AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: uriel

form_srcid: uriel

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: uriel

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2007/12/11 21:36:09, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 11 2007,18:35)
I think I just got banned from dippy Joe's blog!

Guess I might have had something to do with that, being a "new" poster who apparently couldn't stay 'on topic'. Sorry.

Really, all I was trying to do was helpfully jog the guy's memory as to what that 'constructal theory' thing he was crowing about actually meant.

Given his world-renown, awesomely-awesome membrin' skillz, I thought he'd want to avoid ruining his mad memory rep by looking like he forgot that the article he linked to had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Who knew he had such thin skin? ???

Date: 2007/12/22 04:27:07, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (jupiter @ Dec. 21 2007,23:20)
Isn't it supposed to be spray-paint? Like '70s graffiti! transgressive*!

I'm wondering, what's with the rest of the lettering? There's shading, as if to suggest a 3-D, Pirates of Wherever theme of arrayed long-bones, with the associated connotation of rebellion**. Yet the rectilinear forms of the letters reject any such organicity, and declare their true nature, as strips of smudgy masking tape. Meaning... what????

It means someone read a (most likely wildly out of date) book on "photoshop tricks for idiots" and decided that, if they could throw in every last, damn thing they dimly remembered from their cursory perusal of the topic up against the wall in a single logo- regardless of the coherence, impact, or elegance of the final outcome- that in some way their efforts could be considered "graphic design."

But is that surprising in any way?

We're dealing with people who think mis-quotes of popular science magazines, nonsense maths, and a fevered dedication to the gish gallop equals ground breaking scientific discovery.

Of course they think pointless masking tricks, bad font choices and ill-conceived layouts equal edgy, artistic genius.

It's not like they've ever evinced a sense of discernment or perspective in the past, is it?

Date: 2008/02/21 03:25:04, Link
Author: uriel

I asked Joe, in a fit of honest curiosity, how this:

Natural selection does not apply to non-living molecules- as Dobzhanky stated "pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms". AND mutations do not occur to non-replicating molecules.

applied to infectious prions, since, while they seemed evince both mutation (by definition) and natural selection, compared to their non-infectious, normally non-replicating alternatives. My simple query being, "do you consider prions living molecules?"

Strangely, my question failed to clear moderation. Funny that.

Date: 2008/02/21 03:31:03, Link
Author: uriel
So, obviously, my post had some screwed up formatting there- I'd edit it, but apparently, I inhabit the same non-editable hell FTK does.  I probably deserve that.

Guess I should have used that preview thingie. Sorry 'bout that.

Date: 2008/04/02 02:57:29, Link
Author: uriel
Conservatism has nothing to do with it since there are Atheists that are conservative. Dinesh should know better.

You'd think, wouldn't you?

Unfortunately, you'd be wrong.

Turns out D'souza is one of those ego-centric, identity politics types that are completely incapable of even considering the concept that anyone could possibly agree with some, or even much, of what his favored group/person/movement of the moment might be spouting off about, without also buying wholesale into every puerile take on every last ill conceived notion that passes through his febrile mind. Much like Dembski, Scott, and O'leary.

For them, it's jack-boots and arm bands, or nothing at all.

If Dembski really wanted to show off his super-cool skills in statistical analysis, he'd do a multivariable analysis on the tenancy of ID supporters  to accept, without question, any completely unsupportable, garbage-logic position handed out by the least informed, knee-jerk hacks among them. For instance, it would be very interesting to see how much ID support correlates with global warming denialism, a blind acceptance of the efficacy of middle east adventurism on the basis of it's religious deficiencies, and the willingness to toss the first amendment under the bus in the interest of seizing political power.

I can even provide a null hypothesis: acceptance of ID is completely unrelated to one's acceptance of the idiotic dribblings that Ann Coulter passes off as reason.  

Although I can't say for certain, I think the results would be fairly illuminating. I'm sure that there is probably a very high confidence level that ID support correlates highly with a willingness to reject reason in favor of preconceived notions of what you'd like things to be vs. what reality actually happens to be.

Dave Scott, at the very least, presents an interesting data point on this continuum.

Date: 2008/04/02 03:06:31, Link
Author: uriel

If my post seems poorly edited and incompletely thought out- Mea Culpa.  I hit the post button on accident, and it's way too late to deal with that whole editing thing.

On the other hand, on the off-hand chance any of it, on accident, seems inordinately brilliant-

That part was thoroughly thought out, and completely intentional.

Just so we're clear.

Date: 2008/04/04 02:45:41, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (Louis @ April 02 2008,03:52)
Where IDCism leads, you can almost guarantee whacky ideas about climate change, race, sexuality, imperialism follow. It's often said (perhaps even truly, although I think it's rather tongue in cheek) that reality has a liberal bias, well the flip side to this is that stupidity has a conservative bias.

As much as I might want to object to this- to say that the brush strokes are too broad, the this characterization is far too two-dimensional and simplistic, or that there are levels of nuance that are being shuffled away for the sake of burning convenient strawmen- As much as I'd like to say those things, as I look around objectively at the what is being said and done in the name of conservatism (as a moderate) here in the U.S.,  all I can really say is-

Yep. Nicely put. :> And finally, Seems that way, don't it?

Apparently, at least in this country, conservatives have decided that jingoistic pablum is most meaningful currency they have to offer. And ID fits that bill to a tee.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the very last political voices your side can offer up as reasoned and intelligent commentators are: Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley. Both dead, both 40 years past their prime, and both of whom would be completely lost and irrelevant, if not actively opposed, in the party they supposedly founded. I really can't imagine Goldwater supporting the "arrow pointing at a Muslim's but" cartoon Dave Scott found so poignantly hilarious.

Oh wait- there's also George Will. Who, in stark contrast to the other two has managed to- stay alive, I guess? And who also, oddly enough, admits ID is crap. Strange that.

So now, the right is left to the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, and the Coulters- who are working off of desperately dishonest cliff notes they could never possibly understand fed to them by the likes of Behe, Luskin, Dembski and Wells. All the while cheered on by opportunistic lampreys like O'leary, Dave Scott and the always linked KairosFocus. And the saddest part is they don't see how pathetic they look doing it. They seem to still be able to imagine themselves as the brave warriors of truth, while desperately clinging to their mother's skirts and warding off the boogyman of reality through the fetishistic repetition of magical phrases like "2LOT" and "CSI."

In conclusion, I' like to say that- Hummm. I think this has probably gone far afield from the topic at hand. Sorry. Probably more of a bathroom wall kinda thing. I get it if its moved.

But you know, venting is hard to resist when the opportunity is offered up.

Date: 2008/04/05 03:45:04, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (dogdidit @ April 04 2008,07:15)

I know this is headed for the bathroom wall but my interest in (anti-)anti-evolutionism came from a chance encounter with Coulter's Godless and her rant against evolution. I had thought myself a conservative; I hadn't realized that science was now to be broken up and fed to the fire for votes.

Although I can't say it was the initial tipping point, I will say that Coulter's nonsense was a strong affirmation of my opinion on the plain fucked-up-ed-ness of the political landscape we currently dwell in.

I can clearly remember a Christmas morning, being compelled to say when a relative received Godless on CD as a present-

"Whatever you think about the rest of it, the minute you hit the parts about evolution, call me. Because I can tell you why she is wrong about every last thing she says."

Date: 2008/04/05 03:55:32, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (guthrie @ April 04 2008,09:42)
Is there a USA'ian significance about the name "summer glau"?

The significance is that she is way, super hot. And seems like she could kick all kinds of ass- in her sleep. Gracefully. While preforming "The Nut-Cracker Suite.

Which, again, makes her way super hot.

Watch the last battle scene of Serenity.

This is a woman Frazetta would have died to see in motion.

Date: 2008/04/05 04:10:40, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (Louis @ April 02 2008,03:52)
The example I love above all others is the identical opposition to science and the sheer antireality/anti-Enlightenment jingoism of very left wing, extreme postmodernist, extreme relativist academics one one "side" and very right wing, extreme religious, moral conservative proselytising hypocrites on the other side. The details they differ on, the mode of their ideology and methodology are nearly identical.

Yes! Yes! Exactly that!

I just had this conversation!

This is the thing that boggles my modestly endowed mind- that for all the harping and hand-wringing people like the O'Leary's, D'sousa's and O'Reily's preform over the evils of pomo-isim in academia- is that the right have become the biggest traders in exactly what are, demonstrably, the worst, most street gutter aspects of the thing they claim to despise. The cavalier disregard for evidence. The willingness to throw logic under the bus in favor of preconceived notions. The conviction that conviction alone carries some huge weight that demands respect because of its sheer inertia.

I swear to the god I don't particularly believe in- every time I hear someone start a diatribe with the phrase "There is no consensus in science," I just want to scream: Are you completely ignorant about what science does? Are it's methods so alien to your way of thinking that you can't even begin to see how wrong you are? Is the difference between informed, reasoned and verifiable consensus and "I'm just shooting from the hip cause I'd like things to be this way, so let's al pretend that it is" cow-herding that difficult to grasp? Do you not get the difference between say-it-loud-and-say-it-proud subjectivistism and the simple dictates of reality?

Look, I get, and even in some respects, respect Foucault- but I feel like I'm being asked to applaud rapturously for people who are doing little more than hollowly clamoring to echo that inane "Madness? This is Sparta!" meme. Which, frankly, is just stupid.

Quote (Louis @ April 02 2008,03:52)
I hate to paint with a broad brush, reality is far more exciting in detail! I was being mildly flippant, which I hope came across.

No, I got that. If I seemed over the top, I apologize. D'souza does that to me. We have a history- a brief one, to be sure, but its there.

(By the by- Originally, I didn't have, an edit button, then I did, and now its gone. Is there any way I please, please get it back? Anyone? 'Cause that Summer Glau post could use some corections.)

Date: 2008/04/10 02:34:28, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 09 2008,16:33)
The only problem being that I've heard that Mike Nelson is pretty firmly an antievolutionist. It was gossip when I heard it, so I'd appreciate being corrected on that.

Well, no. As far as Mike Nelson goes, that's one problem.

The other is that Mike is to Joel, as BJ was to Trapper John: on the one hand less funny and original, and on the other more stilted and uninteresting.

In both cases, the replacement serves little more purpose than to inspire a sense of nostalgia in the viewer for either show's halcyon days, when it was incapacitatingly hilarious- rather than merely amusing from time to time. Often times, seemingly, by accident.

And all of this is totally verifiable to the power of one in 10^ one quadrizilloin bajillionth- which means that  "Joel is better than Mike" is so obviously designed it makes cascading clots and flagilial bactrilliums seem completely random. This is EF filter^2 kind of obvious.

Which is to say, yes, I have inordinately strong views on this particular issue. And- again- yes,I'll admit its more than a bit pathetic.

C'est la vie, as the Quebecois are wont to say.

And as far as this goes:    
Quote (dheddle @ April 09 2008,15:40)
There was one where a character in the 50's B scifi movie said "it's destiny" and one of the MST crew--I think  it was the bubble gum machine robot said: "He's a Calvinist!"

That's just the best thing I've read all day.

Bet it was Joel, wasn't it? 'Course it was. Stupid f-ing Mike.

By the way, did I mention I have strong views on the Joel vs. Mike issue?

Date: 2008/04/11 03:03:37, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (BopDiddy @ April 10 2008,11:58)
Man, oh man, *now* here comes a flame war...

Mike was the head-writer, even for much of the Joel stuff, I hope ya know.  And most of the awards the show received were during Mike's involvement.

So there.  Neener neener.

OK- that leads to a better analogy.

Marti Noxon was a head writer for Buffy on and off. Doesn't mean the whole thing didn't take a nose dive in season 5, when Josh Whedon decided Firefly and Angel were his main priorities.

Creators matter. Just ask Denise O'Leary.

So nayh, as peloponnesian merchants were given to opine, from time to time.

Date: 2008/04/11 03:29:16, Link
Author: uriel
And now to serious stuff (or minor quibbling that vaguely funny, your call)-

On the Expelled blog, the most stable Beatle schools us on how classic fail our arguments are:


I have noticed that there are 3 basic techniques that are used by most (not all) of the proponents of molecules to man evolution to attack their enemies (ID):

1. Start off by using the word “Ummm”.

2. Disarm your enemy by calling him a liar or insisting that you are the keeper of the “truth”.

3. Get emotional real quick and call your enemy stupid, ignorant, lazy and a liar.

4. Cut and paste or copy your arguments from the propaganda machine (posing as a credible scientific website)known as TALKORIGINS.ORG!! Just like Marcus Williams likes to do.

5. After you claimed yourself the victor and “totally debunked” your enemy - attack your enemies “level of education” and give the reader the impression that you are more qualified to answer questions dealing with a whole range of scientific fields (like Marcus likes to do).

6. And finally the most important. After you have spent the whole day reading each of these comments make sure that you get in the last word. And if you do not get a counter argument to your well thought out intellectual response then claim yourself the victor.

Because science is easy. But counting?!! That crap's nuts hard.

I'm sure there's an lol-kitty in there, but I'm far too lazy- something like "Umm... Oh noes!!! Darwins haz loosed teh intertubes." Or something.

The main issue for me is, who are the other three guys in the trinity, and what the hell have they been doing for the past 2000 years?

Date: 2008/04/11 03:38:52, Link
Author: uriel
Damn it- that should read "minor quibbling that is vaguely funny"

Can I haz editz, HOMOS? 'Kthanxbai.

Date: 2008/04/12 02:22:37, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (Maya @ April 11 2008,10:19)
12:27 am
Someone needs to explain to me how they get video of Meyers, Dawkins and all the Darwinian materialists saying all this stuff. I mean did Ben just go right up to them and say “hi were doing a movie called Expelled (no intelligence allowed) and its about exposing your side for the psychopaths that you are. Just for the movie’s sake can you please give us your side of the argument as blatantly and as vile as you can possibly say it?

And then they set up the HD cameras?

From what I have seen that they have captured on tape, this movie is gold.

Hmm.  Maybe they lied?


And, actually, despite the popular "princess bride" meme, and the obvious sarcasm, I am using that word correctly.

Date: 2008/04/13 03:00:00, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (blipey @ April 03 2008,14:26)
Something she won't address or acknowledge:

You don't think that there is an over-population issue?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the maximum number of human beings the Earth can maintain is?

Is that more or less than the number of human beings currently on the planet?

If it is more, given current population growth rates, in what year will this number be reached?

Thanks for your concerted effort to address this question.

Good lord man- I admit in a different venue, it'd be a good post, but come on, this is FTK were talking about!

Even if she could wrap her mind around questions 1-3,  is there now, or has there ever been, any indication anywhere on the internets that she would even be remotely capable of answering question 4?

Were talking about someone who probably considers it a victory for god when she can manage to solve uni-variable algebra problems without throwing up her hands in disgusgt and storming off to re-read Corinthians 3:19 a couple of times and praying for divine guidance in the issue. Only because, then, she she can convince herself that what seems to be simple lack of knowledge on her part is something muc, much more- It's righteous ignorance. It's divinely inspired stupid. It's being stupid for Jesus. It's the incomprehension of the Saints .

And you expect her to start calculating multi-national demographic predictions based on a population number she could never even hope to calculate within a dozen orders of magnitude?

It's not that she can't, or won't answer your questions- The simple fact is that she has no idea what you're talking about. At all.

But she does know that "The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless. ” Which means being deliberately dumb as a rock is not only OK with the guy upstairs- it's smiled upon.

Date: 2008/04/13 03:04:47, Link
Author: uriel
And, yes- I'm aware that "were" and "muc" aren't really words in the queen's English. Apparently, my spell check isn't. :(

Date: 2008/04/16 12:41:08, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2008,11:34)
Edited to and:

Just to recap, "the god of this world really has blinded the minds of people to think that God is only for the ignorant" - Then he's going to make them burn forever, because he is after all, Love.

She going to have a masters in divinity. Woo Hoo!

Well, just to point out- in the vernacular of people like Ms. Taylor, "The God of this world" isn't the big guy upstairs. It's his opposite number. The one with the pointy, pointy horns and the well trimmed goatee. Mwwwwwhahahaha, and all that.

So, whole she is breathlessly inane, she is still being consistent in her crazy.

Date: 2008/04/24 02:45:22, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 23 2008,08:47)
Dr. Dr. D has a new post up at UD, entitled "New Website About Atheism". And one of the choir chimes in with this    
I bet that the other side would not advertise a new ID web site! We are not afraid.

'Scuse me- but that's Dr. Dr. Dr. to the n'th degree to you.


And that's only because, frankly, most disciplines are far too afraid to award our good buddy Bill the credit he deserves for overturning paradigms, preaching the truth, and such. Once 'Expelled' takes the world by storm- and I'm assured that it's only a matter of days-  I predict that our Mr. Dembski will be honored with an honorary "Doctorate of everything that matters" by any number of Colleges who advertise primarily on the 700 club.

Then where will your Myers and Dawkins be?

Word to God!

Date: 2008/04/30 02:27:53, Link
Author: uriel
[quote=podzolboy,April 29 2008,19:26]
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 29 2008,18:13)




5:59 pm
I don’t think Aspergers is an evolutionary defect nor a birth defect, the result of industrial pollution.

Personally I think the mind of an “Aspergian” may be tapped into a higher reality.

What the hell!  Having family members that are affected by both autism and aspergers I cannot believe that comment. What higher reality would that be-the one where my family member is beating his head against the floor or my cousin bullied for years at school and in public because he was different-oh yeah life must be better on that higher plain of reality-whatever the hell that means.  What a load of transcendental clown crap


As someone who had to no option but to watch, impotent and helpless, for years on end, while my cousin pounded the plaster out of a corner with his head because something none of could ever hope to understand was slightly out of place- only the most ignorant, unreflective, and unsympathetic observer could possibly equate any form of autism with "tapping into a higher reality."  Reality isn't "Rainman," no matter how much you'd like those sanitized talking pictures to be true.

At best, its coping with a more uncontrollable form of hell. Suggesting otherwise is worse than bad taste- it's taking advantage of other people misery.

Date: 2008/07/16 02:17:15, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2008,20:37)
BarryA calls "materialists" on their faith. It is by faith alone that materialists assume they aren't subject to Descartes' demon, aren't brains in beakers, aren't in the grip of the Matrix:

Faith and Reason

...Philosophers have known for hundreds of years that data provided to us by sense impressions cannot be the basis of absolute knowledge. Renee Descartes, for example, famously demonstrated this with his “evil demon” thought experiment. In this experiment Descartes posited an evil demon “as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me.” The evil demon is so powerful he is capable of presenting an illusion of the entire world, including Descartes’ sense impressions of his own body, to Descartes’ mind. If such an evil demon actually existed, Descartes’ sense impressions would be misleading him, and the outside world, including Descartes’ own body, would not in fact exist even though Descartes’ sense impressions confirmed unequivocally that they did.

Here’s the fascinating part of the experiment. How do we know the evil demon does not exist? Answer. By definition, the data presented to our minds by our senses cannot demonstrate his non-existence. In fact, we cannot know with absolute certainty he does not exist. We take his non-existence purely as a matter of faith.

But Barry, you too may be a Boltzman brain, a brain in a beaker, in the grip of the matrix. Your faith, your thoughts about God, your deepest communing with Christ: perhaps all were programmed into your experience for malicious purposes. You are confident of your moral absolutes. But there are no babies, there are no bayonets, there are no mothers, and there never have been - only virtual babies and virtual atrocities designed to arrest your attention. Your absolute certainty on moral issues is not simply mistaken. It has no referents at all.  

Seems to me, then, with beakers, Cartesian demons and matrices in both the numerator and denominator of the "faith/reason" debate, that the faiths that sustain our mutual rejection of this possibility cancel.

But even with this algebraic simplification (we both accept on faith that we aren't brains in beakers), you grind on with many uncanceled and painfully unrequited faiths, faiths in baroque, concrete, obsolete propositions about the supernatural, God, absolute morality, resurrections, and other notions that lie forever beyond confirmation. Faiths with no analog within the worldview of naturalism. And among those baroque objects of faith we find, in fact, demons. So Descarte's demon is rather a more real possibility to you than to me.

All the while, those of us who embrace methodological naturalism return to our concerns, employing that powerful set of assumptions to build an edifice of consilient knowledge and predictive theory derived from our empirical explorations.

I'm going to tend my beakers now. You're in one of them.

Wow bill- that's just very, very nicely done. Hats off, and such.

Date: 2008/07/16 02:21:51, Link
Author: uriel
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 15 2008,13:28)
In the "Most Bizarre Wishful Thinking" category, the Oscar goes to Peter at UD, who tells us how ID relates to real life    
I saw the new move “Hancock” the other day. The movie was alright, but what caught my attention was an explanation as to where our superhero came from. The was told that “we were made in pairs.” That is very interesting. This is a major summer box office movie. It did not say “we evolved along a separate path.” While it may be possible to be made by evolution, that would be a stretch. It seems to me that the movie makers are acknowledging an important shift in their audience. This tells me that ID has been making significant progress.

And to be fair to the other side:

Wow, peter that's just.... ummm... wow. Really. Wow.