the job it does.  If it is limited to one substrate and one product, then I'd call it "highly specific".  If it will accept a limited amount of substrates or produces a limited amount of products, it is just "specific".  If it will accept a wide range of substrates or will produce a wide range of products, it would be "non-specific".  

I don't see where the enzymes you cited are non-specific in that sense.  For instance the three isozymes of acetohydroxy acid synthase--as near as I can tell--are limited to two substrates and two products each, thus meeting my definition of "specific".  What's more, they complement each other, with one being more effective at producing acetolactate when pyruvate levels are low, thus enabling a bacterium to cope with poor carbon sources.  So they vary in their specificity for both product and substrate.

But all of this is moot if we don't agree on the definition of "specific".  So again JAM, how do you define "specific"?

You say you were struck with a fact. I don't think you've ever got that close to one and if you did you could dodge it with ease.

Date: 2009/05/09 18:53:31, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (k.e.. @ May 08 2009,23:51)
Quote (Badger3k @ May 09 2009,06:54)
Quote (olegt @ May 08 2009,19:59)
StephenB reveals his proof of a personal Creator.  Enjoy.    
An impersonal law cannot be responsible for the universe or the laws that regulate it. It must be a personal creator.

1: Premise: For all impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed, none can begin in time.

2. Therefore: All effects that have always existed could not have begun to exist

3. Therefore: All impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed could not have begun in time.

4: Therefore, no effect can begin to exist if its impersonal, unchanging cause always was.

5: Therefore: No impersonal, unchanging cause can begin to exist if its effect always was.

6: Therefore, no impersonal, unchanging cause can exist without its effect.

7: Therefore, no effect can exist without its impersonal, unchanging cause.

8: Therefore, the impersonal, unchanging law cannot cause the universe to begin to exist.

9: The universe began to exist.

10: Therefore, a personal agent caused the universe to begin to exist.

I tried to work that out one at a time, but..... ;)

Seriously, I'm not the greatest in logical arguments - I'm still learning how to do it correctly, even if I can figure out most of the common creationist/theist arguments (even such stupidity such as used by Plantiga), but...WTF?

If nothing else, how does he switch from cause and effect to law?  Is this the common misunderstanding that laws do not cause anything, they merely describe what we have discovered?

It's all pure Catholic wank tautology.

In short wishful thinking, and tiring.

They have to redefine logic as ....god did it.

It's the "contingent being" argument from the Summa Thelogica restated in ID terms.

Date: 2009/05/09 18:55:00, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 09 2009,11:00)
You're all eager for criticising Intelligent Design (by making ad hominem attacks) and defending Darwinism. But who of you is a real scientist working in the field of biology?

No one? I thought so.

Do you always answer your own questions?

Thought so.

Date: 2009/05/09 18:57:07, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 09 2009,12:45)
Quote (k.e.. @ May 09 2009,12:38)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 09 2009,19:00)
You're all eager for criticising Intelligent Design (by making ad hominem attacks) and defending Darwinism. But who of you is a real scientist working in the field of biology?

No one? I thought so.

.....And your credentials Sir?

I think NR is Joe G, which would mean his credentials include a lab in the basement.

He's a lab rat?

I knew you had to pamper them but this seems excessive.

Date: 2009/05/10 01:39:49, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Louis @ May 08 2009,04:34)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 08 2009,07:59)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2009,04:20)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 07 2009,21:19)
and arden?

Violated his parole.

Although he said she was consenting...

Can a corpse ever be really said to have given it's consent?


Zombies!! is that what you are suggesting??

Undead love!!

Dead cats and dogs living together!!

The grave cannot hold
Zombies are released from the earth

Date: 2009/06/06 21:16:42, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ June 05 2009,17:24)
Reading his Bio makes me think that there are a lot of people sucking on the teat of anti-evolution. I wonder how long that this can last. The young'uns are rejecting this stuff (and can get it on the internet anyway) and I am sure that a lot of the true believers will start to realise that these books aren't saying anything new and will stop buying new ones.

You don't buy these books to read them but to show solidarity with the movement.

Date: 2009/06/06 21:28:55, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 06 2009,20:03)



8:49 pm
I’ll post my response soon, as I’d love to win that magazine subscription. I tried ordering one long ago and it never arrived; probably some problem with my mom’s credit card and their records.

Evidence of youth or basement dwelling? What is the design inference?

That he murdered his mother to steal her credit card 'cause he's an atheist, church burning, ebola boy Darwinista.

Do try to keep up with the latest in ID science.

Date: 2009/06/15 23:07:23, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Louis @ June 15 2009,08:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2009,12:58)
Bycicle repair man sighted!

Daniel Smith Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Your arguments are interesting, but neither side's position has anything to do with science. Your positions are based on belief - period.

It's all about our ability to supply a believable (to us) causal mechanism for the things we see. Each person mentally constructs a causal history that fits with his or her already established worldview.

For someone who already believes in God, the design of life is readily apparent. They have no trouble imagining a causal scenario in which God designs life.

For someone who does not believe in God, the possibility of producing life via natural causes is also readily apparent. They too have no trouble imagining a causal scenario in which life builds itself.

Science has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! Science is only used to bolster your claims.

Thus you will continue to argue in circles.

[Lion King]

It's the cirrrrrrrrrrrcle of liiiiiiiiiiiiiiife!

[/Lion King]

{Sniff, sniff}

Ain't it beautiful?


That would be "The circle jerk of life"

Date: 2009/07/02 22:18:06, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ July 02 2009,11:43)
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 02 2009,10:02)
Quote (olegt @ July 01 2009,19:41)
Clive: Math?  We don't need no stinkin' math!  
I’m just being consistent with the measurement. Anything that describes things on the bodily level is bound to separate into races if one wants to see it that way, even on a genetic level as Lewontin shows, which is why I prefer a qualitative measurement, like the soul endowed by their Creator, (which cannot be a quantitative measurement), to dispel the notion of race. Quantitative measurements won’t do it.

Words fail me.

Can someone ask Clive how one measures a soul.

It is measured in grams, of course.

It weighs as much as a duck.

Date: 2009/07/04 09:33:14, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 02 2009,23:56)
My goodness.

"" references Dave Scooter-Springer Scot on  Pascal's Wager. Read and be amazed by the depth of logic.

(1) One in 6 members of the NAS believe in "a God responsible for the creation of mankind"
(2) This is just like playing Russian Roulette with one bullet in a revolver
[I suspect "idnet" didn't really think about that one... "believing" = the one bullet that kills ya, horribly and possibly painfully? Sends you to heaven? That represents God? What? ....I mean, even for Dave Scooter Scot, that one was stupid.]
(3) This is just like Pascal's Wager, except he's offering up Pascal's with 4 choices, not 6

Even if the odds were a thousand or a million to one against getting a bullet in the head why play?

Dave Scott

Hey, stupid, the "one bullet" represents the one scientist that believes in a God. That would be the one bullet you think saves you, dumbfuck. It's the OTHER FIVE empty chambers (non-believers) that you think results in failure, destruction and damnation. Getting shot = good. Not getting shot would be bad, following the "example"

This is so fuckin' muddled and dumb as a "metaphor", it HAS to be from UD.

ETA: Is this from Scooter? Or is there *another* "DaveScott" that's equally dim?

OMG I read 66 comments and barely had enough mental acuity left to find the back button.

Arguing about god.

(the science of theology???)

Date: 2009/07/04 09:37:38, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 03 2009,02:38)
indeed the dolts at UD are picking on the wrong folks.  i say don't tell them.  dialectics elude them, as they are looking for the jesus particle and don't understand the interplay between emergence and explanation.  ID is all about an ontological claim and nothing more.  

wonder if we should just grant it:  OK tards, every fucking thing is designed.  Now what?  

and moments after that coffee break everyone would forget about ID and how many blagella can dance on the head of a pin.  what a pathetic bunch of losers UD is.  clivebaby is king of the shortbus.

He is both proctor and proctologist.

Date: 2009/07/09 01:28:46, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (keiths @ July 07 2009,14:44)
KF explains, in 856 words, why he can't be brief:
Jerry (And JT and Nakshima-San):

Pardon a few follow-up points.

[Socrates moans]

I appreciate the well-meant advice on in effect arguing based on synopses and executive summaries. I do note that the executives who ask for such generally have trusted admin assistants who are tasked to look into details and render a verdict. IN THE END, NO-ONE TRUSTS SYNOPSES, A FEW POWERPOINT SLIDES OR TWO-MINUTE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES TO PRESENT AN ADEQUATE VIEW OF A SERIOUS MATTER, though such may give at least a vague idea of what is going on.

At least, if they are wise.

[Socrates moans again]

(And, in their correct situations, I can and do produce such for documents that need them. However, I find that we now live in an age of sound-bites that despises substantial exposition and warranting of the objective truth on serious matters. But, from my youth in Jamaica where our nation tried to live on a diet of political slogans, I long ago learned that it is substance, not style that counts in the end. So, to the merits, to the merits, to the merits we must go . . . or we will end up doing the equivalent of wondering why water refuses to flow uphill as we desire or even expect.)

I have, unfortunately, found out from long experience that one faces a “heads I win, tails you lose” fallacy on this when dealing with those who insist on the pattern of argument by distraction, distortion, demonisation and dismissal that I have addressed above:

1 –> If a remark is short or simply points to a link, it will be dismissed or ignored a la Wilson’s cynical recommendation in The Arte of Rhetorique. (ESPECIALLY if the substance in the link is substantial and decisive; e.g. cf my remarks and citations on Weasel circa 1986. And, SB’s fate on using summaries.)

[Socrates begins whimpering]

2 –> If one instead brings up a fair but fairly brief degree of details, one faces argument by tangential distractions and distortions, requiring exact statements and detailed point by point responses (or anticipations); i.e. more details, but in a context that will often suggest that you did not really understand or think through what you had to say at he first. [Indeed, observe onlookers, how this exchange is on a tangent to the issue at stake, and how I am trying to pull it back into focus.]

3 –> In neither case (on long experience, ~ 4 years on ID topics for me) will one see on the part of Darwinian advocates a serious engagement on substantial facts and issues.

4 –> Indeed, the weak argument correctives and ID glossary above are for several months now, standing testimony to the need for a fairly substantial response: in EVERY case where a FAQ was put up for discussion, the issue came down to “needing” more — not less — details. (In the back-story discussions, a strong restraint on the length of the responses was that they should not be overly long, not overly numerous. The harshest critiques have come up on matters that were deliberately compressed for brevity.)

[Socrates gouges out his immaterial eyes]

5 –> So, it is rather like the story of the man, the boy and the donkey: whatever you do, someone will find fault with it. (And, far too often, not on substance but on style or distortions and distractions, frequently laced with ad hominems. [I trust BTW, that the above of earlier today will suffice to show that contrary to the one-sentence assertion cited above, I do know what an ad hominem is, and have used the term in ways that are fundamentally correct.])

6 –> So, I have concluded that it makes sense to simply bear with the sniping [which far too often becomes nastily personal, up to and including the sorts of vulgarities Mrs O'Leary has been subjected to], and present enough substance on select points that across time and topics, serious onlookers will be able to find out for themselves where the real balance on the merits is.

7 –> the alternative being to allow a determined agenda of distraction, distortion, demonisation ands dismissal to win by default, I have chosen to take time to provide a fair degree of substance on select threads, as I judge required, and to provide a more substantial presentation accessible by all. 9One hopes that at length, someone will actually follow up on the Weasel appendix to my always linked and let us know why I am confident that it is targetted search that cannot reflect cumulative selection by incremental improvement in function . . . instead of the cycle of studious ignoring of a linked discussion with evidence, and presentation of a caricature complete with the insinuation that I am afraid of the truth. [Those who actually know me will readily tell you that I have put my life -- not just my career -- on the line on matters of the momentous truth; so the grotesque insult that is implicit in above ill-informed, thoughtless and disrespectful remarks should be plain.])

[Socrates drinks some immaterial hemlock and dies a second time]


I trust that gives a little of why I am coming from where I am coming from.


KF, you dumbass, other people argue 100 times more effectively using 1/100 as many words as you do.  They don't answer every objection ahead of time.  They make their case succinctly, and then answer objections as they come up.


He is writing the Summa Tardalogica.

Date: 2009/07/10 08:08:40, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (didymos @ July 09 2009,15:58)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 09 2009,12:49)
My hypothesis was mushroom abuse, but I'm open to other suggestions...

Maybe UD has finally, and perhaps permanently, shattered his mind.

That's why I gave up the straight Tard long ago.

Date: 2009/07/10 08:36:16, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (keiths @ July 09 2009,16:41)
Casey Luskin and the forgiveness reflex:
In the end, I can cheerfully forgive Kevin Beck...

[To Tiana Dietz]:
I get called unjustified names all the time on the ‘net and so I made my peace with such people and such incidents long ago; so I’m not angry about this, and as I said in my prior e-mail to you, I forgive you.

[Second email to Tiana Dietz]:
Regardless of where you choose to go from here, I want you to know that I forgive you, I wish you the best in your life, and I also hope, for your own sakes that you can join the culture of civility and friendship that is very real and very vibrant.

In one single forum at, created and owned by a former National Center for Science Education staff member, I have been called no less than “Bizarre ignoramus,” “retarded,” “suck-up,” “Pathetic Loser,” “attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy,” “an orc,” “Annoying,” “a miserable loser with no life,” “an idiot,” “dishonest,” “ignorant cheap poxied floozie,” “fanatic and lunatic,” “A proven liar,” “incompetent,” and many other far more colorful attacks which are probably best left unprinted here on Evolution News and Views.

I don’t list this example to complain — I happily forgive those who have attacked me...

Dear all,

I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so.  In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.


Casey Luskin

But I forgive Wesley regardless of whether he does the right thing here, and I will continue to be nice to him in the future.

[To qdragon1337]:
I'm hanging up this phone right now 'cause you have made an illegal action against me and I appreciate your time. If this gets posted you should be aware that I, my understanding is that it is illegal to record a phone call without somebody's knowledge, or letting them know about that first, so I'm going to hang up this phone because you have done something illegal, hope you have a nice day, I have no ill will against you, and I forgive you for the illegal action that you have [unintelligible] today. Have a nice day.  Thank you very much. Bye.

Hey Casey,

It seems like you've forgiven everyone but me.  I feel left out.  You even forgave Wes and Tiana Dietz twice.  What do I have to do to be granted your forgiveness?  If I call you a sanctimonious douchebag, will you forgive me?  Oh, wait -- that would be true, so there would be no need for forgiveness.

Never mind.

He whines like a beaten dog. What do they do to him at the DI?

Date: 2009/07/15 12:55:22, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 15 2009,06:54)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 14 2009,23:36)
Quote (didymos @ July 14 2009,21:19)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 14 2009,10:15)
the nicholas.steno quote that brought that exchange

Information, while necessary immaterial, does have material consequence. For instance, when a living organism dies it loses a very small quantity of mass. This has been independently verified by multiple investigators, although establishment science dismisses this claim as measurement error or worse. Alternatively, we can see that in some instances information actually has a mass of negative quantity, such as an inscription on a stone tablet (the tablet, or medium receiving the information, actually has a lower mass once the information is imparted into its substance.

we should not be surprised to learn that information has empirical import. the information required to form a full grown human being is contained in a single sperm, yet the expression of this information in the fertilization of an embryo necessitates the loss of mass of the sperm, namely the tail!

apparently that flies over there.  what the fuck.  i want to get a new email just so i can stomp on that species of stupid but apparently clive,baby don't like me none.

Lamarck loved it:
Good point Nicholas, I’ve heard of this too. It’s probably the mind.

Kellogg, not so much:        
Are you serious? Life-force information is lost at the moment of death? Alternatively, information has negative mass?

Nor Seversky:        
Of course it loses mass. It loses heat as it cools. It loses water through evaporation. What is strange about that?

Diffaxial works out the implications:
I wonder when that mass enters the human body. At conception? The blastula stage? At birth? Does it grow proportionately throughout life? Or perhaps even more than proportionately, like our noses and ears?

If it occurs all at once during any of these earlier stages that should be observable too. Any mass sufficient to be measurable upon departing at death would dwarf early embryonic stages, instantly multiplying embryonic mass by thousands.

In fact, the entry of this mystery parcel all at once should be measurable simply by continuously weighing women in the hours subsequent to serious canoodling. It takes time for those wriggly little dudes to find their target, and I don’t think anyone posits the entry of this component prior to fertilization. Careful measurement of intake and output would be required, of course. Those women who later prove to be pregnant should have displayed an unaccountable increase in mass in those hours.

I thought that earlier they were arguing that information has now weight therefore god. Now they are saying information has weight therefore god??

Date: 2009/07/24 20:23:23, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 24 2009,14:22)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 24 2009,14:09)
can anyone provide any evidence that any other 'players' in this petty worldview war (constructed in Dembski's head) instruct their students to go out and troll creationist blogs?  

what a warped sombitch

We are doing that for shits and giggles and we could have gotten college credit for it?  What a gip.


You are hereby awarded the

Double Doctorate in Debunking

        and a

Phd in pissing people off

Send $500 in certification fees and you can out doctor the Dr. Dr. D.

(additional education available. See fee schedule.

Date: 2009/07/28 21:36:01, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 26 2009,19:01)
Quote (khan @ July 26 2009,18:53)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 26 2009,19:36)
Just chiming in here to note that the ID misunderstanding of simulation is of a piece with its misunderstanding of the laboratory.  Occasionally you'll hear that experimental work on, say, the evolution of viruses is implicitly ID because the work was done in a lab, i.e., by intelligent agents.  Same goes for OOL experiments: Joseph's endless cry for proof of "non-telic" processes means that anything done in a laboratory is automatically excluded.

Simulations and laboratories both simplify nature by controlling variables and simplifying the situation for the purpose of analysis.  In both cases, ID can dismiss uncomfortable results merely by reference to the artificiality of the experimental design.

Which is, of course, why they won't dirty themselves with actual lab work.

That and it's haaarrrd.

Not if you use rose colored vials.

Date: 2009/08/09 17:16:36, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 07 2009,08:40)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 07 2009,15:57)
I thought I remembered something about photoshopping, but I'll be darned if I can find it, or any reference to that on the net.

"That" refers to Photoshopping or fakery. I've spent a bit of time looking at at the photo and simply don't see any evidence the soldiers were multiplied. But that wasn't the issue anyway. The ACLU was the issue.

The Snopes article deals with the ACLU.










God omnipotent responsible for nothing.

Date: 2009/09/02 07:56:08, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 30 2009,13:47)
Quote (socle @ Aug. 30 2009,14:22)
Learned Hand destroys ID's "crime scene analogy":

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

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

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

lurve it.

Also Barry Airhead:



Barry Arrington


11:35 am

Dawkins has slipped badly here by inviting his readers to consider the crime scene analogy. That analogy plays right into the hands of ID. The police detective’s essential task it to detect the presence or absence of design.

Yeah, and they show up at the scene, look around for a second and say, "Yup, murder" and go to the pub and have a brew.

Oh wait, that's what they'd do if they were IDC cops, not actual cops. Actual cops would probably, y'know, look at the evidence in a bit more detail, base their conclusions on that evidence, and if the evidence supports the idea that there was in fact a murder, they'd then figure out how and by whom the murder occurred.

Y'know, all those things that cdesign proponentsists refuse to do.

IDCists are masters of shooting themselves in the dick with lousy analogies.

They shoot themselves in the foot with their dick?

Date: 2009/09/05 17:46:49, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,16:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.

I'll stop when they start thinking.

Date: 2009/09/05 19:36:08, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (khan @ Sep. 05 2009,17:48)
Quote (tsig @ Sep. 05 2009,18:46)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,16:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.

I'll stop when they start thinking.

Don't hold your breath.

Not turning blue at the moment.

Date: 2009/09/27 10:16:54, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:43)
Hey Floyd. Is the Pope Christian? Yes or No.

Yes.  He is.

So is Francis Collins, according to Collins book.

Both are good examples of Theistic Evolution, probably the best TE has got right now.

Neither One has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.  

The End.

You need to take your Five Incompatibles, wrap them firmly around the thick shaft of your belief then jerk vigorously.

After a while you will be ejaculating the prayer. OMG! OMG!

Date: 2009/09/27 10:20:47, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,11:36)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?

So, in other words, you're claiming that you know Christianity better than the Pope?

Why haven't you excommunicated the Pope yet, then?


Date: 2009/09/27 11:20:36, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,17:23)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,17:13)
THEN I will answer your questions.

In other words, you really haven't given much thought to specifically how evolution supposedly "embiggens" biblical Christianity.  You suggest it does, yeah yeah, but you've not critically thought it through at all.

You haven't yet worked through that claim for yourself, and you honestly haven't checked whatever it is you have in mind there against the Scriptural data, to make sure you've got actual Bible Compatibility and Consistency with which to support this new "embiggens" claim.

And therefore you're not yet able to tell me how this "evolution embiggens Christianity" claim is actually supposed to work.

(Especially in light of the Big Five Butcher Knives that evolution clearly continues to aim in the direction of biblical Christianity!)


So, you're not a man of your word, are you, Floyd?

He's a man of god's word. As spoken by Floyd.

Date: 2009/09/27 16:13:14, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 27 2009,10:38)
Quote (tsig @ Sep. 27 2009,10:20)
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,11:36)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?

So, in other words, you're claiming that you know Christianity better than the Pope?

Why haven't you excommunicated the Pope yet, then?


It's not a matter of overlapping magisteria, FL was brainwashed a long time ago to think that evolution was of the devil, and was taught to denounce it no matter what, even if it means lying, slandering, misrepresenting, or putting words into the mouths of other people, including the Pope and corpses.

Then there's the problem of how FL is a hypocrite, in that he thinks it's okay to denounce something and imply it's some sort of soul-eating monster, and yet, still think it's peachy keen to continue using any and all of its products.

I mean, even if we put aside the fact that Creationism, as a "science" is so barren so as to make the fig tree Jesus withered out of spite look like a cornucopia with a trunk, for FL to denounce evolution with his stupid, catty innuendo, and his idiotic points, and yet, not advocate the ban of its products is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

It's akin to a fire and brimstone rabbi who preaches and screeches at his flock about how even thinking of straying from kosher laws will turn one into a super-whore, complete with flashing neon genitals and exploding breasts, while, the rabbi, himself, spends most of his time screaming and shouting in restaurants about how the cook didn't put enough cheese on his lobster-stuffed pork chops.

The magesteria were Floyd's and the pope's.

Date: 2009/10/01 22:44:04, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 30 2009,06:36)
Denyse rambles
(= “God will just LOVE you if you blow yourself up in order to murder and maim others”? Yeah really. And if your parents think that is okay, please find a new set of parents. In all believable theistic traditions, only God chooses martyrs; it is NOT a matter for private judgment. Private judgement [sic] is too easily corrupted by local or personal issues.)

In unbelievable theistic traditions on the other hand...

How does Denyse know that God did not choose suicide bombers? Is that her private judgment?

We could pray that D'O become a martyr.

Wait I get it she is the suicide bomber of literary.

Date: 2009/10/01 22:58:39, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2009,23:27)
the rest of that UD thread is stellar.  what a concentration of stupid.  you get that much stupid in one place you should set it on fire.

You'd need nanothermite to burn that hot.

Date: 2009/10/16 10:37:00, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 15 2009,13:51)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,13:46)
Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions
Just keep in mind that arrows in flight require constant efforts by angels to maintain their motion.

Even in heaven, someone's got to clean the toilets and take out the garbage.

And all that crap that evangelicals just "absolutely know about what their heaven is like" gots to be flushed somewhere.

Probably why Satan is so pissed.  That shit runs downhill.

It's widely known that god's shit don't stink.

Date: 2009/10/16 11:23:45, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 15 2009,16:27)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 15 2009,13:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 16 2009,08:10)
I read through the thread you guys are talking about and the saddest thing jumped out at me:

"tragic mishap
5:34 pm
Of course, I’m willing to accept an old age and common descent and all that for purposes of conversation, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, I’m betting on Genesis."

The Bible thumpers have people so scared of going to hell that they disbelieve what they know is correct in the hopes that they will go to heaven.

At least that's what I get out of this guys post.

Yes, don't they just love a chance to exit from reality and bathe in bibleness? I liked tm's contribution where he jumps in abandoning all reason:
As a YEC, I never really believed the only reason or even the biggest reason for that view is to preserve this classical theology. In fact, I can’t really recall that ever entering my thinking. Others might think that way, but I assure you I do not. My own reason is quite simply that when asking a historical question, the oldest accounts are quite literally the closest to the truth. It seems rather arrogant to me to trust the modern interpretations of the evidence rather than to trust the accounts of people who were much closer to the actual events than we were. Especially considering the ridiculous level of error in modern science in relation to truth in the absolute sense.

I'm having a bit of trouble here - on one level tragey is right - the value of eyewitness accounts and all that, but is he really telling us that the further in time we move from an event, the wronger about it we become?

The last sentence "Especially considering the ridiculous level of error in modern science in relation to truth in the absolute sense."  magnifies the strangeness.  In the context of what precedes it, he seems to be implying that science is getting further and further away from reality as time goes by.  Flat earth > Ptolemy > Copernicus > Newton > Einstein.  After all, the Babylonians were closer to the beginning of the universe than we are.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to stop doing science.  We're getting wronger and wronger.

I told the Wright Brothers it wouldn't work.

Date: 2009/10/18 11:49:19, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 17 2009,06:40)
What amuses me is that you probably took a great deal of time to write that bit of fluff, Floyd. All the while imagining you were tapping into your profound literary skills, right?

If you're to pretend the power to compel people via purple prose and your shattered-brain visions of a mythic hell, you really should take some lessons in writing.

Oh, and by the way, it's "todos LOS dias." -- "Dia" takes the masculine,  much as "mano" non-intuitively takes the feminine.

Floyd babbled:
"Sure, I promised Deadman that I wouldn't do any witnessing.  Screw that.  Shouldn't have brought up that painting."

Yep, you break your word at the drop of a hat. There's no reason you shouldn't break each "promise" you made towards my stipulations, Floyd. This last one finishes off the lot.

You have the moral and ethical fiber of a typical con-artist, Floyd. If you weren't born into a Christian culture, it's my contention that you would bow and scrape before whatever God or Gods you could find. It's not even about faith for you, floyd ; it's about your ego and a desire to compensate for your shortcomings by this con-artist grasp at power.

Of course he broke his promise. He's only following the example of his god.

God's lies litter the bible. He told the Jews he'd help them out and then did some righteous smiting in their behalf til he came up onto iron chariots then it was " ok boys your own your own with this one"

God's elected seem to come up holding the bag a lot.


Floyd, was Moses an eyewitness to the Creation?

Was he there personally?

Date: 2009/10/18 12:52:58, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 17 2009,18:32)
If we know the universe consists of N<inf objects, and we don't know what proportion of those objects are ravens, then it is true that observing a yellow banana is evidence supporting the proposition that all ravens are black. However, if we know the proportion of objects in the universe that are ravens, then observing a yellow banana is not evidence. But since we are unlikely to know the proportion of ravens, it's reasonable to accept that a yellow banana adds evidence to the black raven hypothesis. Of course, if N is large - and it is very large - observing a yellow banana has almost no effect at all on our posterior (O(1/N))

Finding a banana is proof Ray Comfort is in the area.

Date: 2009/10/18 12:58:15, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 18 2009,10:17)

There seems to be a bit of sleight of hand in the Ravens/Marbles example to which intuition also objects, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on same. (I'm thinking aloud).

Consider the marbles. In your example you drew a marble from the truck and found that it was a non-cracked red marble. That supplied incremental evidence for the proposition that all blue marbles are cracked because there is now one less opportunity for disconfirmation of the cracked-blue hypothesis.

However, suppose you draw more red marbles and some are cracked. Each draw of a cracked red marble also reduces by one the number of opportunities for disconfirming the cracked-blue hypothesis. Therefore it seems to me that information regarding the crackedness or red marbles (or the yellowness of bananas) is entirely superfluous - drawing any red marble will do, cracked or not, and we needn't observe whether is is cracked.

Knowing that any draw of a red marble (cracked or not) increases the probability that our cracked-blue hypothesis is correct to an equal degree, and having time to kill, we proceed to draw only red marbles. Per above, we needn't observe whether they are cracked. We simply remove them and discard. With every removal our excitement grows, as with each (per the logic above) it is becoming more likely that all blue marbles are cracked. Ultimately we are left with an unknown quantity of blue marbles, only. We can't be sure every blue marble is cracked, but the probability of same has incrementally increased, because the number of possible disconfirming observations is reduced.

Something is obviously wrong with the above. Having removed all red marbles from the truck we are no closer to knowing whether all blue marbles are cracked than before we started. What has happened (still thinking aloud) is that when we are able to select marbles on the basis of color, a deliberate draw of a red marble is not observation with relevance to the cracked-blue hypothesis, and therefore does not reduce the pool of such possible observations by one. A given draw is in the pool of observations relevant to that hypothesis - one that could possibly disconfirm the cracked-blue hypothesis - only so long as the we draw marbles blindfolded. Similarly, vis ravens and non-ravens, a given observation of an object remains in the the class of observations that are potentially relevant to the black-raven hypothesis (therefore, upon making it, reducing the pool of observations by one) only so long as we remain ignorant of whether or not the object is a raven prior to making the observation. But, at least vis bananas versus ravens, that level of ignorance is implausible.

What am I missing?

Your marbles?/

(it had to be said)

ETA: and I see it was...with pictures:p

Date: 2009/10/20 21:15:40, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 18 2009,18:37)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 18 2009,15:42)
It's the Cheetohs laced with Frolic Acid and MSG...

Back in the day we just called it "acid." Back in the day.

If you can remember the you weren't there "in the day"

Date: 2009/10/20 21:23:30, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Oct. 19 2009,00:31)
The dissertation is nearing completion, thank god. Hopefully just another few months, and I'll be the proud (and probably unemployed) holder of a doctoral degree.

Well let me be the first to tell you:

Yes I'll have fries with that.

Date: 2009/10/20 21:43:59, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 20 2009,10:44)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 18 2009,20:26)

4) *New entry* KIEFS.

DvK - You want on this list?

I know what you're thinking. "Can he count to six or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as I'm an autodictater Polymaths, the most powerful force in teh universe (except for gravity), and would blow your mind clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

If you'll blow my mind softly with those pouty lips who can resist.

Date: 2009/11/10 03:53:36, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 09 2009,15:25)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,14:45)
  Sure, but they have to want the help before it would actually help them.

Good point.  I suppose we could try waterboarding them; they seem to be fond of that...?

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 09 2009,14:45)
Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 09 2009,14:39)
I'm still trying to get in contact with W. Dembski:

Try offering him $20,000.

And if that doesn't work, try offering him $2,000.  Dembski's not too good with math.

I hear a bottle of Scotch will motivate him.

Date: 2009/11/12 05:41:59, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 10 2009,20:29)
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 10 2009,19:34)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 10 2009,20:26)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 10 2009,20:15)
Quote (REC @ Nov. 10 2009,14:12)
Is "sorting laundry" a strange Canadian euphemism?

And how does one "have problems" doing it?

She must have intended "snorting laundry." That's always a problem.

ahhh, not necessarily...i've inhaled the fragrance from several pairs of pa....

never mind.

I hope they were not Ms O'Leary's....

Gak  - I just threw up in my mouth!  On top of a head cold!  Damn you people....why did I come here?

She doesn't wear panties.

Date: 2009/11/21 19:52:51, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 20 2009,14:13)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 20 2009,14:03)

Some interesting physics going on in the comments over there
Just as the turkey deteriorates into a carcass on the Christmas tables the earth is a part of the deteriorating universe. The sun, the DNA, and the other raw materials are deteriorating, and will succumb to the second law – the law of sin and death.

I quite like "the law of sin and death". That could spice up physics lectures a bit.

"Today, I'll be introducing the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is a bit like... <dramatic pause>... the law of sin and death!"

On the other hand, now that the imminent decline of evolution has been explained in turkey carcass form it's all much clearer to me.

Dead turkeys and ID have much in common.

Date: 2009/12/06 15:29:19, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,19:05)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate you bringing that up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws

For example, we observe people building homes, cars, etc. using natural laws to create new things. People are separate or apart from the material their working on (transcendent), utilizing the laws of nature. So it seems to me that it is possible for this being/s to operate within the realm of regular discoverable rules.

So you're god is just a human with a bigger tool chest.

Date: 2009/12/06 15:36:34, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 06 2009,07:32)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

Your god seems a mite insane.

I prefer The Great Apis Bull

Date: 2009/12/06 15:41:20, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.

Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

Date: 2009/12/08 13:45:16, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 05 2009,10:02)
Joseph got caught by Nakashima and conveniently gets health problems:  

I will look for the reference today.

I just had another knee surgery yesterday morning.

However I do remeber that it was something Jonathan Wells wrote so while I am laying back I will peruse my literature and see what I can find…

Of course I wish him speedy recovery, he might be a nice person apart from his ID speen.

The dog always eats the homework.

Date: 2009/12/09 18:44:36, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Reg @ Dec. 08 2009,18:16)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 08 2009,17:44)
Quote (Reg @ Dec. 08 2009,18:39)
Frosty gets insightful about global warming:
— and finally you have the sleazy dishonorable CAPITALISTS- very often overlooked- who are floating all of these pseudo businesses hoping for Stalinist style AGW legislation to be forced down the people’s throats in an unconstitutional fashion- so that they can scheme their way to fortunes hand over first.

Because capitalists just love stalinism! Never mind that I thought AGW legislation was supposed to be some kind of plot to crush capitalism and free enterpise, now it's morphed into a plot by capitalists themselves. In which case, if capitalists are pushing for it, it must be good for business. Bring it on.

A conspiracy of Stalinists & Capitalists?

Without getting into various conspiracies, I shall just say that I have been a gardener & bird watcher for 30+ years. I & my compatriots can tell you something is amiss.

A conspiracy of Stalinists & Capitalists & bird watchers. The evil just gets deeper...

My wife watches birds even I watch birds. If I'm in a conspiracy I want to know about it. But Wait..

Date: 2009/12/09 19:10:39, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Raevmo @ Dec. 09 2009,15:03)
What's a pH.D. thesis? A thesis about the pH of Deuterium?

Hahaha! Gotcha! Seriously though, what a piece of crap. How is it even possible to get a PhD degree with that?

<eurosnob>Only in America!</eurosnob>

He keeps referring to it as a book. Of course if the Bible is god's word his writing is blasphemy.

Date: 2009/12/15 02:21:11, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 12 2009,10:55)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 12 2009,10:38)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2009,09:41)
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 12 2009,10:25)
Quote (Freddie @ Dec. 12 2009,09:12)
KF Sighting!  With the obligatory, but somewhat strangely worded PS ...
8:43 am

PS: Been busy off-line and elsewhere, to those who inquired. (Some of it for not so happy reasons.) Cooking up some evil stuff. (have a look here at the functionally specific complexity of cellular metabolic reactions as a system. Compare to say the chemical reaction flows pathway of a petrochemicals plant. Then factor in our favourite 1,000 bit threshold and see where that gets ya.

But how would that compare to, say, an FBI plant? :p He's back! Good ole KF is back! :) (I hope his not happy was not too not happy.)

I wonder who bonded him out?

I'm imagining he was getting surgery to correct a congenital cranio-rectal inversion...

Want to bet that the surgery failed?

his head was too big to be removed so they cut it off and left it in place. Oddly no one has noticed.

Date: 2009/12/20 16:30:07, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 16 2009,22:37)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 16 2009,21:59)
what's that?

John Kwok | November 16, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply
Not that I trust Wikipedia completely, but I looked up the entry for the Entrada Sandstone and found out that this particular rock formation consisted of tidal flats and sand dunes, presumably at the edge of a desert, sometime late in the Jurassic Period of the Mesozoic Era (Won’t give exact dates, you’ll have to look for that elsewhere.).

Haven’t been out that way in years, but I do regret that the photographer didn’t wait until sunset to photograph it, since I think the lighting would have been far more dramatic (Making the red sandstone look vividly red, perhaps as vivid as some of the desert wastes on the Planet Vulcan. Doesn’t quite look to me though that it could be the Guardian of Forever, however.).

THAT is an asshole, talking to the wall.  WTF cares

Sounds like he has a good eye for photography.  I'll bet PZ is kicking himself now that he didn't get Kwok that camera.

I also have to admit being a little jealous. I've never been to Vulcan. Furthest from home I have ever been was Budapest.

He never went to Vulcan just to high school with Spock.

Date: 2010/01/06 00:45:59, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 04 2010,23:22)
Don't know about larger gaps, but there sure are a lot more of 'em. Perhaps god loves them as much as beetles.

God loves him some gaps, after all without gaps where would god be.

Date: 2010/01/06 01:07:50, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 05 2010,15:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 05 2010,13:55)
Has Dembski managed to leave 'comments open' on any of his recent posts? Because he's all for controversy and against censorship...

He's probably seen how well it works for Corny, who is getting his butt handed to him by several posters.

Just a few more days before the semester starts and I go back on the tard wagon.  Thank goodness -- you know you have a problem when you follow links from UD in search of more.

I had to quit doing that some time ago. I'd follow a link and within one sentence my mind would degrade to the point I couldn't find the way out and I would suddenly find myself at the end of the comments staring at the screen with glazed eyes and drooling.

The cost of keyboards alone was prohibitive.

Date: 2010/01/06 01:24:58, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 06 2010,00:38)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 06 2010,00:47)
I thought Lenny went to work for Domino's.

My bad.

He cheesed them off and they panned him.

I thought he got into a dick waving contest with his boss and she fired him.

Date: 2010/01/09 19:44:33, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 09 2010,00:06)
Quote (Reed @ Jan. 08 2010,23:03)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 08 2010,14:56)
From Josh at SciBlogs - Bill Dembski Friday Meltdown!

Dembski Kisses Jesus Out Loud

Oh that is gold. So is this bit from the review:
That Patterson has tolerated [Dembskis] views while terminating the employment of another prof who believed in “speaking in tongues” is the source of my puzzlement.

Hold on, that might explain a thing or two about UD... Are we sure Dr Dr D isn't speaking in tongues ? I don't doubt O'Leary writes in them!

Remember a few decades ago when the ultra-right wingers like Patterson took over the Southern Baptist seminaries and fired everybody to the left of the Ku Klux Klan?  If this tardgasm blows up into another right wing Baptist witch hunt and Dembski gets Expelled from Southwest Bible and Barbeque for being too liberal, I am going to seriously laugh my ass off.  I mean rolling on the floor, holding my sides, tears coming out of my eyes, laughing so hard I can't stand up, straining to draw a fresh breath of air style laughing my ass off.

Thank God It's Friday!!1!11!!

I wonder how Pres Patterson of the SW Bible and Barbecue School would react to a rain of email complaining about Billy's orthodoxy? Hummmmmm

Date: 2010/01/11 08:00:03, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 10 2010,20:30)
Dodgenator 3000 back in action:  

StephenB: “Gil, I don’t know how you do it, but you really know how to set the stage…”
I was once a Richard Dawkins clone — a mindless, materialist atheist who hated the God I was sure did not exist. I am certainly not proud of this, and make no apologies for my ignorance and the harm to others I surely caused as a result of my idiocy. I was once a Saul of Tarsus.
Needless to say, that changed in a rather dramatic way, once reason convinced me that materialist arguments represented a Himalayan pile of BS concerning everything that matters. Everything I believed was wrong, except for the utterly trivial that matters not in the grand scheme of things.

You’ll note the extreme vilification to which I’ve been subjected, and the number of comments that follow my posts at UD.

I raise the ire and fuel the passion of my former materialist, atheist brethren. I am a heretic of the worst kind, having not only abandoned, but attacked the Church of Darwin, with which I was not only formerly associated, but in which I was a fervent evangelist.
I was warned about the consequences of this heresy by You Know Who, and I’m prepared to suffer it.

Argument E2.  Note the bolded above: it's so cute that Gildo reads all our dedicated vilification.  Hi Gil!

Martyrdom comes awfully cheap nowadays.

No blood need be spilled just some bad words from unnamed posters on the internet and you got your crown.

Date: 2010/01/11 08:02:10, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 10 2010,20:30)
Dodgenator 3000 back in action:  

StephenB: “Gil, I don’t know how you do it, but you really know how to set the stage…”
I was once a Richard Dawkins clone — a mindless, materialist atheist who hated the God I was sure did not exist. I am certainly not proud of this, and make no apologies for my ignorance and the harm to others I surely caused as a result of my idiocy. I was once a Saul of Tarsus.
Needless to say, that changed in a rather dramatic way, once reason convinced me that materialist arguments represented a Himalayan pile of BS concerning everything that matters. Everything I believed was wrong, except for the utterly trivial that matters not in the grand scheme of things.

You’ll note the extreme vilification to which I’ve been subjected, and the number of comments that follow my posts at UD.

I raise the ire and fuel the passion of my former materialist, atheist brethren. I am a heretic of the worst kind, having not only abandoned, but attacked the Church of Darwin, with which I was not only formerly associated, but in which I was a fervent evangelist.
I was warned about the consequences of this heresy by You Know Who, and I’m prepared to suffer it.

Argument E2.  Note the bolded above: it's so cute that Gildo reads all our dedicated vilification.  Hi Gil!

But wait!

If you're an atheist and you're hatin' on god then you not really and atheist.

Date: 2010/01/14 15:05:15, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 13 2010,16:32)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2010,14:45)
Go have a look.

Excellent Catch and Link!

Load of fun to be had there!  to give you a small sample, here's a quote from the website on an upcoming important meeting: (My bolding, in case any IDCists want to sign up)
Frontiers in Creation Research
Pittsburgh, August 7-8, 2008. The 2008 meeting of the BSG will be held in conjunction with the Creation Geology Group at the Radisson Greentree in Pittsburgh.

I also looked at the titles of the papers from the site:

Another actual sample - I swear I am NOT making this up -    
The Serpent in Genesis 3:15 is a Snake

oldman - How in the name of The Holy Designer did you dig this up?

I love this part:

"Evil is not invading
on the back of one greater than humans, but rather a
subordinate snake of the creation is choosing evil in
rebellion against humans, the miniature sovereign.
That is, there is no pre-existing evil, rather free-will
snake choice to rebel becomes evil in the choice to
rebel. So the humans and a snake choose to rebel in
the same event, and God places them under the oracle
of curse in response to their rebellious free choice."

Snakes have free will.  

I could have told him that. tsig=talking snake in the grass.

Date: 2010/01/14 15:28:40, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (khan @ Jan. 14 2010,15:12)
Quote (tsig @ Jan. 14 2010,16:05)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 13 2010,16:32)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2010,14:45)
Go have a look.

Excellent Catch and Link!

Load of fun to be had there!  to give you a small sample, here's a quote from the website on an upcoming important meeting: (My bolding, in case any IDCists want to sign up)
Frontiers in Creation Research
Pittsburgh, August 7-8, 2008. The 2008 meeting of the BSG will be held in conjunction with the Creation Geology Group at the Radisson Greentree in Pittsburgh.

I also looked at the titles of the papers from the site:

Another actual sample - I swear I am NOT making this up -      
The Serpent in Genesis 3:15 is a Snake

oldman - How in the name of The Holy Designer did you dig this up?

I love this part:

"Evil is not invading
on the back of one greater than humans, but rather a
subordinate snake of the creation is choosing evil in
rebellion against humans, the miniature sovereign.
That is, there is no pre-existing evil, rather free-will
snake choice to rebel becomes evil in the choice to
rebel. So the humans and a snake choose to rebel in
the same event, and God places them under the oracle
of curse in response to their rebellious free choice."

Snakes have free will.  

I could have told him that. tsig=snake in the grass.

TARD beyond all dreams of avarice.

All science all the time.

You can almost chose a paragraph at random and hit a rich vein of pure biblically proofed tard.


Date: 2010/01/18 19:33:13, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 18 2010,12:26)
Clive Hayden: I don’t care for sock puppets, and I don’t care for the martyrdom of sock puppets who continually merit banning. I’ve noticed a tendency to this behavior, mostly by folks from that absurd “after the bar closes” site, so push the envelope, sometimes subtly, all the while expecting great accolades from their cleverness with their dull cohorts at that other site, and then cry “unfairness” when they are no longer allowed to be mocking here. I have no respect for this very strange, and quite honestly cowardly, behavior. They’re like bad seed children, who intentionally cause mischief and then cry when they’re punished, as if to say “Why did you punish me, you know I’m only a child” and then play the victim role. I’ve seen it over and over.

Uncommon Descent refuses to allow an open discussion and is inequitable in its treatment of critics. Clive Hayden, you are free to ban anyone you want, but please don't pretend that your actions are justified somehow.

That's like a gauntlet thrown down. He should beware of all new posters.

Date: 2010/01/23 05:30:55, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 22 2010,19:20)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 22 2010,12:01)
Quote (AdmiralAckbar @ Jan. 22 2010,08:36)
What is the obsession of Chopra-types and fundamentalists with string theory?  God, universal consciousness, fairies and unicorns hiding out in extra dimensions?  Last refuge of those looking for them?  And the crazy irony is the blind acceptance of string theory as proven fact in the same breath where they dispute evolution.

1.  It's sciency.
2.  It's difficult to understand.
3.  Most people have heard of it, without knowing much about it other than (1) and (2).
4.  Unless there are any scientists in the congregation, it can be dropped into a stream of tard and used as evidence for just about anything you like.  You'll sound really clever.
5.  Therefore Jesus.

See also: relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes, dark matter...

edit - I know you referred to string theory first, but I've seen more quantum woo than anything else, thus my post.

Don't forget that you can use it in any situation.  Consciousness - It's Quantum.

Free Will - Quantum!

Mechanism for Design - Quantum!

Creation from Nothing - Quantum!  (ok, so this one may be true for some particles, if I understand the theory correctly - or has this been observed?)

God Communicating to people - Quantum!

Virgin Birth - Quantum!

See - the word Quantum (which koalas hate, IIRC  :p ) can spice up any hypothesis you like, and works great in soda and casseroles.  I do wonder what people think of when they hear Quantum, since it refers to really tiny things.  Calling a man "quantum dick" is like calling some "built like a gorilla."  Does this mean Quantum Gods are really, really, really tiny?  That might explain a lot  ;)

The have to be tiny to fit in the tiny gaps.

Date: 2010/02/12 01:45:22, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 09 2010,18:52)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 05 2010,20:08)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 05 2010,02:56)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2010,19:21)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.

It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.

Hard to say given that wolves are pack animals and thylacines were as well. We do not really see a good range of thylacine behavior, rather we see the same pacing behavior displayed by a lot of animals kept in captivity without the benefit of enrichment. In the video we only see one thylacine so we can't tell whether it related to its fellow thylacines in the same way wolves related to each other. Interesting that in the close up of the face the thylacine it looks more like a kangaroo face than a wolf face. Also interesting is the way the tail was held mostly horizontal and only occasionally bent down and never curled over the back. Not a very wolf-like way to carry a tail. One suspects that there might almost be structural reasons for it. At any rate, it didn't look terribly wolf-like to me and the more I watched it the less wolf-like it became.

Well I leave it to the public to vote on whether this cute marsupial wolf looks like a wolf or a kangaroo (face).
In fact its head is so dog like it alone makes my case.
Its tail is different and it could use it for better unright action. So could a marsupial cat. Yet its either a adaptation from some original type of tail upon immigration or a general need to have this.

Its not the pacing but its sitting, scratching, chewing and general doggy actions that should say to the observation that this is very likely another dog. Its a prompt to the conscience.
Then ones thinking can deal with the differences.

Remember convergent evolution demands great mutation/selection on these creatures in order to make it look like a dog.
So you must accept evolution itself is saying its not a superficial result.
Its a resulf from profound influences.
I say the minor differences are just from influence.
The same with the rest.

Yes, lets vote. Here is a picture of a thylacine - it's actually a still from the movie:

and here are two wolves in a similar view:

Other than some basic, primitive ancestral traits I'm not seeing much in the way of similarity here.

Apparently, thylacines also hopped on two legs occasionally - I don't think wolves do that, but I coulded be wrong.

AMEN. Let the world vote.
My vote is that these are pictures of the same dog type. The marsupial one looks like any number of breeds of present domestic dogs.
Not kangaroos. They didn't hop but do have a greater ability to use their tail to be upright. Actually so did the marsupial cat.
This is a minor useful point.
There is a cat called the fishing cat (indonesia I think) that otherwise looks like a cat but has a tail with a more solid structure in orde to aid in snatching fish ut of the water. Tails are very adaptable and not reflective of heritage.

A bigger picture. Imagine being in a area where you have these marsupial wolves, lions, tapirs, bears, moles, mice and so on.
Would one not simply say these are the same creatures as everywhere else on earth with a few details of common in difference?
Would one otherwise suspect they are from a common non descript marsupial rodent-ish creature and by the wonder of convergent evolution just came to look like other creatures elsewhere on earth?

I insist that these old classification systems were just plain wrong and unnessessary and even counter intutive.
I say this can be brought to bear on all kinds of ideas in classification.
I don't think dinosaurs exist as different orders of creatures but are simply creatures with like details for like needs. perhaps , not sure, a rhino and a triceratops are of the same kind. A triceratops is not more related to a t-rex.
ILikewise birds are not dinos but simply have like structures for like needs.
How one groups creatures is just in need of serious revision. so a biblical creationist must be the first to do it.

Robert I just looked at my arm and saw I have hair on it then I realized i have two lungs, two eyes, a central brain and a mouth and anus.

OMG I"m a wolf!!!

Here's the silver bullet shoot me before sundown

Date: 2010/02/13 19:53:39, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 12 2010,10:21)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 12 2010,02:23)
Here's some "ID-related research":Fabricated Quote Used to Discredit Climate Scientist from The Independent newspaper.

In fact, the earliest record of the quote comes not from 15 years ago but from November 2006 when it appeared in a newspaper column written by the journalist Piers Akerman in the Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph. Akerman, a controversial right-wing columnist and global warming sceptic, appears to be the first person to use the quote verbatim in an opinion piece criticising the Stern Review, which looked at the economic effects of global warming.

"This alarmist approach reeked of stupidity, snake oil, and misguided gospel preaching but was in line with a formula adopted by the first chairman of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton, who produced the IPCC's first three reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 and wrote in his book Global Warming, The Complete Briefing, in 1994: 'Unless we announce disasters no one will listen'," Mr Akerman said. (snip)

That's how ID does it's research too.  One person tells a lie and the whole ID Noise Machine repeats it over and over and over again.  Nobody bothers to check to see if the quote is real because that smells too much like "peer review" or something else that the atheists do.

FOUR YEARS and no-one checked to see if this quotation was actually in the book?


Facts are for small minds. IDers are contemplating the very mind of (god) the designer.

Hubris, it isn't just a word in the dictionary.

Date: 2010/02/15 15:30:47, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
In your discussion with me, your unsupported notions (not exactly "ideas") about dissent re evolution within the scientific community were the issue. I frankly don't care about your experience in 8th grade science.

Fine. No, those weren't your issues. To your issues, I personally recognize that the current bruhaha in biology about whatever is going to be the 'new' version of evolutionary theory will of course work itself out eventually according to the evidence. No matter how nasty the in-house debates get. That's how science works, and how paradigms change in science (the point of my textbook anecdote).

I also recognize with no reservations that biology isn't ever going to endorse any theological version of creation. That anybody believes it should is, IMO, just another symptom of the incredibly lousy state of education in Amerika as well as just another front in the inane "Culture War" that has spawned such ridiculous spectacles as those crazy Teabaggers who demand that the government keep its hands off their Medicare. Geez, it looks like all the "dumbing down" worked better than anybody dreamed!

Given the dismal state of education and marginal intelligence of the broad public science would dearly love to control (on policy levels), of course it's been way too easy to steer them toward believing that science should confirm their particular religious beliefs. Hence the Culture War. Deal is, those religious beliefs (of literalist Bibolators) actually aren't as common as you may have been led to believe by your fellow warriors. About all of the mainstream and orthodox religious denominations in this country have no problems at all with evolutionary theory. Why, even the Pope recognizes that all the metaphysical "extras" are metaphysical, and metaphysics isn't science's job. But for the Bibolators out there, you're never going to make a dent. It's foolish to try (and I'm a professional fool, so I know a little about foolishness).

You can't win this Culture War with mean-spirited Evangelical Atheism. You can't win it by insulting everybody's intelligence when it's just a percentage of the >50% who qualify as hopeless. Even that >50% outnumber you by a large margin, and they're both armed and mean as hell because they feel threatened. [Yeah, they ARE threatened by reality, but that's a lesser consideration IMO, given reality.]

I don't know if you've heard about the shooting at UAH yesterday, but things are weird all over these days and scientists aren't exempt. All the way to desperation for way too many people, and we have no idea how many people who have lost their homes, their jobs, their last hope are committing murders out there in the broad nation. I am of the considered opinion (take it FWIW) that we stand on the razor's edge right now. The quest could fail, most spectacularly. And history demonstrates that a dark age could ensue if it all falls apart. Science will be the #1 victim of that, and it would be a terrible shame. I'd like to do what little I might be able to do to prevent it. So here I am, in the belly of the beast (so to speak).

Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think.

Worst case scenario - a new 'dark age' might be the only way humanity can survive. God! I'd sure hate that to be true!!!

I've got more, of course. Maybe this is a good start on issues you may want to discuss?

You say:

"Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power."

What is the Power? Satan?

Amoral servant? You got your Bible crossed with your science book.

Date: 2010/02/15 15:34:46, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 13 2010,18:11)
Hi Kahn,

Quote (khan @ Feb. 13 2010,17:55)
You can't win this Culture War with mean-spirited Evangelical Atheism.

WTF are you talking about?

Reality is not evangelical.

Please, excuse me for butting in but I think I can address this.

While I am technically an agnostic, most people would classify as an Atheist.

I have even been very vocal about how the "under God" phrase in the pledge of allegiance is an obvious and egregious abridgement of the constitution.

However, I also ascribe to NOMA principles.  And beyond that, I hold that no one gets to claim the Truth for all.

To me, science is about knowledge, not truth.

When Atheists argue against NOMA and attempt to interfere with parents teaching their children their Truth, then it becomes evangelical, IMO.

"I hold that no one gets to claim the Truth for all."

Except parents

"When Atheists argue against NOMA and attempt to interfere with parents teaching their children their Truth"

Date: 2010/02/15 15:45:42, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 14 2010,10:24)
We also boast another top ranking... teenage pregnancies.

Just say No isn't working out that good.

Should have thought the girls track and field.

Date: 2010/02/15 15:57:45, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,10:57)
So may we assume that you would be happy if more time were devoted to the details of evolutionary theory in high school, rather than less? Perhaps schools should require two years of biology for graduation rather than one.

I'd like required instruction in evolutionary theory to include more than RM-NS plus endosymbiosis (which is usually tacked onto instruction of cell basics instead of evolutionary theory). I'd like the textbooks to all be as good as my grandson's was. Though he knew more about evolution than was included there years before he hit high school - could rattle off full names and prior/future evolutionary linkage details of obscure dinosaur species without hesitation by the time he started kindergarten.

Advanced biology - where instruction about evolutionary theory was confined - was an elective when I was in high school, as were chemistry, physics and higher mathematics. Designed for students on an academic science track and headed to college. I'm glad it's now required as part of basic biology for all, but because it's required for all it's naturally going to have to be very, very basic ('dumbed down'). Still, it should be open-ended and include more than RM-NS even if the more isn't on the test.

Truth is that a majority of high school students don't go to college, another significant percentage attend community colleges for trade-based instruction and A.A./A.S. credentials. In chronically economically 'challenged' regions like southern Appalachia, 4-year and professional degrees are even rarer. Another harsh truth is (as I previously mentioned) the basic intelligence level of the student body anywhere. 'Average' IQ is 100. Meaning that half of students fall below that level. This explains why instruction in the 'hard' subjects is dumbed down to such a serious extent. It's simply not fair or acceptable to deny your basic high school diploma - a minimal credential - to a student who has put in 12 years and managed an average level of competency across the board, just because they aren't capable of mastering the 'hard' subjects. If public education did that to 50% or more of the nation's children there would be serious sociopolitical ramifications.

Try to bear in mind that only about 2% - 2.5% of the population are classified as 'scientists' - the higher figure includes engineers but excludes large portions of the medical establishment. People who are accountants, business workers, salespeople, caterers, waiters, artists, construction and factory workers, etc., etc., etc. are productive members of society for whom the details about science (any field) simply don't matter much beyond whatever product spin-offs come their way.

A good deal of primary school instruction goes in one ear and out the other the moment the test is over. Someone would have to care and be paying attention to keep up with everything that matters to someone out there. When I was in primary school the political maps (several courses through the years) excluded all the Soviet republics. Just a big swath of red across a good portion of the world with "U.S.S.R." stamped on it - we never heard about Uzbekistan or Tajikistan or Turkmenistan or Latvia or Ukraine or Chechnya... had I not been best friends with a girl whose family had emigrated from Estonia, I wouldn't have been able to ask my teachers why those countries weren't on the map. Not one of 'em liked the question (or answered satisfactorily).

I don't know what to 'do' about the lousy state of public education in the U.S., I just know it's lousy. In the matter of science and math, I'd suggest that people with real understanding of those be trained and hired as teachers. I don't expect that'll happen across the board, though. The pay and work load are atrocious, and many degreed scientists don't have the disposition for rowdy, hormone-crazed teenagers. §;o)

Ahh yes the good ole' days.

Well they produced you Joy so we can be sure the education system wasn't that good back in the good ole' daze.

Date: 2010/02/19 10:20:59, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 17 2010,13:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2010,18:32)
Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 17 2010,13:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2010,13:19)
Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 17 2010,11:44)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2010,11:18)
Everyone knows I don't do books.

What am I getting wrong?

P1. God is timeless
P2. God could have authored any Heddle

C1. God knows what heddle will do before god creates him
C2. Heddle's "free will" is an illusion.

Hey if I log on to UD, I know that Dembski will toss me out. That doesn't mean he doesn't have free will. Just no free lunch. Or no lunch of any sort at universities run by former special prosecutors who are not on the Clintons' Christmas Card list.

You conflate confidence and knowledge, where knowledge is the intersection of fact and belief. I'm not sure any of what you wrote addresses what I wrote, I may just not 'get it' [happens a lot] but I need a bit more help, because the analogy doesn't seem to work on any level.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were serious. But I'll pass, thanks, preferring not to get into a discussion of the Calvinistic view of free will on the UD thread.

No worries. I was destined not to know.

I was destined to know. I do know. I ain't telling.

So there.


I was destined to be destined for what I do not know.

Date: 2010/02/19 10:26:24, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 17 2010,16:55)
Quote (REC @ Feb. 17 2010,21:48)

...Dahmer grew up in a fundamentalist household* and maybe, just maybe, was mentally ill.


Bolding mine.

Wait! You mean raping, torturing, killing, and eating young men and boys, and occasionally also shagging the corpses is a sign of potential mental illness?

Has anyone told Arden? He's gonna want to know that he needs to get himself checked out.


He only does it with consenting corpses. Dead men have no tails.

Date: 2010/02/19 10:51:31, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,09:33)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,09:27)
Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,09:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,08:59)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 18 2010,08:41)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47)
To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

I have not read philosophy (translation: bullshit) on free will, but most of the intarweb arguments are looking at the matter from the wrong perspective.  It is irrelevant to me whether I have a choice in how I be me, but it matters a great deal that my choosing is not determined by what is outside.  Otherwise the word freedom has no meaning.

I'm confused. Heddle believes he has free will - the one god chose for him?

OK, Since you keep asking about my view, it is briefly sketched here.

It is based on the concept of moral inability, as opposed to coercion.

I always give the same example—not perfect but I think it works to illustrate the principle. A mother of sound mind sits at the kitchen table holding her baby. Though possessed with a free will, she is morally incapable of making the choice to place her baby in the microwave and turning it on. Her free will is not violated—yet she does not have the liberty to make that choice—because her morality will not permit her. Likewise, in this model preferred by Calvinists, though we have a libertine free will, we lack, in our fallen state, the moral ability to choose God, so we never will.

EDIT: typo

And God lacked the moral ability to author those who only choose not to put babys in microwaves, effectively putting the baby in the microwave?


God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (WCF III.I)

Poor Judas. His actions were ordained--and yet he chose and must, barring some unrecorded conversion, pay. Thems the rules.

Strange rules, the only way to win is not to play the game.

Date: 2010/02/19 11:08:20, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 19 2010,03:06)
If God is sovereign and due worship, and if man is, therefore, morally obliged to worship God as creator, then obviously an atheist cannot be a moral person.

Hey, StephenB, frilly Gil's dad was immoral IIRC. Anybody fancy pointing out that unfortunate fact? Gil himself says his brother is immoral as well only recently:

My brother (who is a physicist, software engineer, and atheist) once commented to me: “If it can’t be predicted with certainty which decisions we will make, we have the functional equivalent of free will.”

Case closed. All else is meaningless sophistry.

I like how he uses two conditional statements to arrive at a certainty.

Date: 2010/02/19 11:19:24, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 19 2010,10:51)
What a useless blog post.  Reprise some comments on a previous post, and end with "nah nah, you're wrong".

And file under Intelligent Design.

Arrogant Barington explains it all:

"Both you and mikev6 know the objective transcendent morality for the simple reason that it cannot not be known. God has placed it in your heart. You deny it, but denying a truth does not make it any less true."

Would affirming a truth make it more true or do we have to have a heart attack due the the known/unknown Truth god has placed in our hearts?

Date: 2010/02/19 11:25:59, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 19 2010,11:22)
Quote (tsig @ Feb. 19 2010,11:19)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 19 2010,10:51)
What a useless blog post.  Reprise some comments on a previous post, and end with "nah nah, you're wrong".

And file under Intelligent Design.

"Both you and mikev6 know the objective transcendent morality for the simple reason that it cannot not be known. God has placed it in your heart. You deny it, but denying a truth does not make it any less true."

Arrogant Barington explains it all.

Would affirming a truth make it more true or do we have to have a heart attack due the the known/unknown Truth god has placed in our hearts?

As evidenced by the fact that people have always agreed on morality and it hasn't changed through time one bit. Not even for slave owning Christians.

There's a lot of people who wouldn't object to slavery as long as they got to be the masters.

Date: 2010/02/22 20:42:04, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 19 2010,06:23)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 19 2010,05:19)
The universe is not a machine. Are you a machine?

I happen to be a 28 ton Walsh OBI press. But that's just me.

Wow! You look just like your mother!

Date: 2010/02/22 21:00:46, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 22 2010,19:58)
ahhh, Got it. n/m

Whenever I see someone use the word "quantum" as in "quantum consciousness" I write off the rest of their statements as pure BS because I'm sure they don't understand quantum theory let alone how it might apply to consciousness.

It's an attempt to be "sciencey" but all it shows is that you haven't got a clue.

Date: 2010/02/24 15:03:23, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 24 2010,10:04)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:44)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:42)
What would be the proof that one writes as Joe G and the other as ID guy?

We would show you our collaborations.

Hey, Oleg?  Joe is inviting you back to his place to show you his etchings!! Joe is Teh Ghey!

Hey, Joe, tell us about how you are tired of having evolution rammed down your throat!

He's deep throating Evolution?

Date: 2010/02/24 15:05:48, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:57)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
So, the evidence exists but you can only show it in person?  :D

I want my share of the $20K.

You don't get anything until I see the money.

Your assholiness is going to cost you...

Joe said:


We know you like it but it's hardly holy.

Date: 2010/02/24 15:06:54, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:21)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,11:05)
So Joe is making tough guy noise while he masturbates.

He'll shutup when he either cums or runs out of lube.

Dr GH the screamer chimes in with nothing of substance...

Shooting blanks, Joe?

Date: 2010/02/24 15:11:33, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 24 2010,15:04)
Quote (tsig @ Feb. 24 2010,13:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 24 2010,10:04)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:44)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2010,09:42)
What would be the proof that one writes as Joe G and the other as ID guy?

We would show you our collaborations.

Hey, Oleg?  Joe is inviting you back to his place to show you his etchings!! Joe is Teh Ghey!

Hey, Joe, tell us about how you are tired of having evolution rammed down your throat!

He's deep throating Evolution?

He's fantasising about it deeply religious.

OMG both Jesus and Joe begin with a "J".

They must be "j"oined at the hip...or somewhere.

Date: 2010/03/10 14:49:15, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:54)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 03 2010,07:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:33)
How can you test the premsie that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Hi Joe,
How can you test the premise that the bacterial flagellum was designed?

Is that how you support your position- by questioning mine?

What a fucking loser you are.

Now you know why people don't come here to support thewir position- not one of you faggots can support yours.


The denial is deep with  this one.

Date: 2010/03/10 15:27:04, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 09 2010,20:27)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 09 2010,17:57)
Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 09 2010,19:33)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 09 2010,18:16)
Meanwhile equinoxe weighs in on Dawkins:
First, I can honestly say that I had engaged some of these questions in greater depth by the time I was ten lying in bed at night than Dawkins does here. I don’t mean that as a cheap shot.

No doubt he had a firm grip on the issues.

I chortled.

You chortled the chicken?

Which came first: the grip or the issues?

First the grip then the chortling then the issue.

Date: 2010/03/16 17:01:04, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,11:55)
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 16 2010,10:07)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,08:13)
cubist:  I grade your work as a "C".  In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C".  Enjoy.


Huh? Are you sure you weren't replying to bjray here?

OOPS-- SORRY - YES, I am concussed, I mean confused!  I most humbly beg your pardon!

I will pray a Novena to The Designer, and sacrifice a virgin to Thor to atone.*

* Not really, but I thought about it.  The virgin not the novena.

It's virginity that's supposed to be sacrificed not the virgin. I really wish people would get that rite.


Date: 2010/03/19 04:11:14, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 19 2010,01:02)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 18 2010,22:20)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2010,12:11)
I'm not sure I'm following the debate on postmodernism correctly, but it's a fact that PCA tends toward fundamentalism and PC-USA tends toward liberalism in doctrine and politics.

This should make it perfectly clear.

There's no way out.

Presbyterians check in, but they don't check out...

They can check out but they can never leave.

Date: 2010/03/19 04:13:35, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Rrr @ Mar. 19 2010,04:01)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 19 2010,01:37)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 19 2010,01:02)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 18 2010,22:20)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2010,12:11)
I'm not sure I'm following the debate on postmodernism correctly, but it's a fact that PCA tends toward fundamentalism and PC-USA tends toward liberalism in doctrine and politics.

This should make it perfectly clear.

There's no way out.

Presbyterians check in, but they don't check out...

That's Calvinism for you.  They're predestined to walk this little denominational Habitrail.

Funny, I cannot find G.d anywhere in this map. Am I looking in the wrong place, perhaps? They do say H.s ways are unfathomable. Maybe on a whole different plane, like the Xenu?

Every time I looked for god I found a human behind the curtain.

Date: 2010/03/20 10:18:44, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2010,05:13)
I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain.

Actually it's a god sized hole.

Date: 2010/03/20 10:26:16, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 12 2010,12:10)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,17:59)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2010,09:46)
(Wonder where he thinks monotremes fit in all this?)

They're probably in the fucking "dog kind" too.

Yeah, probably the bloody egg-laying mo-fo "dog kind"!

And watch out for those thylacines, they are probably venimous as well!

But hey! All doggy so far!

Them doggies do it all!!

Date: 2010/04/15 09:51:09, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 11 2010,16:26)
Big day at UD.  Among the lowlights:

Fighting among Thomists  I have so say, Feser makes for a handsome headshot.  Check the way he stares down the camera. Is he a part-time actor?  He seems to live in the LA area.  

Is ID Blasphemous? Don't miss Dembski's comment where he seems to think the NCSE is opening the door to Dover II or some other such trial.

It's getting rather medieval over there.

Date: 2010/04/22 17:26:58, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2010,10:53)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:46)
Remember, Dembski said "ID is religious."

This one was specifically knocked out in the past few pages.  You guys aren't even listening.  Not even paying attention.  Repeating the same refuted claim.  

U gotta be kidding.   Honestly.

Self declared victory! Then why are you still here?

Dembski thinks that:

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"


Well you see that was with his religious hat on when he puts on his science hat and says ID is science you have to believe that too.

Date: 2010/04/24 14:40:37, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 18 2010,20:04)
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 18 2010,19:35)
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment...

That is three in a freakin' row.  First cdanner, then daevans, and now bjray.  WTH, don't these creationists have any cojones?

They gave their balls to Jesus.

Date: 2010/05/07 11:41:42, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (keiths @ May 07 2010,00:00)
Quote (REC @ May 06 2010,21:16)
Seems an odd way to go about special creation/design.

Theological assumption!!!1!1!!

Religion drives science crazy  (and it matters).

- C. Tard

Fixed it for you.:)

Date: 2010/06/12 16:05:19, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (someotherguy @ June 12 2010,12:42)
USA vs. England is set to start in less than hour.  To all of you Anglo-Saxons out there, allow me, an up-jumped Yankee colonist, to apologize for the brutal, humiliating defeat you are about to experience!   :p

A 1 to 1 tie.

After watching most of the game I now know why soccer(football) fans are drunks.

Date: 2010/06/12 16:21:30, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 12 2010,00:28)
Quote (sparc @ June 12 2010,00:17)
It must be hard to be William Dembski when even YECs don't really like "The End of Christianity"

...Dembski seemed to be a tender and humble man.


It's a reverse ad hom.

All woos seem to rate the strength of the arguments by the character of the arguer rather than the strength of their arguments.

Date: 2010/06/16 16:22:43, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2010,10:04)
Jerry makes an ID prediction

Not to put a fly in the ointment but the ID position in no way rest on the percentage of the non coding DNA that has function. It is certainly greater than zero and probably much less than 100%. The higher this percentage the stronger the ID case is but even if it is relatively low it does not make a dent in the ID argument.

So argue all you want and make it interesting but everyone should keep in the back of their mind that the actual percentage may not affect the strength of the anti ID argument. If the percentage is fairly high then it is a very strong ID case and definitely weakens the anti ID position. If it is relatively low then it no way undermines the ID case nor weakens its position. ID can just not claim this particular point. What we have here is a desperate attempt to make sure the percentage is not high because that would be a devastating blow to the anti ID people. It may not be all that high and it will probably be years before we find out the truth.

This is just a caution to the pro ID people. Do not go to the wall on this. The percentage could be fairly low and the complexity so overwhelming in the actual coding and regulatory parts that it boggles the mind that it could happen by chance. The remaining non functional DNA may be there as a result of an extremely functional process that is very complicated but well designed and which leaves excess DNA as a result.


So ID wins either way.

That's called having your cake and eating it too then hiding the recipe.

Date: 2010/07/25 15:40:11, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (sparc @ July 25 2010,05:35)
Quote (gravity well @ July 25 2010,05:01)
who is kairosfocus and why is he such a twat?

He appears under different names:
Kairosfocus aka GEM of TKI aka Gordon Mullings aka  dictionary
Have a look here and don't miss his new blog

From the blog:

"For instance, routinely, we can directly see functionally specified complex information at work, and its known cause. Indeed, we commonly encounter: (a) natural causes tracing to forces of chance and necessity, and (b) ART-ificial (i.e. intelligent) causes tracing to the action of purposeful agents. Moreover, © both leave observable and distinct empirical traces that we may therefore study and distinguish using scientific methods. Most crucially, (d) we directly and consistently observe that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information come from intelligence. Such functionally specific complex information [[FSCI for short] is therefore a routinely observed sign of intelligent causes.
That is, we have identified a plausible empirically reliable sign of intelligence; one that can be tested through observation and so is plainly amenable to scientific study, with direct implications for origins studies. Moreover, we see many similar signs in cases such as: (i) the origin of cell-based life that is based on information-rich macromolecules, or (ii) of the origin of body-plan level biodiversity, or (iii) that of a cosmos that seems to be fine-tuned in many ways to accommodate such life. An objective approach to origins science should therefore teach students to consider the issues and alternatives in light of the significance of such signs; before drawing conclusions. Thus, we need a fresh, independent approach to origins science and science education."

Obviously we see ID by observing ID signs when looking at ID.

Therefore Jesus!!!

Date: 2010/07/27 09:21:53, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 26 2010,12:00)
Quote (Amadan @ July 26 2010,11:56)
Quote (fnxtr @ July 26 2010,10:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 26 2010,08:48)
Quote (Amadan @ July 26 2010,10:40)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2010,10:22)
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 26 2010,00:50)
Read Ham's article, you won't be disappointed.

And to think that DoubleDoctor must swallow it for the sake of the Big Tent ...

[Mental image censored]

One swallow does not a hummer make!

You're a little pun gent today, richardthughes.

It may all come to nothing. We'll just have to wait and see what goes down.

Likely, he has yet to take it all in.

I'm sure D squared will put it all behind him.

Date: 2010/07/28 15:21:27, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 27 2010,20:50)
Off topic, but Google News has just suggested I go here for an article headed      
The Intelligent Design Facts Institute Launches Top Rated New Website To Defend Intelligent Design Through New Scientific Research

The site itself is here. It's chock full of stuff that I'd never thought of, such as how evolution cannot account for the origin of life and how it's mathematically impossible anyway. Best of all is this:
We look forward to your comments, which will be published in anonymity unless you request your name to be shown. All comments will be published regardless of viewpoint, except for those which contain expletives and flaming.

This could become a lot of fun.

Wonder if that site will drain away all five of UDs' regular commentators(non-sock)

Maybe(be still my heart) we can haz a tardblog fight?

Date: 2010/08/16 12:24:06, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (sledgehammer @ Aug. 15 2010,11:52)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 15 2010,02:20)
“The Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science” — Conference in Austin TX, Oct 26-28, 2010
William Dembski

Bill knows very well from whence the funding (fundying?) comes:
Young-earth creationism is a very widely accepted position among conservative Christians, so by not inviting any of its proponents, any attempt at theological unification will accordingly be limited.

Pandering to the base for political expediency, even if you know it's a load of crap, doesn't rate very high on the ethical scale of things, even in politics.

Dancing is just sex standing up. Vibrant Young Hard Body's throbbing against one another to the sound of a primitive driving beat.

Date: 2010/08/30 11:52:18, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 30 2010,10:54)
Googling about, I stumbled across a reprint of Michael Polanyi's "Life's Irreducible Structure"

Direct from 1968, the mother lode of all ID thinking.

Gotta love this quote:

It is this physical indeterminacy of the [DNA] sequence that produces the improbability of occurrence of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning-a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content equal to the numerical improbability of the arrangement.

if Michael Polanyi can slide from 'meaning' to Shannon information to -log2 p (in the pages of Science, no less), how are you going to stop all of his followers?

Well worth the read to see all of the tropes on display.

I see that Dr D squared stold all his ideas from M. P.

Date: 2010/09/03 16:21:30, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 02 2010,14:27)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 02 2010,02:35)
So when is BarryA or Dense going to write the Darwinism leads to this thread

Here you are.
Another prediction come true, thanks to Slimy Sal Cordova.

BA77 immediately Godwins the thread.

a state that deemed you a ‘worthless eater’ as NAZISM deemed ‘sub-races’ should have the right to kill you or would you be morally indignant that a state would choose to do as such?

Date: 2010/09/05 02:32:51, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Sep. 04 2010,12:45)
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 04 2010,08:47)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 03 2010,22:08)

Note to readers

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

Until December...

Why is Densye wearing a red collar?

I don't know, but after taking the trouble to shave, she could at least have faced the camera...

They both look like they've had a real good time.

Date: 2010/09/05 15:40:32, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 05 2010,14:54)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 05 2010,12:45)
Quote (Seversky @ Sep. 05 2010,19:45)
Mathgrrl is doing an excellent job of tying the UD regulars up in knots on the "Media Mum about Deranged Darwinist Gunman" thread.

I wonder how long she will survive before they decide that embarrassing them with their own incoherence is uncivil.



I can haz linkies?

Here's a link to the thread.

kf in a rare moment of introspection:



6:16 am

PS: The insane are often extremely logical. It is their premises and perceptions that cause them to lose contact with reality and to forfeit common-sense restraints.

or not

Date: 2010/09/08 20:12:05, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 06 2010,11:21)
May I borrow the Dodgenator?
As many UD readers know, I was once a classical concert pianist. ...

I had the privilege and blessing of studying music from the age of seven with a wonderful piano teacher — Ruby Bailey, a graduate of the Eastman Conservatory and wife of the chairman of the department of music at Washington State University. After all the instruction, practice, rehearsal, music theory, and the rest, whenever I went out to perform she would always tell me: “Just think about what you want to say.”

To suggest that Darwinian evolution through random errors filtered by natural selection explains all of this is simply absurd on its face.

You sure that isn't the Kwockenator.

Date: 2010/09/16 16:50:01, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 13 2010,10:22)
the laws of mathematics were discovered and are unchangeable.

Anybody care to ask what they are, exactly?

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

the laws of mathematics were discovered and are unchangeable

For certain small values of minds.

Date: 2010/09/26 15:18:24, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 24 2010,06:47)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 24 2010,06:31)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2010,09:04)
Gordon Mullings proves the power of prayer:
I will leave most details to others, just first noting on one of your red herring tracks that there are millions who will testify to you on experience that prayer works. In fact, that I am alive, have enough breath to post, and have enough back to sit up are ALL answers to prayer, in astonishingly and obviously miraculous ways.

"In a dangerous world there will always be more people around whose prayers for their own safety have been answered than those whose prayers have not."

Nicholas Humphrey's Law of the Efficacy of Prayer

Especially when the ones who didn't get their prayers answered are dead.

Depends on which way they're praying.

Date: 2010/09/29 12:06:01, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 25 2010,09:55)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 25 2010,09:39)
The remark to Aleta is at Sheldon's blog:

He links to a real winner:, which is an article, not a blog

There's an extra comma on the end of that URL.  Try this:

That there must be some of that hi-toned, sophisticated theological reasoning we gnu atheists can't refute.

2 + 2 = 4 only because of god.

Date: 2010/10/12 16:25:17, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 07 2010,15:16)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 07 2010,11:10)
The sun has evolved over time.  How is that "fine tuning"?

Another question: is it the sun that is "tuned" for the needs of life, or is it life that is "tuned" to make use of what is available to it?

batshit77's legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground.

And his eyes just happen to fit the visible spectrum!

Date: 2010/10/20 19:06:35, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 20 2010,18:05)
It looks like Dembski succumbed to the Southern Baptist Vise Strategy...

Yep, they have a vise grip on his short hairs.

Grovelling in public before the president of Bible Babble U must really hurt.

How the mighty have fallen!

Date: 2010/10/27 11:18:55, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 25 2010,00:15)
I'm actually rather sympathetic to WmAD here - he's been put in a position where he's been asked to conform,

Actually he put himself there by his own academic conduct.  The irony is that he's been hoist by the same "academic freedom" petard scam he perpetrated.  How's the "academic freedom" down there in Waterlooville, Billy boy?

Poor Dr Dr D once the proud lord of ID, hailed as the new Newton, now called to heel by the president of a third rate bible babble diploma mill.

How's them rutabagas

I love it so!

Date: 2010/10/27 11:34:28, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 26 2010,14:56)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 26 2010,20:43)
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 26 2010,12:36)
Don't forget - It takes the kangaroos longer cuz they have to swim all the way to Australia after the Flud!  And they have to take care of the Fosters too.

The Fosters was safely stored in their bladders.

Yeah, let's not even talk about the crowded driftwood because of all the bloody camels...

The camels floated because of all the water in their humps. Everyone knows fresh water is lighter than salt water.

Date: 2010/11/16 12:16:06, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 15 2010,19:15)
The Cross Complaint lays it out in wonderful detail.  So refreshing to see plain English instead of DI weaselish.

Joe Peterson of the AFA, the organization that contracted the CSC Foundation to show the film, wrote in an email:

Whomever at (sic) wrote the copy on the Discovery Institutes press releases should have his head examined ... I thought the problem was buried in the text of the documents ... NOT THE HEADLINES.  Talk about waving a red flag in front of a bull.  It seems like they were deliberately trying to screw this up!!!

Well, when you let the jinni out of the bottle, as Crowther put it, you tend to screw things up.

In the other legal documents available on the NCSE website is one that refers to dismissing the lawsuit because of "unclean hands."  IANAL, but that appears to imply that the DI screwed the pooch ... in public!

Looks like they did a demski.

Pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.

Date: 2010/11/19 14:23:44, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 16 2010,23:19)
Quote (Seversky @ Nov. 16 2010,20:27)
(snip)And that’s precisely why any believer in a personal God should be leery of the claims of the global warming crusade. God would not have designed a world for intelligent beings, with insoluble environmental problems. Nor would He have designed a world with problems that could only be solved by ditching our democracy and allowing ourselves to be ruled by a scientific / bureaucratic elite.

Science. All so far.

I didn't know god was so down with democracy I thought god was more with the divine right of kings.

can i runz fur gud?

Date: 2010/11/19 14:45:59, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 18 2010,11:26)
Realizing I am totally prejudiced, I still think Dembski sucked and Hitch Pwnded him and religion in general.  I do not believe that this will be long for the internet through the church group, because they totally look so awsomely bad.

Secular Humanist Darwinist that I am, with no moral compasss, I would kill a LOL Cat to find out how many of the audience that Hitch actually reached, and how many empty pews there will be in the area churches in the future!

And BTW - I still think Dembski gets axed on Monday.

Yep on the axing. After being questioned by his boss on his orthodoxy his best bet was to keep his mouth shut but just at Baylor the big D's ego couldn't stand not being the center of attention. The limelight!!It burns!! the goggles do nothing.

Date: 2010/11/19 14:48:40, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,12:14)
I don't think it matters if Dembski is a child prodigy or not, or if his claims about his education are true or not*, or if he has umpteen degrees and PhDs from Harvard, Oxford, The Sorbonne and the really big university of absolutely everything ever.

He's still factually incorrect.

He still makes bad arguments, he still cherry picks things to fit his preconceived notions and he still plays rhetorical silly buggers at every given opportunity (see today's debacle as a case in point).

Everything else is pretty much either poopoo icing on an already shitty cake or irrelevant.


*That's not to say that, if he is predicating his claims on some specious credentialism (which I don't think he does overtly at least), beating him over the head with any lies isn't fun or applicable.

He could mouth dissertations and shit PhD's and he'd still be wrong.

Date: 2010/12/04 12:52:06, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Raevmo @ Dec. 03 2010,15:31)
Wow, look at Borne's reponse to VJ's rant:
The whole “gay” activist political movement disgusts me to the very core as do the perverse sexual practices of “gays” – like golden showers, fisting, sodomy and worse.

His craving for man-love almost jumps from the screen.

He wants the worst and he wants it in the worst way.

Date: 2010/12/25 16:32:47, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 23 2010,07:24)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 23 2010,06:17)
Febish bumps a five year old thread. The content?
25 June 2005
Timetable for the mainstreaming of ID
William Dembski

I had an extended meeting today with two of the nation’s top scientists, one of them a Nobel laureate. The Nobel laureate spoke of evolution as “bankrupt” and thought ID would be mainstreamed in five years...

Benjii asked, "Is this seriously going to happen?"

WADbo locks and loads:
Benjii: I don’t bluff. I don’t take prisoners. –WmAD

Five years later, and just who is the prisoner?

I suppose that depends.  Some people would consider spending your days bowing to the text at a backwater bible college as punishment.  Others would call it a pretty sweet career.

Dr. Dr. shows why creationists believe scientists would sell out for a paycheck.

Date: 2010/12/25 16:44:14, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 25 2010,11:49)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 25 2010,10:11)
And Lou... watch for sunburn on the... umm... private bits.

See the facial expression?

I could have used that warning beforehand...

Burnt balls?

Best cure is to have them lubricated with saliva administered by a blond,  bikini clad bombshell of the desired sex.

Date: 2011/01/23 12:22:43, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 23 2011,04:35)
Joe goes pathetically fishing for some details:

Dr Dembski,

What do you think of the idea that a targeted search was/ is a plausible design mechanism employed by the designer(s) of living organisms?

(yes I know ID is not about specific mechanisms but even you said no one is prevented from looking into it)

Dr. Dr. D seems content with sticking to the old standby's of projection, own goals, and a monumental lack of self awareness:
Sure, it’s possible, Joseph. But what’s the evidence. Searches tend to be gradual, narrowing down, step by step, on the target and thus implying lots of intermediaries. Do we see such chains of intermediaries in the history of life? Darwinists count the fossil record as a wonderful vindication of their theory. From a less biased stance, the fossil record doesn’t look nearly so good.

Ah, yes.  A "less biased stance".  That would be, what, your armchair?  No, that's not a stance.  In front of the chalkboard in an apologetics class at the fundamentalist bible college that nearly chucked you out for heresy then?

You might almost say the the president of the Babble school applied a vise to Dempskis' beliefs.

Date: 2011/01/23 13:19:06, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 23 2011,08:17)
Any lurkers/non-lurkers taking Kris seriously




fuck off and die kris.  you aren't even an interesting piece of shit

I wouldn't use it to fertilize my garden.

Date: 2011/01/24 12:40:54, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 24 2011,10:10)
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 24 2011,08:42)
A philosopher of religion calls it quits (seen on, with a side swipe at ID creationism:
I have to confess that I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position—no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory.

Has this been mentioned on UD?  Oh, wait, they have nothing to do with religion, why would they mention this.

Yes, VJ Torley had a (part 1) reply to this at

on Jan 10, followed up by

on Jan 13.

I read Parsons' essay and the reply that were linked to by VJT. All I can say is that I found the reply much less convincing than he did.

Esp this part:

This is where the concept of a metaphysically necessary ground of being as the ultimate cause of the material universe enters the picture. For the reasons I have already given, the theistic hypothesis seems to be just what the doctor ordered; it appears to fit the bill perfectly. What else could possibly explain the existence of contingent beings?

They just can't seem to get too far from Aquinas.

Date: 2011/01/24 12:51:48, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 22 2011,00:10)
More fun with Joe and arachnids over at UD:  
A spider web is natural in that it exists in nature. However nature, operating freely, did not produce it.

I would say a spider web was a product of the intentional actions of a spider.

IOW when I see a spider web I know a spider had been there and left traces of its involvement behind.

Nice to see "nature, operating freely" make an appearance. I also love the presentation of "spiders make spider webs" as though it were some masterful feat of design detection.

At last we know who the Intelligent Designer is...Shelob!!!

Date: 2011/01/24 13:03:02, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 24 2011,11:34)
Haven't been by AtBC lately. Went traveling about the blogosphere and stopped by the Bookworm Room to debunk the typical claim, Pelosi = Socialist = Communist = Fascist. This led to a number of exchanges. Zachriel's departure led to an entire thread dedicated to conspiracy theories surrounding Zachriel.

But what might be of interest to this board is that Joe G was mentioned as an "ID scientist".

Zach’s assault here was the equivalent of banging one’s head against the wall. The problem with trying to disrupt a website like Bookworm Room is that the group here is too tightly knit, too experienced, too critically thoughtful and too intelligent to not quickly see through the attempt.

Zach, you were completely outclassed. :)

You couldn't knit tight doilies.

Date: 2011/01/27 23:49:30, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 26 2011,05:38)
Man, Gordon is really outdoing himself in his last two postings, ID Foundations 2 - Counterflow and [URL=

-as-sign-of-design/]ID Foundations 3[/URL].

It's not so much that the OP for '-3' is six pages long or that the bottom of the page says "[Continues here]", it's that when you go to "here", you get another eight pages of drivel.

Now THAT is tard!

Even worse, I have a sick feeling that if I was to look even farther back into the tardpile I would find entry -1 in the series.

The Ider is just  a general contractor?

. . .[From commonplace experience and observation, we may see that:]  (1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials. (No Free Lunch, p. xi. HT: ENV.) [Emphases and explanatory parenthesis added.]

Date: 2011/01/31 10:40:15, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,12:44)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,12:32)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,13:17)
You should be very justifiably proud.

I shall have to beat my boy more, he's 19 months and barely knows any quantum mechanics and he cannot even write a symphony yet.*


*I'm not serious. Of course he can write a symphony! (I'm not serious about the beating of that Child Services at the door?)

I'm 60, I've been married & divorced; I've had an abortion; I've had wisdom teeth yanked; I've had sex outside of marriage.
I've also eaten shrimp & clams; & have worn clothes of mixed fabrics; & interplanted crops.

Which of these behaviors are subject to stoning or shunning?

Always looking for punishment, aren't you?  I'm giving you the ideal....what is strived for.  Even 'ol SD has fallen into the one man/one woman.  It's what works in the end.  

It's not a perfect world, obviously.  I personally believe we learn a lot about life from our mistakes.  That doesn't mean that Ima support abortion because it makes you all feel better.

You bringing up stoning and shunning is entirely a different subject that should be taken back to Christianity 101.

Even 'ol SD has fallen into the one man/one woman.  It's what works in the end.

It's called pair bonding and is quite common in the animal kingdom.

Date: 2011/01/31 10:48:47, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Indiumas @ Jan. 31 2011,08:15)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 31 2011,13:13)
I personally think that the Eastern religions* make a lot more sense as the whole idea is to evolve our souls to be able to get to the next level of existence and suffering is part of the process.

* My mangled understanding of it in any case.

So, how do you know you have a soul so that this concept can even begin to make any sense at all? And what the heck is this next level of existence I keep hearing about?  :O


Date: 2011/02/15 06:46:50, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 10 2011,15:39)
i am sure that he knows a lot about goatse

everything else.... well, let's put it this way.  I would like to see Gordon Mullings fight Gordon Mullings.

I'd lay odds on the strawman. Once they get all oil soaked they're hard to beat.

Date: 2011/03/20 17:00:43, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (khan @ Mar. 18 2011,15:48)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 17 2011,19:56)
UD's resident philosopher Vincent Torley insists that ID is good theology:
The charge that Intelligent Design theory is tied to an anthropomorphic conception of God has been made before, and repeatedly refuted. Recently, Professor Michael Tkacz made this claim in a paper entitled Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers: What is God’s Finger Doing in My Pre-Biotic Soup? and again in a revised version of his talk, entitled Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design. I wrote a devastating five-part rebuttal, to which he has not yet responded. In Part Four of my reply to Professor Tkacz, I demonstrate that Tkacz completely mis-represents the theological claims of the Intelligent Design movement, that his charge of anthropomorphism is completely false, and that he personifies Nature in a most un-Thomistic fashion, treating it as One Big Autonomous Agent. Here’s another question for Professor Feser: has he read Part Four of my reply to Tkacz?

What kind of cretinous yahoo self labels his ignorant yammering as 'devastating' (to reality)?

ETA: bolding is mine

i seem to have lost the plot. What does arguing medieval theologies have to do with science?

Date: 2011/04/07 19:26:26, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 06 2011,17:40)
Upright Biped throws down the gauntlet!

If you could only leave aside the distractions and debate me on the core tenets of ID.

Wouldn't we all like to see a core tenet of ID.


The core tenant of ID?

Never mention the D.

Date: 2011/04/11 09:54:15, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Seversky @ April 10 2011,12:29)
BA77 - speaks for itself
That is the whole point Jemi, we don’t see ANY evolution whatsoever in the present in the lab...

Guess you jest ain't lookin' hard enough, son

Hard to see with your eyes shut.

Date: 2011/04/15 05:04:58, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 14 2011,11:27)
Harry Barrington is both stupider than davetard and more vicious and nasty.  I would like to go camping with this man.

He would squeal like a pig.

Date: 2011/04/18 11:20:37, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Louis @ April 18 2011,10:50)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 18 2011,14:38)

I didn't think Louis was that bad...

You sir win this week's "Damning with Faint Praise" Award. Collect your prize (a signed copy of Dembski's forthcoming autobiography "Why I have the Intellectual Integrity of a Pilchard") from the desk.


I thought the title to that was "How I Saw the Light and Saved My Paycheck".

Date: 2011/04/22 15:07:21, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 21 2011,22:57)
Quote (noncarborundum @ April 21 2011,21:40)
Quote (lkeithlu @ April 21 2011,19:39)
A message for Joseph: I received yours, went to your blog and was unable to comment (no way of posting) so the situation is no different. As far as your claim:

"However seeing that I have already destroyed your main premise I don’t see what there is to discuss."

Uh, no. You did nothing of the sort.
If you can apply the ID paradigm to the hominid fossils, then do so. But, please realize: Anthropologists have to write volumes to explain the sequence of fossils as they see it, and draw on the physical parameters, ages and geographical distributions to do so. Your simplistic one -sentence answers do not take care of the details. So, pick a section of hominid sequence and apply the ID paradigm. Why is that so hard? Your cohorts at UD made it sound like it was no big deal, but I can't get them to mention a single fossil, bone length ratio, joint angle, strata, radiometric method, comparison with modern humans or apes, nada. All I get is religion and philosophy and that all anthropologists are wasting their life, not to mention being left out of the conversation for days at a time by a biased and draconian moderation policy.

So defend your friends' claim, since they won't.

Good luck with that.  Joe is practicing cargo cult science.  You give him      
Biometrics. Dating techniques. Stratigraphy. Anatomy . . .

but all he can understand is      
The fossils are of organisms that once lived.

Thre, they are explained.

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

Was it AFDave?

Millions of dead things
All over the Earth

or something like that.

You know, if we could redirect that impenetrableness and sell it as armor, we'd make kajillions.

Ghost shirts?

Date: 2011/04/23 22:53:43, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 23 2011,00:17)

emphases mine, bitches!

12:59 pm
Please keep theology out of and away from Intelligent Design. Thank you.

But anyway- the bunny man gave us:

Intelligent Design and Creationism

<snip some sissy link TGDW>

yeah good luck with that one Jim

1:29 pm
Joseph, I would keep theology out of ID, and indeed the staggering levels of deign speak for themselves, but it turns out that science is impossible without God in the first place,,,<--- WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT ANYWAY IT'S LIKE HIS BRAIN CELL IS HAVING A SEIZURE

John Lennox – Science Is Impossible Without God – Quotes – video remix

,,,<---- THERE IT IS AGAIN WTF and indeed Joseph, you demanding that we keep Theology out of ID turns out to be a double standard, for as Cornelius Hunter has pointed out many times before, the majority of arguments used by neo-Darwinists themselves are Theological in there basis, i.e. They pronounce on how God would or would not have done something in biology, or the universe, in order to try to make their case for neo-Darwinism!

I thought this idiot used G-D not "God" when did he stop doing that?  Or am I confusing him with some other typing tick pavlovian link spamming lackwit

1:33 pm
correction; and indeed the staggering levels of design speak for themselves

shorter batshit "come here baby mmmmuah muah muah"

2:10 pm

I wasn’t demanding I am requesting. And there isn’t any reason why IDists have to stoop to the level of anti-IDists. Let them use theological arguments. That just exposes their agenda.

Really, dipshit ? What does it expose when creationists do it?  Every creationist can't help themselves but to start bleating about their gods just give them enough space and a microphone or a office in a broom closet they will be yammering about theology in moments.  that's because you have fuckall else to talk about in IDC, because none of you pussies have even tried to calculate CSI for fucks sake the last 5 times we have had CSI wars.  

Sals post is like the full set of all the tard, comments are just moist towelettes and a menthol

We don't know who the designer is, we don't know how the designer did it but we know design when we see it and we see it in the mirror every day/UD mode off

Date: 2011/04/23 23:01:37, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (k.e.. @ April 23 2011,09:07)

yeah I miss the bastard

When the Xian Talibhan get their gander up all i can think of is an AK47.

I miss the pizza.

That delivery boy was wise beyond his ears.

Date: 2011/05/14 16:13:58, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 12 2011,14:32)
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 12 2011,07:38)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 11 2011,22:47)
Jerry Coyne takes on VJTrolley...

ETA: Alan, je sais vraiment pas comment tu fais pour encore aller visiter cette poubelle. Au delà de la connerie qui pave ce "site", UD fait planter mon navigateur à chaque fois...

Bizarre! On peut espérer que ça arrive pour tout le monde et pour toujours!

Alright you two! This is the fuckin' internet. Speak American like everybody else.

Yes, everyone's born knowing American it's just that some, in order to indulge their perverse pleasures, pretend different.

Date: 2011/06/17 21:15:22, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Driver @ June 15 2011,18:24)
Quote (Woodbine @ June 15 2011,18:17)
Flipping channels for a moment to JAD-tv.....
To give all my hundreds of readers some idea of what we are up against, I just discovered that all Bank of England 10 pound notes bear the image of Charles Darwin autographed by Richard Dawkins. No wonder Myers, Dawkins and Elsberry ignore us. After all, they have the British Government behind them. All we have is the testimony of the experimental laboratory and the entire fossil record.

Dawkins doesn't sign the notes LOL :D
Darwin's signature is on them.

Well, that's an obvious forgery therefore Jesus!!!

Date: 2011/07/15 20:59:44, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 07 2011,07:31)
Quote (Seversky @ July 07 2011,06:31)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 06 2011,18:36)
I think I kinda just autobanned myself from Pharyngula. No one actually banned me, but some of those Pharyngulites just get under my skin, so I won't post there anymore.

Pharyngula.  "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy".  

What did you expect?  They're atheists.  Agnostics, now, they're a much nicer class of people.  You should try Evolving Thoughts

I wrote a post some time ago about the cult of personality following PZ.

If you don't agree with what PZ posts, body and mind, then don't post, you will get jumped by everyone.  Which is quite interesting.


Since it's his blog what's your problem.

Date: 2011/07/15 21:08:16, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 07 2011,22:20)
whoa you aint know?  





OMG this site looks just like a hate site like PZs' blog.

Date: 2011/08/11 16:39:59, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 09 2011,22:01)
Comments on the Shroud of Turin thread are a laugh. The subject (starting here) of Jesus's hair length has come up. Consensus so far: Jesus weren't no damned hippy.

Glad to see they're sticking strictly to science. :D

Date: 2011/10/15 20:23:06, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 15 2011,00:32)
Being William Dembski means a life of bitterness:  
William Dembski October 14, 2011 at 12:52 pm

Thanks for this post, Caroline. Even though my research professorship pays for memberships to professional societies, I decided to let my membership in the ASA lapse last year (after more than 20 years a member) because I simply could no longer get behind the direction in which the organization was going.

Let me urge that you start your own professional society through AITSE to fill that gap that the ASA is leaving — may some deep pockets reading this post provided you with the needed start-up capital!

5 Ted Davis October 14, 2011 at 3:04 pm

Now, as for the larger ID/TE issue, relative to the ASA, I have some things that need to be said, and this is a good place to say them.

I have heard many ID supporters (some who are ASA members and many who are not) say that the ASA is a TE organization that is unfriendly to ID. A few isolated facts might be seen to support that conclusion–a given article or review from our journal or web site, or a particular comment in a session at our annual meeting, or something that was said in a conversation at a meeting. I won’t list any examples of such, but I have no doubt that there are some. (I also have no doubt that others, including some here, have said highly negative things about either the ASA as an organization or about specific members in connection with the ASA. On at least two occasions, highly derogatory language was aimed in my direction here at UD.)

As far as the ASA as an organization is concerned, let me review some facts–all of them easily verified.

(1) Our refereed journal (the oldest science & religion journal in the USA), Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, frequently publishes articles taking a pro-ID stance. I challenge anyone to take a period of several consecutive years (somewhere in the past 20 years), count the number of articles that favor ID (keeping in mind that a large number of articles are entirely unrelated to ID), and compare that number with any other refereed journal of their choice. Unless you pick a journal that is intended specifically to promote ID, I bet we do pretty darn well.

Nevertheless, well known proponents of ID rarely submit papers to our journal, despite the fact that we do publish pro-ID articles.

(2) Most of the papers submitted for our annual meeting — and that process is always open to anyone — end up on the program somewhere. Not a large percentage are rejected (unlike our journal, which is pretty selective, the annual meeting program process is not very selective). Most pro-ID papers are accepted. If the number of such papers on the program in any given year is low, it almost certainly means that only a few such papers were submitted. I have been involved in setting the program several times, and the information in this paragraph accurately describes all of those years.

(3) ASA Council members, who are elected by the whole membership, have included a number of well known ID supporters in the past several years: Walter Bradley, Bob Kaita (who will be VP next April), and Ken Touryan all come to mind. In addition, another current council member is a Southern Baptist theologian (Hal Poe). There has been no effort to exclude pro-ID members from becoming Council members. For an organization that is alleged to be pro-TE, we sure have elected our share of pro-ID presidents. I challenge anyone to find a comparable degree of open-mindedness elsewhere.

(4) ASA Council members must (according to our own by-laws) be Fellows fist. To become a Fellow, a current Fellow must nominate a person; that person must then respond to a request to confirm their interest in being named a Fellow and send in some information (basically a short c.v. and some other information); and, the current Fellows must then affirm that person by voting for them on a ballot they are sent.

Sometimes people whose names are put forth do not respond to the request for information. This happens with at least one person in most years, and I can recall one year in which 3 people did not respond.

I will now share a piece of information that has not been publicly shared before: during my time on Council, I placed in nomination as Fellows multiple people who support ID, yet the two most prominent names did not confirm their interest and their names did not move forward. Everyone here would know those names, but I will have to keep you guessing about their specific identities.

So, what exactly am I saying? Simply this: relative to ID and TE, the ASA is what its members make it. I am (as you all know) not an ID proponent myself (although I am not without interest in ID or without sympathy for aspects of ID), but I always acted to keep the ASA what it has always been: an open forum on issues related to science and Christianity. I cannot submit papers to our journal or to the annual meeting on behalf of others; I cannot respond to requests for information on behalf of others.

Here is my frank advice to anyone within the ASA who believes that we are unfriendly to ID: look in the mirror. Have you submitted a top-notch paper to our journal? have you submitted a decent proposal for a paper at our annual meeting? did you respond to a request to confirm a nomination to be an ASA Fellow? We are who our members make us. What more can I say?
   5.1 William Dembski October 14, 2011 at 8:15 pm


   Walter Bradley contacted me in January or February of 2006, asking me to collect a CV and other supporting materials to propose me as fellow of the ASA. He didn’t spell out a strict deadline, so I sent the supporting materials in, as it turned out, two weeks late. Unfortunately, the deadline was strict and my nomination was put in cold storage — at least so I understood from Walter, who indicated that my nomination would be delayed a year. All the materials were in place to confirm my nomination — so Walter gave me to understand. And yet I was never ratified as a fellow, not the following year, not the three additional years that I still remained an ASA member.

   In any case, what finally got to me with the ASA was not the refused fellowship, but the condescension toward ID, the overwhelming (though not exclusive) view of the leadership that ID has no scientific integrity (I believe that Randy Isaac has said as much), and the sense that ID proponents will always be second-class citizens in the ASA.


Doc Bill got even expelled from a Christian science society. And of course it was not his fault.
Interim results from an ongoing ASA survey will not make him any happier.

Somehow this seems appropriate:

Minever loved the Medici,

Albeit he had never seen one;

He would have sinned incessantly

Could he have been one.

Date: 2011/11/08 11:23:56, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Cubist @ Oct. 21 2011,21:03)
I second Ogre's remarks above: If you're not claiming that everything is Designed, you must be claiming that some things are Designed and other things are not Designed... so how do you tell the difference? Given some arbitrarily-chosen whatzit, how can you tell whether said whatzit is, or is not, Designed?

Why you apply the Explanatory Filter ... calculate the CSI...drat it, it just looks designed.

misquote many dead scientists

so there. Case proofed. :)

Date: 2011/11/08 11:58:39, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 23 2011,17:43)
do we really have a live one? after all this time? really? Can I pet it? If I pet it, it won't die will it? That always happens. That always happens and you always say it's not my fault, but it is. it is.

Can i pet it? cAn i?

Yes, you can even call it George.

Date: 2011/11/08 12:14:48, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:10)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:49)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:39)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event

If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!

The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.

So the descendants of Noah wrote down that there was a global flood? And that's how you know there was a global flood?

Where did they write it down?

So you *know* there was a global flood but can't bring yourself to put even an approximate date on the event?

Tell me then, were the Egyptians around during the flood?

Before the flood?

After the flood?

What's your best guess at a date for this "global flood" you just know happened?

Like most of the ancients, via oral traditions. They also wrote on their staffs

Afterwords so many made pyramids in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, etc.. with similar zodiacs, sacrifices to pagan gods, god-kings all vying to be worshiped as false Messiahs and Flood heroes

Is it possible these structures were being built almost simultaneously by different civilizations separated by continents who would have known nothing about each other?

How could there be any oral traditions. They were all dead.

Do you have any of those staffs with writing on them?

Date: 2011/11/18 17:55:06, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 16 2011,06:21)
"To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

All that's left then is proof of Mary's virginity and the historicity of the gospel's gallery of persons. The possibility of differing views on what constitute 'proper understanding' may of course be assumed non existent. Things become much clearer then.

ETA: typo fix.

Somewhere there must be a Church of the Holy Hymen.

Date: 2011/11/18 18:14:49, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,00:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2011,23:27)
Here's the deal for, you have to explain everything that we have talked about and do so in an internally consistent way without resorting to miracles and you have to do it in such a way that can be observed.

EVERYTHING we have talked about in this thread is explained by the way we look at the world through science.  Further, that same science makes predictions that have been verified (some of them) for several hundred years.

The Big Bang theory makes a prediction that is confirmed in two separate, independent experiments.

Radiometric dating is confirmed because, very simply, every valid test run on the same sample of rock, gives the same age.  These methods are independent. If there were some fundamental difference, then the date would not correlate.  Further, these dates are supported by other means.

You cannot get around this simple fact.  You can hack away with your technobabble for years and it won't make any difference.  What are your notions that explain EVERYTHING we have talked about?

Why are you scared to present those notions to the same level of scrutiny that you subject to ours?  (None of which is new BTW.)

Practice what you preach and  quit yall's pantheistic creationism with all its mystical mutationology, radiomagic wands, crystal ball chronologies, and ape animisms to study some season of the niche spaghetti monsters made outa of a fountain of soup and cosmic rays from the heavens

Something seems to be wrong with your keyboard.

Date: 2011/11/18 18:23:46, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 18 2011,11:41)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 18 2011,08:36)
Hey forastero,

Are you still having trouble coming up with the derivation of your growth rate in that population equation you kept touting?

Now, I'm just a clown; surely you can out-reason a clown?  I mean, I am a professional clown but come on.  Tell us how you derived your growth rate.  Or, are you just a clown (of the amateur variety)?

I looked at the muppet's conservative, for-the-sake-of-argument-and-not-copied-mindlessly-from-some-creationist-site growth rate of 0.5% per year.  

Let's consider the rat.

As everyone knows, 4500 years ago the entire world population of rats consisted of Mr and Mrs Rat floating around on a big wooden boat.  So when they arrived back on dry land, the population had some increasing to do.  Now, rats breed a lot faster than people - their lifespan is about a year.  So we need to scale the muppet's rate up a bit - if we multiply it by 20, that gives us 10% per year.  In fact, let's be extra generous to the muppet and pull an even more conservative base rate of 0.1% out of my arse - so for rats we have a rate of 2% per year.  As I'm sure the muppet would agree, this is really, really conservative.

Plugging this into muppet's compound interest formula, which we all know is an entirely sensible way to estimate population growth in organisms, 4500 years after Mr and Mrs Rat walked down the gangplank we have a population of 10^38 rats.  That's just under 7,000,000,000,000,000,000 rats per square millimetre of the Earth's land surface.

I wonder where they are?

They were eaten by the 50,000,000 hawks who also underwent explosive growth after the Flud, the hawks died after they ate all the mice, surely you remember the great hawk die off of '06?

Date: 2011/11/18 18:41:14, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 17 2011,11:47)
I hadn't noticed that the message changed in response to criticism. I haven't seen an ID advocate who could even state his opponent's argument.

Or his own.

Date: 2011/11/29 10:49:50, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 28 2011,18:13)
So, I wandered over to Pharyngula to see if Bunnygate had reached it's denouement, when what should I spy on the front page but a post about the controversy in Kansas where Governor Brownback came down on a high school student who tweeted unfavorably out him, Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

And, what should I find 3 comments in?

   Janine, Clueless And Reactionary As Ever, OM, says:
   28 November 2011 at 2:05 pm

   Sam Brownback: #heblowsalot.

   So, homophobic imagery is alright as long as it goes against a wannabe theocrat?

The first thing that came to mind was this Onion article.

If you don't like PZ, his blog or the denizens then don't go

Spell edit

Date: 2012/02/16 10:02:13, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 29 2012,21:23)
O'Leary quoting TBS interview w/ Dembski
TBS: You have stated that “design theorists oppose Darwinian theory on strictly scientific grounds.” But then why is the ID movement so heavily populated with religious believers? Could we not expect more of the scientific community to support ID if your statement were true? Why do the majority of the world’s leading scientific bodies oppose ID and claim that it does not qualify as science?
  Good question.  But will Dembski answer it?
WD: The quote needs context. I’ve also written that intelligent design, besides being a scientific program, has a theological dimension, in trying to understand divine action, and a cultural dimension, in trying to overturn naturalism. So intelligent design is a number of things. But at its core, it is a scientific program. Indeed, unless there is good science to back it up, all the cultural and theological superstructures that people build on it will be in vain.
  Apparently not.

WD: As for why religious believers tend to be associated with design, I could turn the question around. If Darwinian evolution is strictly scientific, then why is that field so heavily populated with atheists?
  Why is this even a question when the answer is so obvious?

WD: I see a scientific core to both intelligent design and Darwinian evolution. And I see no merit in questioning their scientific status by the company they keep. The character of the proposals that both approaches make is what really ought to count.

  It should. And it does.

BillyD is the MickyD of ID.

Drive up and get your answer, it may be wrong but it's fast and cheap.

Date: 2012/02/19 08:03:39, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44)
Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,15:16)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 14 2012,14:51)
Barry's latest (emphasis added):
The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

My opinion: bizarre.

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet because I'm replying to a post on page 98 of the thread, but Barry has just denied the existence of an omnipotent God. He has also effectively banned anyone who believes in such a God from defending its ability to make the moon simultaneously existent and non-existent.

I'm banned from U.D., but had I been Petrushka, I'd have relished pointing this out.

Ignoring the physics for a moment, the knife could be stuck in this way:

"Only someone who believes in an omnipotent god could answer yes to that. And who believes in miracles these days?"

I wonder if this has occurred to any of the god squad at U.D.

Does anyone with a surviving sock want to make the point?

Hi iconofid,

Orthodox Christianity doesn't conceive of "omnipotent" in ways that allow self-contradictory propositions.  They just laugh, and with some warrant, when you ask if "God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it", or "make a square circle". Even (especially) God is not potent in that way, because it's not a potency at all, but instead a conceptual error in the asking of the question.

An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable".

If we follow that line of logic then all miracles are impossible.

Date: 2012/03/22 21:22:00, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 21 2012,09:18)
If it's not, then I'm curious how you deal with the dichotomy.

You take Jesus as a person instead of a supernatural phenomenon. Without worrying about the historical accuracy of the Bible, you agree with ethical teachings.


Date: 2012/05/18 08:28:29, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 17 2012,11:58)
Having studied under a prominent anti-ID professor, James Trefil, I asked him in a public Q&A, where I identified myself as a creationist and his former student, whether it was OK to give him answers he wanted on an exam even though we didn’t believe what he said.

He basically said he was fine with that. He has to assign grades based on what you answered, but he has no domain over ones personal belief. He was kind enough to also tell the audience I got an A in his class.

I don’t mean to offend – I realize just how high the stakes are – but I don’t know of any other way to say this. When you follow this path, what you’ve done is practice being a coward.

It is more subtle than that. There was a time when the Apostles fled jerusalem under persecution, only to be martyred another day. It would seem there is a time God will call his people to flee persecution and then ask the same people to be martyred later…..

It is also strange who gets through the system, and who gets punished. 3 creationists got their PhD’s in biology at George Mason University (Gordon Wilson, Tim Standish, Tim Brophie), yet 1 ID proponent was dimissed (Carline Crocker).

Some are hated after they graduate, some are still on good terms. Stephen Gould never spoke ill of his creationist student Kurt Wise. That’s certainly not the case with Bill Dembski and his teacher Jeff Shallit!

My thoughts. If you really want to get good at creation science or ID, there are other disciplines than biology where you can still study biology. Get your BS, MS, or PhD in a field where the Darwinists will be hard pressed to hold your finances, your career, your wife, kids, and loved ones hostage to the Darwinist inquisition. Maybe it is wise to go where you can be free. If you really want to do the biology thing, perhaps consider double-majoring or something, just so you have an out. Even the Apostle Paul was known to flee at times despite being quite eager to be martyred. There is a time and place for everything.

As far as specific non-biology disciplines, consider the founders of the modern ID and modern creation science movements:

A.E. Wilder-Smith : Chemistry and Pharmaceuticals
Henry Morris : hydraulic engineering
Walter Brown : Mechanical Engineering
Duae Gish : Bio chemistry
Charles Thaxton: Physical Chemistry
William Dembski: Mathematics and Theology
Michael Behe: Bio Chemistry
Michael Denton: Bio Chemistry
Fred Hoyle: astro physics
Walter Bradley : materials engineering
Roger Olsen: geo chemistry
Phil Johnson : Law

The astonishing thing, the minority discipline is biology.

If you want to be martyred for ID, you may have some choice in how you want to be persecuted. It doesn’t necessarily mean taking classes with the Paul Mirecki’s of the world to by martyred in a way that you’ll be forgotten.

Personally, I’m glad about those who’ve kept their mouth shut. Its nice to hang out with PhD creationist biologists who are in hiding. ID circles would otherwise be a lonely place without the stealth support of those in hiding.

I will mention, creationists applying to grad school from undergrade creationist schools like Liberty have had success in being open about who they are in grad school interviews if they have sufficiently good qualifications.

Furthermore, almost all diciplines in biology are agnostic to evolutionary ideas, so even in some cases it never becomes an issue. But perhaps a little caution is always wise. Don’t go around looking for trouble, especially if you have family that might be counting on you for their food and shelter.


Slimy Sal:

Truth is never an option, be all you need to be.

Date: 2012/05/25 10:49:48, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 24 2012,10:53)
So, still not answered, how did Abbie done fuck good?


Date: 2012/05/27 10:49:45, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2012,22:57)
Just a few points:

It's funny, in a face-palm sort of way, that some of you are SO damned eager to condemn the guy who was ALLEGEDLY in the elevator, and who ALLEGEDLY said what was ALLEGEDLY said to the woman, even though you are REAL QUICK to thoroughly blast IDiots who ASSUME things and automatically believe things that are ALLEGED, but WITHOUT verifiable evidence.

And SO fucking what IF he did say what she says he said?

'Oh the poor little dear sobbing buckets of tears! We MUST stand up for her and protect her and all the other women on Earth from evil, rotten, crude, drooling, sex crazed, pushy men who are POTENTIAL rapists! After all, ALL men are sex crazed knuckle dragging monsters and POTENTIAL rapists who are deliberately looking for a situation where they can TRAP a woman in an elevator and then force themselves on her! That poor, poor dear, what horror she must have gone through in that elevator! How DARE that despicable manbeast offer coffee and a chat! How dare he speak to her! Castrate him! Burn him at the stake! Cut off his head and his dick and put them on a tall spike in the town square as a warning to all other POTENTIAL rapists! All men should be leashed and ball-gagged and never allowed to talk to women! Women are just too frail and innocent to take care of themselves and they must be shielded from men who have the unmitigated gall to speak to them!'

That's how some of you, and many others on other sites, are coming across.  

Most of the responses to me are just way too ridiculous, distorted, and irrelevant to what I've actually said that it's not even worth responding directly to them. I did write a fairly long response to one of you yesterday but then hit the wrong key and it vanished into oblivion, and I'm not going to rewrite it.

And in case anyone gives a shit, I did show this thread to my daughter and to a female friend (who is happily married to another guy), and they both strongly agree with what I've said. In fact, they also both said that some of you women (you should know which ones) need to get off your princess-wannabe thrones and come down to Earth and actually practice the 'equality' you say you want so much. They also said that some of you men (you should know which ones) are clearly pussy-whipped.

I never thought I'd say this on this site but some of you sound way too much like kairosfocus and his extreme 'morality' crap (especially the "verbal rapists" bullshit), and I'm also reminded of all the so-called and self-proclaimed "free thinkers" and "rational skeptics" who, when the religious IDiots are whining about being offended and are demanding "respect" (actually special treatment) for their beliefs and practices, are quick to bring up free speech and say to the religious wackos: "You don't have the right to not be offended."

Double standards anyone?

Earth from evil, rotten, crude, drooling, sex crazed, pushy men who are POTENTIAL rapists!

You sound like one. Woman say no OMG she cut my balls off.

Man haz riht to talk women when he wants where he want an as he want.

Date: 2012/05/27 16:12:00, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 27 2012,11:56)
Quote (fnxtr @ May 27 2012,18:39)
(shrug) He was (ok, allegedly) clueless and clumsy, she felt uncomfortable and told everybody why. She should have just told him.

Dog bites man, etc...

To be fair to RW, she is a (somewhat) prominent blogger/vlogger. She chose to use the video media to make her feelings heard. No problems with me on her choice.

But this has never been the problem at the heart of EGate (well, FTB/ERV wise).

woman say no, men clutch gonads.

Date: 2012/06/24 21:25:55, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 23 2012,17:54)
I love watching Upright Biped and kairosfocus just annihilate the trolls who pollute U.D. It's such a joy. kairosfocus is especially brilliant. It's no wonder he's so hated here. He's like LeBron James -- so brilliant at what he does that it's almost scary.

Every single one of you who have had the balls to face kairosfocus in the debating circle  have been severely trounced. Every one of your claims have been demolished. He is a one-man, Darwinist-destroying machine.

How many of you wake up in the middle of the night with cold sweats after having nightmares of kairosfocus? Be honest. His superior intellect scares you.

Cold sweats in the night?

You should keep your  sexual fantasies to your self.

Date: 2012/08/21 15:50:01, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 18 2012,19:10)
I suspect alcohol involvement.

I'll drink to that.

Date: 2012/08/21 16:36:08, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (REC @ Aug. 19 2012,21:55)

Sals gone and started a tard fight royale:


Responses are predictably hilarious. I feel bad for Sal. It has to hurt to have a shred of knowledge, and realize most of your side are liars with knowledge, or the faithful without. If he pulls back the curtain any more.....

Looks like Sal intends to poach off a few  UD posters:

Good idea. It will likely be done at another website that I’m constructing where technical conversations can take place and by people more qualified than I. For example, I know a Princeton trained PhD who has been published in the Journal Nature who would be delighted to write about it. :-)

The website is under construction, but for those interested in technical discussion, here are some drafts (I emphasize drafts) of some of the sort of work that will appear there:

Date: 2012/09/05 18:45:41, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 02 2012,21:17)
kairosfocus to Joe G:

"Joe:  It seems Mathgrrl/Patrick — the latter having confessed to using the former [which properly belongs to a Calculus professor out there . . . ] as a sockpuppet — is forgetting that we at UD keep records"


Someone should remind the Manjack Heights Mauler that Joe G was banned at UD under the name "Joseph" and came back a few weeks later as "Joe"

No double standards to see here folks, just move along...

If it weren't for double standards they'd have no standards at all.

Date: 2012/09/09 11:03:33, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 07 2012,07:02)
PaV chimes in with some weapons-grade po-mo bullshit:
I think, for the sake of simplicity (and, hopefully, clarity) we should take a very simplistic view of what entropy is: it’s basically directionless-ness. It is a ‘loss’ of ‘direction’.

Alas, clarity is nowhere to be found. He begins with explaining how he understands Clausius's version of the second law:
No cyclic process is possible whose sole outcome is transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body

This statement presupposes: (1) that the bodies are either separate from one another, or, that there are separate areas of one body–a ‘hotter’ and a ‘cooler’ area, and (2) that the ‘flow’ of energy/heat goes in only ONE ‘direction’: from hot to cold. Flow itself is likewise a vector quantity and, hence, itself implies a ‘direction’.

What we seem to go round and round on here at UD is this notion of ‘directionality,’ and it seems that what we loose sight of is this minimal amount of ‘directionality’ that entropy requires.

Round and round he goes and then comes to this gem:
(N.B. Again, this irreducible ‘directionality’ that entropy requires can be lost sight of even in a classical thermodynamic equations like dU = TdS – pdV. On the r.h.s., the first term amounts to dQ, which is the already present ‘internal energy’ of the system. On the l.h.s., dU is the change in ‘internal energy’. Finally, the second term on the r.h.s. is pressure x volume. What is perhaps hidden here is that pressure equals Force/Area. And, again, force is a vector quantity, and, so, has ‘direction.’ To change the heat content of something, ‘work’ has to be done, and pdV is what accomplishes it. Now, if you heat up a pressure cooker, the pressure will always be at right angles to the container’s walls–i.e., it is a NON-RANDOM orientation of forces!

This is the critical point: an entropy change always has a direction. This is exactly what the 2LofT tells us, but, we usually lose track of it. Nevertheless, it’s there.

I hate to break it to you, PaV, but dQ is NOT "the already present ‘internal energy’ of the system." It is the amount of heat received by the system. And although force indeed is a vector quantity, its direction has nothing whatsoever to do with the direction of heat transfer. It's hard to sound any more clueless that this!

It goes downhill from there as PaV channels his long-lost knowledge of calculus:
Let’s look at an example that Sal uses in the second part of his recent post on entropy.

He tells us that the change in entropy, S, is equal to the integral (sum) over the initial and final values of dQ/T. (N.B. the ‘initial’ value of dQ/T is always higher than the final value of dQ/T, revealing again, this hidden directionality. Normally, in any given mathematical expression, there is no need for the initial value to be ‘less’ than the final–they just need to be different)

PaV clearly used to be able to do integrals, but he does not understand them now, so all he can do is wax poetic about them. Not surprisingly, he looks at Sal's calculation of entropy and says thanks, but no thanks:
But let’s move on.
Sal then adds:

Perhaps to make the formula more accessible, let us suppose we have a 1000 watt heater running for 100 seconds that contributes to the boiling of water (already at 373.2?K). What is the entropy contribution due this burst of energy from the heater?

Well, let’s turn this around (change it’s ‘direction’): what would happen if we had a 1000 watt (electric) heater surrounded by water that was boiling, and then we added steam to the system that was generated by a nuclear reactor. Would this produce electricity? Of course not! This energy-producing system only works in one direction!

Nevertheless, it is possible to take the steam that a nuclear reactor produces and then produce electricity! But this is an entirely different process/system, and, it is a process/system that is given its ‘directionality’ via intelligent design of engineers.

And, here we have it. This is the nub of the issue, I believe. Darwinists want to convince us that if ‘steam’ is available (analogously, the energy of the sun), then ‘electricity’ can be produced (analogously, the ‘direction’ of entropy can be reversed).

So the music goes in here, goes round and round and comes out there. Directionality disproves Eventuality!!!


Date: 2012/09/09 11:06:24, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 07 2012,08:41)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 06 2012,16:29)
ceiling quat that is some good shite.  classic davetard beating up on fundie dummies while taking swipes at everyone in the sunday school classroom


DaveScotMay 9, 2008 at 11:52 am


Sorry, but I AM responding to you. I can’t help it that you contradicted yourself and made your question invalid by so doing.

Dig it: you asked if the bayonetting of babies was wrong in all times and places then you went on to restrict the times and places to those times and places where the God of Abraham didn’t command the killing.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, Barry. It’s all times and places, which must by definition include the times and places described in the Old Testament, or it isn’t all times and places.

This is not a distraction but rather a fair answer to your original question and ignoring your later contradiction which you imposed when you didn’t know how to respond to that answer.

yeah barry fuck you gaah you are such a loser JEEZ


DaveScotMay 9, 2008 at 11:55 am

Jonathan Sarfarti

The only crass thing here is the image of the creator you cling to.


DaveScotMay 9, 2008 at 12:03 pm


We already know that some killing is justified.

Not according to Christ. The problem here is that most Christians talk the talk but don’t even come close to walking the walk. I’m more of a follower of Christ than the vast majority of so-called self-annointed church going Christians. I at least try to walk the walk and know very well when I’m not walking it. Most of rest of you are in deep denial about your own sinful behaviors. Every time you kill another living thing that isn’t harming you in any way you’re doing something that Christ avoided like the plague. No killing of anything is a common thread in many religions including, properly interpreted, Christianity. Admit that your animal desire to eat the flesh of other animals is, in the modern world where you have no problem (it’s very healthy in fact) subsisting on fruits and vegetables, a hedonistic practice. Stop lying to yourself that it’s anything other than hedonistic animal behavior.


yeah ok dave LMAOOOOOO





© davetard

Bill got HOISTED on Barry's Petard.

Date: 2012/09/09 11:17:18, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 07 2012,12:11)
Zachriel's ballot is far too good to not share, but if you would like to vote please send me a PM with a nominee for Top Tard and a few lines explaining your choice.  I'll count over the weekend and post monday unless i don't

and by all means let us continue the public discussion of these "personalities"

whatever happened to Jerry?  HmmmMM?  you know what to do

I nominate Dave S. as a heritage candidate.

While he's gone the policies he established live on.

Date: 2012/09/09 11:24:42, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 08 2012,23:32)
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 08 2012,13:52)

If we are talking about the All-Time Tard, it just has to be Dr. Dr. Dembski.  Period end of story.

There is nobody as blind, pathetic, myopic, yet convinced they are right in the annals of annals...

He is the alph and the omega of tard with a beta-version of brains.  The yin and the yang and the yo-yo of tard.

He can throw out big words like a true pedant, but believe in angels.  He can debate Christopher Hitchens badly, but believe in his black little heart that he won.  

He is All Tard All The Time.  He is The Dr. Dr. Of Tard.

added in edit:  Look upon His Big Pile Of Steaming Tard and Despair!

Due to recent events I voted for KF rather than Dembski. However, this was before I saw his latest UD post to which he never came back. Instead, he didn't care that cooks like KF, BA77 and Joe took over one of his threads and ignored legitimate questions. IMHO Dembski is just cynical and I wonder if he still is a beleaving Christian or if he isn't rather only pretending to be a True Christian© to secure his income.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also

Date: 2012/09/21 08:29:30, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 20 2012,00:12)
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 19 2012,16:21)
And a fine one it is, too!  Gordon is in good form today.  You can almost feel the spittle landing on your face.  Here's a sample:        
This is of course an attempt to drag a red herring across the track of the mounting up pile of evidence pointing to the evident fine-tuning of the observed cosmos that sets it to an operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life. The red herring is then led out to a convenient “God of the Gaps” strawman, duly set alight to the delight of the ideological atheists and their fellow travellers. (Cf. also here on building a sound worldview.)
Ahhhh...  That's the Good Stuff!

Unfortunately for Mr Carroll, ‘Science ruled God (omnisicent, omnipotent and personal) in’, ninety plus years ago, when it identified the absolute speed of light as it acts within space-time. How many times do I have to repeat it on here for you, Sean? The louder they come, the harder they will assuredly fall. They have been hoisted with their own petard. ‘God scatters the proud in the imagination of their hearts.’ And what fun it is to witness, knowing as we do that ‘The truth wol out’, to adapt a Chaucerian locution. Learned nescience, in the face of elementary reason is the Road-Runner treading air before plummeting from the cliff. The marvel is that they have got away with it for so long, indeed, how such folly as abiogenesis ever got traction!

It would be nice to hear his opinion on the latest scientific findings concerning the Shroud of Turin, too.

Just had to point out that the Road-Runner always got away and it was the Coyote who wound up falling off a cliff.

Yeah, his other stuff is equally wrong but  being wrong about cartoons is true tard.

Date: 2012/10/24 20:45:23, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 22 2012,18:03)
Quote (onlooker @ Oct. 22 2012,15:02)
gpuccio, think for just one moment about the fact that your main supporters at UD are Joe, Mung, and kairosfocus.

Fair point.  If any one of those . . . special individuals were cheering me on in an argument, I'd start checking my premises, logic, and ethics immediately.

I'd start checking in at the nearest mental hospital.

Date: 2012/10/24 21:03:51, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 24 2012,06:29)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 24 2012,03:57)
I almost feel sorry for the poor bastard.

Except I doubt that "poor" comes into it. I'm sure they are paying plenty of $$$ for such a "star".

The salary and benefits negotiations probably went something like this:

SES: "Bill, we'll pay you $XX,000.00 per year and we'll throw in knee pads for life, a genuine faux leather cover for your bible, a whoopee cushion, and a baby's arm holding an apple."

dumbski: "I'll take it."

Once he strode the Baylor cafeteria as a god, his institute ruled all, now it's fast food take out from Chik-fil-A.

Date: 2012/12/02 12:54:14, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 26 2012,10:44)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 26 2012,08:30)
I need to work on my style.  I think I came across as mocking when I was trying to be mocking AND uncivil AND insulting.

Really, though, where have all the good creationists gone?  I almost miss Floyd these days, ya know whut I mean, Vern?

You can find that stain on the bathroom wall at PT

I am just learning to love this new one though. surely THIS will go somewhere

I'm sure it will lead to us all being told we're going to hell if we don't change our ways.

Date: 2012/12/02 12:57:51, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:05)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:15)
Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

"This doesn't seem likely" is still not positive evidence of interference, tinkering, or front-loading of anything by anyone.  They still conflate "We don't know yet" with "Goddidit".

Even if you could somehow pretend ID is a scientific idea, what possible use could it ever be? "Welp, this bit looks designed. Moving on..."  

How does pretending bipedalism (or GULO damage or nylonase production or...) was a gift from somewhere,  change how we deal with it?


It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.

Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.

Eureka.....I have found it!

But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.

Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.

How long did you have to follow that bull in order to accumulate that much crap?

Date: 2012/12/02 13:20:04, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:18)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 27 2012,10:35)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,10:57)
As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

yes, please do.

because this

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with.   And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify.  Because you won't

Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts:

If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100). But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads. Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads? They’re still the same 1:(.5^100). I’m not getting all heads, but with odds against me of getting them, I’m not surprised at the result.

So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100). So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

Ah, the argument by Big Numbers.

Date: 2012/12/10 06:05:52, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 08 2012,17:30)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 08 2012,14:11)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 08 2012,13:52)
You keep posting that chart.  Do you think it has any relationship to reality at all?

He English, at home, in forums sciency, to all intended who, view, not unrationally escaped from, comma, factories, there, to, write the sentences also for those again reading.

That time it was just so none have to search the thread or the theory to find where it says "Balwin Effect", along with all else that goes with it. It's just a versatile illustration. Better that than needing a dozen different ones then another with all those.

This theory requires ability to conceptualize the ICA working. I make that easier by showing where something I am explaining is, in the illustration. Others who have not seen it as many times as you would more likely not recall that being there, have no clue what I'm talking about.

In this case the ICA illustration is just for convenience sake, so you'll have no problem picturing the whole thing in your mind. It is not an outside of theory concept such as Monte Carlo (where being more expert in it does not help the model/theory) the Baldwin Effect is there for good reason (and being more expert in it does help the model/theory).

Now that the IA circuit is on the page showing eye and such, for theory with multiple dimensions like String Theory (assuming 1 bit Data and Address bus even though likely need more) I would predict the circuit needs to look something like this:

When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

Date: 2013/01/30 08:04:36, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:01)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2013,13:59)
So Ronrey.

LoL! I am sure that you are, cupcake.

You can always count on a cling-on attack when a fellow clingy is getting his ass handed to him.

So you're saying you want a little ass handing too? Oh Joey baby, I love it when you talk nasty.

Date: 2013/01/30 08:10:35, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,14:18)
contacting the admin of my blog network and accusing me of lying, threatening to attack me, threatening my family, stealing images of me and using them for your own avatar, for example

1- You do lie

2- You deserve to have your ass kicked for all the lies you spew

3- I never threatened your family

4- I didn't steal your picture. YOU made it public. YOU posted it on the intertubes

The "I didn't do it but if I did you totally deserved it" defense.


Date: 2013/01/30 08:29:49, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 29 2013,14:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2013,00:38)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.

How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".

Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.

Did what? What is your evidence that a designer did "it"? Are we back to the Explanatory Filter again?

The Explanatory Filter got plugged up with tard so they went to the Backup EF then it blew up with dogmite* so I think there's no Filter of any kind left, it's just all science** all the time.

*dogma laced with thermite

**for certain values of science

Date: 2013/02/11 20:33:35, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 08 2013,18:11)
Seems that old Dembski has moved to Iowa, at least the house that registered his GoDaddy site is in Pella, Iowa.  Also, he lists his employment as "part-time" with a Bible college in North Carolina that has five resident "faculty."

Quite a fall from his days as a hot shot at the University of Chicago.  He'll be drinking Woolite out of a brown paper bag next.

Surely Dr. Dr counts as two members.

Date: 2013/03/24 02:15:55, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 21 2013,21:14)
The very best y'all are ever going to get is "Nuh-uh, evolution is bad. Therefore, Poof (and don't ask who the poofter is)."

That's all IDC is, all it ever was, and all it ever will be.

...but we all knew that already.

ID is nothing more than " I see the Virgin in a piece of toast" with a lab coat on.

Date: 2013/04/27 10:22:50, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 18 2013,18:14)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 18 2013,14:23)
Over at the Skeptical Zone, Lizzie has elegantly answered Andre's gotcha questions.

Elegance is lost on UD.  To convince them of even the simplest fact, you need a wooden stake and a hammer.

The hammer alone will do if the stakes are few.

Date: 2013/05/14 10:55:27, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (afarensis @ May 14 2013,07:34)
Quote (timothya @ May 14 2013,03:38)
KF recently posted this at UD:
Similarly, mosaic animals such as the Platypus point to code libraries and inheritance in the object sense

Please tell me that KF does not actually believe that the platypus is literally made up of parts of a duck conjoined with parts of a beaver. Please, it can't be possible that he believes this. There must be a rational explanation for his use of the word "mosaic".

Answers in Genesis explains mosaic animals. Kairofocus once again proves the link between religion and ID.

From the link:

Only when isolated mosaics are picked selectively out of context, while ignoring the difficulties of acquiring fully developed characteristics from scratch, can any mosaic be claimed as evidence of evolution. In contrast, when considered as a whole, mosaics are better understood as wonders in God’s tapestry of creation—evidence of a beautifully complex triune God, a God who is both three and one, both diverse and singular, both orderly and surprising.

Godditit because god is a mosaic.

The duckbill platypus as proof of the trinity.  :O

Date: 2013/09/04 12:26:08, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 02 2013,09:58)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 01 2013,19:11)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 30 2013,10:04)
It's not just that things go downward, it's also the direction and magnitude of the acceleration, or the direction and magnitude of the force if something is in the way. Also how these factors vary with location and altitude.

Gravity is a heavy subject. (Relativistically speaking)

If the theory of gravity is that things go down, nobody before Isaac Newton must have noticed that.

Bazza missed his chance to mention Einstein's "Equivalence Principle". Jesus is he slipping/falling or what?

He has fallen and he can't get up. Only your donations will help. Please send money to help Jesus get up.

Date: 2013/09/12 13:32:12, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Driver @ Sep. 11 2013,21:56)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 12 2013,03:39)
Quote (REC @ Sep. 11 2013,17:34)
What? The hell is this? I don't even..... Translation?


Dawkins supports Christmas?

September 11, 2013 Posted by News under Atheism, Culture, News

Further to “Happy anti-theist PZ Myers takes issue with pitiless Richard Dawkins over pedophilia”: A Google search on Dawkins pedophilia generates 126,000 hits, the top of which are from name sites.

Well, the arch-Darwinist made it into the news again. Natural selection at work?


Top People claim atheism rules and he is the best-known spokesman, so this must be good for atheism too, right?

A top Canadian blogger calls him “the world’s most irritating stopped clock.”

So it seems. But locally produced calendars still insist that Christmas is December 25, a ways off.

P.S.: Okay, he doesn’t intellectually support Christmas, but in a substantive way, he is edging out Santa …

A rough translation:

If Dawkins was a Christian, he'd be following Christ's orders and forgiving the man who felt him up as a school boy.  

If Dawkins was an ordinary American reflecting on the morals of George Washington, people would agree that owning slaves in 18th century America didn't automatically make George a despicable man, like it would today.

However, since Dawkins is an atheist, chop off his head while the U.D. crew bathes itself in an atmosphere of Righteous Indignation.

What does the Christmas/Santa stuff mean?

Don't ask what Santa did to those elves.

Date: 2013/10/13 09:43:18, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 04 2013,13:12)
Fucking hell.
2  Brent October 4, 2013 at 10:00 am

God didn’t command genocide, period. He commanded the total destruction of a people group. Yeah, yeah. I know.

When someone is killed we don’t automatically get to call it murder. There are certain criteria that must be met before a killing is called a murder. There are killings that are justified. There are annihilations of people groups that are justified.

If we found a people group that was hell-bent on killing every person outside their own society, they would deserve to be wiped out (even though they are following their morality, right naturalists???).

(my emphasis)

So it's not really genocide if they have it coming.  Brent knows this because he follows the absolute, universal and bestest code of morality.  Oh, how I wish I was as moral as Brent!

If you annihilate those who want to annihilate others wouldn't you have to annihilate yourself?

Date: 2013/11/22 18:55:27, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 12 2013,23:49)
I thought that Wes made a very cogent observation. Wtihout Dembski, ID creationism has nothing.

How delightful that the YECs have broken him down to slag.

Even after he crawled on his knees to them they still kicked him out.

How crooked do you have to be when even Christians can't abide you.

Date: 2013/11/26 10:18:43, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (raguel @ Jan. 02 2010,11:21)
Your concern troll is concerned.  :p


Date: 2013/11/26 18:11:50, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 25 2013,15:17)
Good old sleeper agent shit stain Sal. He's turning UD into Sal Cordova's Young Cosmos - and we know what that does to readership. Say "hi" to Telic thoughts when you get to the other side, guys.

Slimy lives down to his name.

Date: 2014/03/18 04:48:10, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (khan @ Feb. 27 2014,19:54)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 27 2014,17:13)
Is that The Legendary Sweater Dembski is wearing?


The Sweater should be on exhibit somewhere.

All ID has come out of Dempskis' Sweater.

Date: 2014/03/18 05:04:43, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 07 2014,07:23)
Garry Gaulin's personal thread has produced 323 full pages since it started. I am fully aware that half of it must consist of his awful model but still it is quite telling that the two uncommonly dense threads only produced 135 pages during the same period indicationg that UD is indeed dead. It's just a sink for spewage by guys who are not even taken seriously by their co-IDiots.

It's the attic room where you keep the crazy uncle who drools and counts unicorns.

Date: 2014/03/18 05:19:52, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2014,16:22)
KF's latest, erm, thing:

Franklin, you are intelligent enough to use a dictionary, so you know or full well should know the difference between doing the equivalent of calling security to deal with a disruptive and slanderous heckler and having and using power to effectively suppress publication of ideas. There is a world of difference between say Mr Obama having a heckler evicted from a meeting such a heckler has disrupted and using policing power to prevent someone from publishing a legitimate criticism — where, of course, there is no right to defame. Your insistence on mislabelling the former as the latter, having been corrected, speaks volumes about your attitudes and motivation. You are enabling a former slander by yourself indulging a slander. Just as, in another thread this afternoon, you sought to insinuate that thinking in terms of product life cycle patterns — a first step in strat marketing — is somehow inferior to doing linear regressions; maybe I should tell you that epidemics, and growing markets or for that matter pyramid schemes start exponentially, but tend to saturate, hence the utility of logistic models, Bass curves and the like or extensions. The pattern of behaviours you have been indulging in haste to poison the well is sadly revealing. KF

Some points.

1. If you have better models, show how they are better
2. KF (and all IDists) like to talk about math but don't like to DO math. KF is the guy who writes cookbooks but has no oven, the guy who reviews cars but can't drive.
3. You censor people, KF. No amount of special pleading will change that. So be fine with censorship, you hypocritical windbag.

Actually his cookbooks have no recipes in them, he argues that recipes  are a good thing and that other peoples' recipes are all wrong but he never offers any of his own.

Date: 2014/03/28 11:47:11, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 26 2014,04:32)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 25 2014,15:11)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 25 2014,14:58)

Vodka! Cosmologists Say Last Week’s Announcement About Inflation May Be Wrong — now my turn!

Since when did Sal take turns being wrong?

Glen Davidson

Here is the great galaxy in Andromeda. Does that look like a single star in the middle surrounded by a cloud of debris and gas, or is it billions and billions of stars with a whole bunch packed in the middle?

Sal does not take turns Sal is not even a stopped clock.

Andromeda may or may not look like a single star, but that's just a distraction and an ad hominem wrapped up in an oil soaked red herring (did I get that right?). The important question is - does it look designed?

Of course it's designed we even have the blueprint, The Bible.

Checkmate Atheists.

Date: 2014/03/28 11:50:14, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 27 2014,11:20)
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,17:06)
Now you're just ducking the issue.

There's a joke in there somewhere about the bill, but I can't be bothered to think of it.

Are you trying to float a note?

Date: 2014/05/01 11:33:19, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem writes:    
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.

Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.

Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.

Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove:

The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You don’t catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle.

Date: 2014/06/14 08:43:02, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 24 2014,02:25)
The Wisdom of vjtorley:    
It is a bit of a mystery how it always happens that whenever I choose [a non-bodily act] to raise my arm [a bodily act], my arm goes up. I would answer: that’s just the way we’re made.

Well, that answers all of my questions.


Sometimes my dick rises whether I want it to or not, that must be god doing that.

Date: 2014/09/24 10:13:56, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 24 2014,03:05)
On Barry's Banning Thread, Dr. JDD asks
When have IDers tried to remove evolutionists from their tenured positions or lectureships or jobs due to their views on origins?

Exhibit A

Of course, I would post this on UD but, well, I'm banned.


Dembski holds that his knowledge of statistics and his skepticism concerning evolutionary theory led him to believe that the extraordinary diversity of life was statistically unlikely to have been produced by natural selection.[7] His first significant contribution to intelligent design was his 1991 paper, "Randomness by Design," published in the philosophy journal Noûs.[12][13] These ideas led to his notion of specified complexity, which he developed in The Design Inference, a revision of his PhD dissertation in philosophy.[14]

Looks like his big breakthru idea is nothing more than the argument from big numbers.

(A  cell has X number of parts and each part has only Y chance of coming about by chance there fore X * Y = unbelievably large number so evolution is falsified.)

Date: 2014/10/15 09:53:26, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 08 2014,09:24)
What about Dembski's random vacillations on "DA Flud" ™? When his future looked tenuous at the fundy bible school? He quickly fell over a non random bibliophile line in the vestry carpet. If he can flip flop on such matters so easily any other statements he makes are purely optional visavis  belief.   Clearly that was designed for minimum outlay and maximum return. Who say's there's no free lunch?

He'll never eat a lunch free or other wise in the Baylor cafeteria.

Date: 2015/01/05 14:44:09, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Driver @ Dec. 27 2014,06:40)
The 'Is Zero Even' thread continues to be great fun. Joe, Mapou, and phoodoo doing a great three stooges act.

This especially made me laugh, from Mapou:
Someone should defecate on Cantor's grave

He is admitting his argument is crap.

Date: 2015/01/05 14:48:44, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 30 2014,10:44)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2014,15:24)
771 comments of zachriel and a few others trying to explain to the UD crowd basic set theory.

A monkey teaching a sock-puppet.  That's ID!

Date: 2015/01/25 11:29:19, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 14 2014,17:35)
he used the devastating 'how come no monkey's still turning into no humans?' line of argument. Thousands of scientists can be expected to resign within days and go on long, soul-searching benders.

There's an exodus from academia to the mountains in search of a guru.

The search has become so competitive that candidates have koaned themselves to death. :(

Date: 2015/02/16 16:43:02, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (NoName @ Feb. 09 2015,16:52)
Quote (socle @ Feb. 09 2015,12:37)
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Feb. 09 2015,07:41)
There is, I think, a genuinely hard question here for humanists and naturalists about how to respond to Nietzsche's provocation.  I think Arrington is deeply mistaken to think that we're being inconsistent by not being nihilists, but I also think that Nietzsche's challenge can't be brushed aside lightly.

This isn't really a "response" to Nietzsche, but I wonder if a normal, healthy person could be capable of embracing nihilism fully.

I can't find exactly the words that I need here, but I believe the reason that I'm not a nihilist has more to do with the way my brain is constructed and functions than with rational arguments.  We are all hard-wired to find meaning and enjoyment in life, except perhaps when in a depressed or pathological state.  For all I know, the meaning I find in life could be completely illusory, but it's self-evident to me that I experience it.

I'm a hard-core phenomenologist of the Husserlian Realist persuasion, so tend to think the distinction you draw is, at least after careful analysis, closer to a distinction without a difference than it at first appears.  But I freely admit, on equally solid phenomenological grounds, that YMMV.  ;-)

Since you cannot have a group if everyone kills each other on sight, "don't kill each other" becomes the first rule, after that the rest follows.

Date: 2015/04/20 14:41:05, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (JohnW @ April 14 2015,11:54)
Quote (KevinB @ April 14 2015,06:03)
This caught my eye a few lines down.

Quote (Kouros Photos @ today)
We all must get up day by day and fight with our inner fool.

I think he's losing......

Gordon's inner fool is fighting with his outer fool.

It's a fistaval of fools.

Date: 2015/05/01 08:55:19, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (KevinB @ April 14 2015,08:03)
Quote (The whole truth @ April 14 2015,07:49)
A friendly warning: Make sure that your desk is thoroughly padded and that you're wearing a very protective, full-face helmet before reading gordo's number 171 comment in arrington's meltdown thread. gordo's first sentence will likely make you feel like bashing in your own skull (or his), let alone the rest of his spewage.

This caught my eye a few lines down.

Quote (Kouros Photos @ today)
We all must get up day by day and fight with our inner fool.

I think he's losing......

I fought the fool and the fool won

I fought the fool and the fool won

Talkin' bushes in the hot sun

I fought the fool and the fool won.

Date: 2015/05/07 10:36:56, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (stevestory @ April 29 2015,16:26)
Dense's latest post links to somehting about quantum gravity. no connection to ID is given. But then she links to this thing she wrote which contains this bit:

Stephen Hawking insists in a recent interview that "Science will win." If we take his current non-realist views seriously, science as we have known it is finished and there is nothing to win. That doesn't mean, of course, that everything shuts down. Some projects will continue as if immortal whereas others will change beyond recognition.

SETI will do just fine. Supporters know "They're still out there." Cut loose from NASA, the organization languished for a while, but now gets by on local and private funding. Raising emergency funds in 2011, it exhorted the faithful (July 17):
What if an alien intelligence is calling us from a distant planet and we have the phone off the hook? What if one (or more!) of the Kepler worlds recently discovered are emitting signals RIGHT NOW and we aren't listening?
Would such an intelligence not think to leave a message or call back?

so Dense says if an intelligence is trying to contact us, and we aren't listening, they can leave us a message.

Uh, Dense, what the fuck answering machine are they going to leave it on, exactly?

The inside of human anuses. They just haven't got the dye worked out.

Date: 2015/05/07 10:39:22, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 30 2015,02:42)
Quote (stevestory @ April 29 2015,16:26)
Dense's latest post links to somehting about quantum gravity. no connection to ID is given. But then she links to this thing she wrote which contains this bit:

Stephen Hawking insists in a recent interview that "Science will win." If we take his current non-realist views seriously, science as we have known it is finished and there is nothing to win. That doesn't mean, of course, that everything shuts down. Some projects will continue as if immortal whereas others will change beyond recognition.

SETI will do just fine. Supporters know "They're still out there." Cut loose from NASA, the organization languished for a while, but now gets by on local and private funding. Raising emergency funds in 2011, it exhorted the faithful (July 17):  
What if an alien intelligence is calling us from a distant planet and we have the phone off the hook? What if one (or more!) of the Kepler worlds recently discovered are emitting signals RIGHT NOW and we aren't listening?
Would such an intelligence not think to leave a message or call back?

so Dense says if an intelligence is trying to contact us, and we aren't listening, they can leave us a message.

Uh, Dense, what the fuck answering machine are they going to leave it on, exactly?

I thought that's what the pyramids were.

They were supposed to be micro dots but there was this problem of scale. ???

Date: 2015/05/07 10:53:33, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (timothya @ May 02 2015,04:19)
May I suggest the start of a new thread entitled: "Shroud of Turin Watch" (alongside the "KF Lewontin Watch")?
Here is BA77 in full flight in the incomprehensible "near death experience" thread at UD.

The reason is simple: the brain, being an electro-chemical computer in a sense, cannot possibly generate vast quantities of novel, continuous, unique, complex specified information spontaneously especially when it involves unearthly and ineffable visual and abstract mental content which accompany near death experiences. The brain cannot even account for the complex specified information we experience in our nightly dreams.

We are but god's sockpuppets.

Typing at the keyboard is ID, seems familiar. :D

Date: 2015/05/07 11:06:48, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (JohnW @ May 06 2015,15:23)
Quote (stevestory @ May 06 2015,13:19)
who the fuck would read 9,180 words from VJ Torley about how you can't have morality or marriage without natural law?*

Barry Arrington, for one.

Suddenly I have this image of Barry hanging on each word, lovingly drinking the juice from each phrase and sucking the pulpy meaning out of each paragraph.

Date: 2015/06/06 09:16:02, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 31 2015,20:46)
Or women who are smarter than or know more than him.

Men too.

Someones's fee fees are shrinking reading this.

Date: 2015/10/07 06:55:15, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.

Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...

I've said that real intelligence is always being used in ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT.

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms

an HVAC system...intellen since it is too obvious..

an uncut 40 carat diamond...i don't know, probably naturen

a cut 40 carat diamond...intellen since it is to obvious

a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage...human itself is intellen since it has a defense mechanism

a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)....intellen since it has a defense mechanism

This is supiden.

Date: 2015/10/27 06:34:34, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 06 2015,16:55)
where the fuck is dembski even at now?

Saying "Do you want fries with that?".

Date: 2016/01/09 23:38:05, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 28 2015,17:38)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 28 2015,16:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 28 2015,01:04)
Since trying to flush it would clog up the crapper... you finally realize your real-science "theory" is just one big turd.

My day-job gives me the resources to make a poster that looks easy enough to flush but the ink and paper (either archival Montval watercolor from France or made of Kevlar) are essentially waterproof. Even where successful with the initial flush it's likely to clog up the pipe out to the street and the Royal Society would have to call a plumber to snake out whatever it is that's now blocking up their entire sewage system and overflowing all the crapper's. After rinsing off (the one or more pieces) to see what it is, the poster is back again. And with even more people wondering what the heck is going on.

You have the power to stop toilets?

Date: 2016/02/05 20:53:13, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 03 2016,17:52)
Barfy Arrogant is in the process of writing several reviews of Denton's new rehash of his old book ($7:15 from Amazon).

The first one is here. Barry spewage

Now that he has banned all but an amputee's handful of opponents, I wonder what we can expect in response. Mullings bowing in deference? Virgil lubricating his lips? Louis (Mapou) leading the charge at the lack of opposition? BA77 wondering why Barry banned him?  

Or maybe he will have to grant another "amnesty" to get his hit rates up.

Banny arrogants last act will be to ban himself.

Date: 2016/03/19 15:34:05, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 11 2016,13:09)
Today's steaming pile of what-the-fuck is brought to you by, well, who do you think?
847 Virgil Cain March 11, 2016 at 10:58 am
ncorrect. ‘ellazimm’ was mine BEFORE ‘Jerad’. I switched because KF thought I was a woman.

You act like a woman.

...from which I think we can conclude that women kick Joe up the arse on a regular basis.  Probably in army boots.

He wishes.

If only he could have met Corporal Kate.

Date: 2016/03/19 15:43:30, Link
Author: tsig
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 15 2016,09:25)
If I make the not unwarranted assumption that those people represent something like the spearhead of the Sisyphusian effort of not only to defend but even to propagate the  glory of inventions made up by Dembski and Behe, like IRC, CSI, et cetera, I don't se any prospect of them reaching their goal before hell freezes over.

Are they stupid, insane, or both? Wilfully ignorant and uninformed, certainly. And orphaned by Dembski.

Dempskies' new career as a purveyor of fine fries doesn't leave him much opportunity to network.