form_author: Alan Fox
form_cmd:
| 1 Date: 2005-11-01 04:45:43, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
As it's Toussaints today, I'm at a loose end, so what better way to spend time than browsing Dembski's blog and checking variations from screenshots. I recall Donald M pompously berating me for daring to post on uncommon descent while also posting at PT, and also impugning the motives of the 38 Nobel prizewinners who signed the anti ID statement. Strangely, all seem to have disappeared. I also came across this comment by DaveScot with an addendum by Panda's Thumb is no bastion of free speech. Quite a few people are banned there including myself and University of Vermont Professor Emeritus of Biology John Davison. Before they outright banned John and I they were arbitrarily erasing and/or disemvoweling our comments without warning, rhyme, or reason. At least Dembski will tell you why you're banned and won't childishly mangle your comments into gibberish by removing all the vowels. |
| 2 Date: 2005-11-01 08:40:33, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
I think Lenny is the best example. Don't get sidetracked into philosophical debate. Hammer home the awkward questions. Point out the hypocracy and sophistry. Repeat as necessary and remain watchful. |
| 3 Date: 2005-11-01 08:44:57, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Hypocrisy. (That was spelling error, not typo.) |
| 4 Date: 2005-11-02 04:35:54, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox on behalf of Robert Shapiro |
|
My comments that appeared on the jacket of Darwin's Black Box were only a portion of those I sent to the editor, and do not reflect the extent to which I disagree with the book's conclusions. As a scientist who has written for the public in my own books, I did appreciate Professor Behe's ability to communicate basic biochemistry. As a peer reviewer, however, I would reject any article submitted to a scientific journal that invoked a supernatural solution. As an advocate of the free exchange of ideas (except those which would lead to physical harm to others), I feel that Darwin's Black Box should have been published as a book, even if I did not agree with it. Further, I feel that such ideas deserve the best possible presentation. If they fail, I would prefer that they do because of their innate flaws, rather than because the presenter lacks appropriate writing skills. Some of you may remember the film "Patton". In one memorable scene, Patton, having defeated General Rommel on the battlefield, shouts out "Rommel, I read your book." In that same spirit I would still recommend that all those who oppose Intelligent Design read the best-written books that advocate it, if only to learn the arguments that they will have to deal with. On another topic, I do not know the extent to which the RNA World idea has entered high school textbooks, but it appears in college textbooks and in the media as though it was a theory that was well supported by scientific evidence. The description of it as "dogma" is not my own invention; it was used by a Nobel Laureate in private correspondence. The other use of the word that was mentioned in the thread was in the "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology". Francis Crick has admitted that he did not know what the word "dogma" meant when he coined the phrase. To the person who mentioned that the catalytic part of the ribosome is RNA, I would add that RNA polymerase is a protein. But neither fact informs us about the origin of life. Finally, I should point out that there are two categories of Intelligent Design. In one, the designer is supernatural and uses means that cannot be described by science. That view deserves no place in the science classroom, though I have no objection to its presentation as religion. In the other category, the designer (or designers) is material and located within this universe. This idea has been presented in books by such prominent scientists as Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle. It does qualify as science, but it is speculative and unsupported by evidence. In debates with William Dembski earlier this year (they were officially called "panels"), I asked him which type of Intelligent Design he was advocating. He specifically denied the supernatural interpretation. But when I then asked him why he did not grant priority to Crick and especially to Hoyle, and endorse their ideas, he could give no good answer. I believe that this line of questioning strikes at the most vulnerable weakness in the Intelligent Design position, and should be used more frequently. |
| 5 Date: 2005-11-02 04:46:37, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Robert Shapiro has commented further on peer review and Behe's DBB |
| 6 Date: 2005-11-02 04:55:11, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Professor Shapiro comments in another Finally, I should point out that there are two categories of Intelligent Design. In one, the designer is supernatural and uses means that cannot be described by science. That view deserves no place in the science classroom, though I have no objection to its presentation as religion. In the other category, the designer (or designers) is material and located within this universe. This idea has been presented in books by such prominent scientists as Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle. It does qualify as science, but it is speculative and unsupported by evidence. In debates with William Dembski earlier this year (they were officially called "panels"), I asked him which type of Intelligent Design he was advocating. He specifically denied the supernatural interpretation. But when I then asked him why he did not grant priority to Crick and especially to Hoyle, and endorse their ideas, he could give no good answer. I believe that this line of questioning strikes at the most vulnerable weakness in the Intelligent Design position, and should be used more frequently. |
| 7 Date: 2005-11-02 05:24:14, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Sorry, I ommitted the link for the previous comment. Go |
| 8 Date: 2005-11-02 06:19:48, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Registered user I think you owe Professor an apology for Coming from an apologist for lazy back-slappers like Shapirowhich is grossly unfair. In his latest comment, Professor Shapiro makes clear that his review of Behe's DBB was not in any sense a peer review and that the comments he made have been effectively quote-mined by the editor to present them in the best light. This is standard procedure for book reviews and, I suspect most people would treat them with caution, and even, rarely, check the quote against the source. Are you in favour of censoring books because they present crazy ideas? A much more effective sanction is not to buy the book. Professor has published, and continues to publish scholarly work, which is widely cited by others. He has openly declared himself opposed to the supernatural nonsense of ID. I think he should be complimented on sparing time and effort from his busy schedule in cancer research to clarify that he is on the side of science and reason. |
| 9 Date: 2005-11-02 06:22:24, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Oops should read "Professor Shapiro" |
| 10 Date: 2005-11-02 13:49:42, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Russell, I think Neurode's post #54786 translates as "No, I can't". |
| 11 Date: 2005-11-02 18:20:07, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Donald M asserts The fact is, no amount of responses by Dembski, no matter how detailed would ever satisfy his critics...ever! Until Dembski makes such a response, your assertion will remain baseless. The point you seem to be failing to grasp, Donald, is that ID, as it is being touted as an alternative scientific theory to evolution, should at least have some testable hypothesis. Until that happens, ID must remain a philosophy with no place in school science curricula. To get ID accepted as science, someone will have to, er, do some science. Neither I or you are scientists and are obliged to make judgements as best we can about ID and its proponents. Dembski has demonstrated himself dishonest in so many ways, for example his ability to ignore criticism while denigrating those who criticise him (the gratuitous abuse of Professor Mark Perakh on Dembski's blogsite was a particularly distasteful episode), that for me is enough to destroy his credibility. You can prove the evil Darwinists wrong by producing the science. Dembski can't do it. Behe can't do it. Is anyone else in the ID camp coming close to a workable hypothesis? Until then, you'll have to put up with us thinking ID is a political movement with the intention of advancing the cause of creationist fundamentalism. |
| 12 Date: 2005-11-04 08:37:10, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| What happened to ts BTW? |
| 13 Date: 2005-11-12 16:09:32, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Wolpert and Macready (2005) generalize this set-up but don't add anything fundamentally new to it. How is this a response? |
| 14 Date: 2005-11-12 16:24:52, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Blast Here is the link to Shallit's deposition taken from |
| 15 Date: 2005-11-12 19:13:49, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Please don't respond until you've read the deposition. Thank you. I read through it (admittedly quickly) before posting. The defence attorney takes some well-trodden paths (see PT previous threads) over the Ruse email, the Trotter prize etc, to discredit Shallit, as he is obliged to do. We can speculate on what would have happened if Professor Shallit had been allowed to testify (had the defence not objected) or indeed Dr. Dembski (had he not withdrawn) but why, if his ideas have merit, doesn't Bill adress Shallit, Perakh, Wolpert, Elsberry on the subsantive points they make? |
| 16 Date: 2005-11-12 19:16:21, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Bother. address, substantive. Sorry hit post before spell check |
| 17 Date: 2005-11-14 12:34:03, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Why not just change the title of this thread to "The Bathroom Wall"? Now the interest over the Dover Trial has subsided, the need to present a decorous public face has lessened, so why not bring it back? It would reduce the level of extraneous comments in topical threads that, for instance, Jack Krebs was complaining about recently, and there would be somewhere one can ask stupid and naive questions. Try doing that in "After the bar closes" and you may as well talk to yourself. |
| 18 Date: 2005-11-16 18:56:52, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
ts and morbius Surely not. Morbius' comments are full of wit and humour, and not at all pedantic. |
| 19 Date: 2005-11-17 03:40:00, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
I can't help but feel one of the most effective strategies you could have for 'defending' science would be to lobby for teaching religion at school. But ID isn't religion, according to its proponents. Mind you, my lack of faith in the religion (Anglicism) I was taught and expected to practise at the local Church of England school, flowed from the hypocrisy I experienced there and at my local church. I can't understand why creationism doesn't produce the same result. Maybe bible-belters lack a cynicism gene. PS don't mind Morbius, he's just a big softy really. PS to Morbius. Did ts actually stand for truth seeker? |
| 20 Date: 2005-11-17 03:46:38, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Isn't there some linkage between the genetic dispositon for a large nose and the size of another vital organ? |
| 21 Date: 2005-11-17 03:50:26, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Dawkins' petwhac? |
| 22 Date: 2005-11-17 04:17:21, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
the claim of natural selection is false. Indeed, the bottle-neck of gamete formation is necessary for evolution to proceed, which is why Tim Hague's point about why differentiated maternal cells aren't donated to the embryo is academic. PZ's |
| 23 Date: 2005-11-17 04:44:32, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Assuming compatability there's no particular reason why the 'building' of the rest of the tissues shouldn't be helped along by a maternal donation. Wouldn't the built-in age counter in maternal cells cause them to expire prematurely (Dolly the cloned sheep). And the fact that this would be clone material from the mother would prevent these tissues evolving. Not convinced, Tim, sorry. |
| 24 Date: 2005-11-17 05:15:52, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
The other reason why I make the point is the age old 'mud to man' argument from the IDists and other creatinists. They make sweeping statements like "it's imbecilic to imagine that humans could have come from a single cell" whereas in fact we all do come from (grow from) a single cell. It's not 'imbecelic' therefore to imagine it at all. That's an excellent point, and observable, and being worked on (see PZ on cichlids), and hence my previous question about where the information is packed. |
| 25 Date: 2005-11-17 05:33:02, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Is there a possibility that non-coding DNA could carry information connected with embryological development? |
| 26 Date: 2005-11-17 05:49:22, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
The reason the we develop from a single cell is because anything else would be a mess. Can we rule out what we don't know? We reject Dembski's EF because it fails to account for the unkown. I think the Irishman's reply, to the way to Dublin, "If it's Dublin yer goin' to, I wouldn't start from here." might apply to our thinking. Development of life here seems constrained by evolution, but who knows what lifeforms have arisen on other worlds? |
| 27 Date: 2005-11-17 12:16:04, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
neurode writesI'm not homophobic and And now that we have that out of the way, you unregenerate hose queens, or so it seems, may return to your regularly scheduled game of slap, tickle, and let's-admire-each-other's-frilly-underwear-from-Victoria's-Secret. Something's not tallying here, neurode. |
| 28 Date: 2005-11-17 12:46:46, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Morbius wrote a while back (you other folks keep odd hours)Non sequitur. I just gave reasons why one would expect embryonic development to start with a single cell. Feel free to offer a rebuttal. I can't, which is rather the point. As Tim remarked, we are limited by our experience and imagination. Richard Adams' puddle analogy comes to mind. |
| 29 Date: 2005-11-17 16:42:11, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Norman proposesWhy not have a multiple egg structure accepting a multiple sperm gene contribution and use more sperm at the start. This could allow for having more fathers and making use of more sex. The woman could hold the semi-fertilized egg and get the various sperm parts from different men or the same man.as a response to Morbius'
I don't see the difference being huge from one single-celled embryo to an embryo that is a cluster of cells, if one assumes that the parent can only invest limited resources in its offspring, and that maximum effort will be invested in the embryo (energy required to make one large unicellular embryo is equivalent to making the same size of embryo consisting of a multicellular cluster). I am forced back to the conclusion that we don't know what we don't know. PZ's thread about coding for development addresses the evo/devo issue addresses the issue of how development can be programmed into the zygote. I am hoping for answers when Pharyngula is back on line Maybe it is cost effective to have the full genome available in every nucleus. Taking a computer analogy, maybe having a hard disk with excess and redundant capacity but identical in all locations simplifies the read/write requirements. This is where my lack of imagination fails me, and convinces me that we can't speculate on what we don't know; which is why W Dembski Esq is wasting his and others' time. |
| 30 Date: 2005-11-18 03:04:46, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
I response to my... we can't speculate on what we don't know... Norman replied Oh, yes you can. That's how you start learning those things you don't know, by imagining things that might be. Then you test those speculations and call them "theories." Sorry, Norman, even as I read what I wrote after posting, I heard myself saying, why not. I should have unserted "usefully". Theorising is not done in the abstract (usefully anyway), one at least begins by looking for a problem to solve. One is only speculating on the gap bounded by current knowledge, and building on that existing knowledge (shoulders of giants). You can, I concede, speculate on the unknown, by extending from the known, but I have seen nothing on this thread where anyone has come up with anything new. If you live in a 3- dimensional world, you are not well equipped to examine 4,5,6... |
| 31 Date: 2005-11-18 04:24:08, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Wayne makes my point for me here, NormanI'm also using DNA as my genetic material. These are implicit assumptions which I'm not going to deviate from (yet!). |
| 32 Date: 2005-11-18 04:26:44, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Apologies to Wayne. Tim Hague is making my point for me. |
| 33 Date: 2005-11-19 10:34:08, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
If someone were to marry one of them, would he be guilty of bigamy? Lenny, I am normally a great admirer of your posts, but this is in very poor taste. Furthermore, wouldn't you need to marry both of them to be a bigamist? |
| 34 Date: 2005-11-19 16:33:51, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Does DNA fingerprinting work with identical twins? Enough of these hypothetical questions; head explosion imminent! |
| 35 Date: 2005-11-19 16:47:50, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Even worse, in my mind, is the fact that it DOES all boil down to the Pope's position. Sorry, but I don't care what the pope (a position not established in the Bible) says, I care about what the word says. And I don't understand why most Catholics, it seems, think that what the Pope (and the lower hierarchy) says IS more important than what the Bible says. Sadly, the Catholic Church seems to put too much importance in what a man says as opposed to the Word. Yes, Reverend Flank, I think they might be. |
| 36 Date: 2005-11-19 17:04:41, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Conjoined twins are invariably identical, so, one child has two mothers. |
| 37 Date: 2005-11-19 17:47:40, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
I almost feel sorry for kids like Josh, so ignorant of the world, so certain of their opinions, yet so inarticulate in expressing them, so fearful of confronting reality. Maybe he'll grow out of it and begin to realise he has been a victim of the fundamentalist propaganda machine. |
| 38 Date: 2005-11-19 18:09:12, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Quick answer: Yes. The DNA is identical. |
| 39 Date: 2005-11-19 18:41:32, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
I haven't discussed my religious views on the web Josh, I think you'll find you have, but you are free to do so. Just don't expect others to take you seriously until you have a little more experience. In my book twenty-four is young, and I envy your youth. What you believe does not concern me; what does concern me is the feeling I get that you would like to impose your beliefs on others. |
| 40 Date: 2005-11-20 02:00:18, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
But capable enough to learn Dembski's tricks with post deletions |
| 41 Date: 2005-11-20 02:05:20, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Sorry, link doesn't work, try |
| 42 Date: 2005-11-20 02:10:11, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
The only hope I see for Dembshi is (maybe a faint hope) him recanting on his deathbed. Ah, the Cathar "consolamentum". A handy way to employ Pascal's wager! |
| 43 Date: 2005-11-20 03:04:09, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Josh It's a beautiful sunny morning so I'm off hiking. But I quickly read through the above thread and can't see where you have been gratuitously insulted. That you are young is curable. You'll grow out of it. That you lack education, you can go to college. That you lack experience, hopefully, you'll gain that on the way. And remember, frequent sex, even with yourself, will protect you against prostate cancer in later life. |
| 44 Date: 2005-11-21 02:54:53, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Thanks Josh for joining in So you know a little about me, I'll mention I live in France. Just check what "Renard" is in English. |
| 45 Date: 2005-11-21 16:37:01, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
On I preserve it here for the record books. Well, that will be a first. |
| 46 Date: 2005-11-21 17:12:52, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
OnI preserve it here for the record books. Well, that will be a first. |
| 47 Date: 2005-12-01 16:19:01, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| You old parody,you, Mr. Paley. |
| 48 Date: 2005-12-04 13:40:16, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
BWE Let's hope that may be a turning point and that ID will be more widely perceived as "having no clothes". Taking back the agenda and challenging ID's proponents for their theory and evidence at every available opportunity is the most effective and honest way of demonstrating ID's vacuity. |
| 49 Date: 2005-12-04 14:07:41, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
But taking the analogy with ID. Geocentricism doesn't fit the facts or make the right predictions. Any amount of money can't hide that reality as the truth is self-evident. The paymasters like the Templeton Foundation expect results. ID can't give them any and is ultimately doomed as anything other than a religious belief. The money and backing ID has had from the religious and political right will turn out to be as reliable as that of the Templeton Foundation, as the realisation that ID has nothing to offer them begins to set in. |
| 50 Date: 2005-12-05 07:15:43, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
HOT NEWS!, |
| 51 Date: 2005-12-11 18:39:17, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Are you happy to live in a society where thugs and trollops dominate the popular discourse, where senseless brutality becomes trite, where no man can challenge the most obvious evil, where the government strips the civilised of both property and liberty to finance evil? Where the only solution is to give up and hand our future over to the irresponsible? Thanks, but no thanks. This society exists only in your imagination. Christians have committed many atrocities I don't believe in forcing people to adopt Christianity Fair enough I do think that the Christian philosophy should dominate how we govern and live. Man is a social animal. Almost any form of social organisation is preferable to anarchy. It is naive to claim that western societies' development is purely attributable to "Christianity". Steve Reuland makes the point about how the use of scapegoats is a standard ploy of the unscrupulous political movement. |
| 52 Date: 2005-12-13 06:24:38, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Completely OT. Anyone wanting a laugh and with time to waste may enjoy a quick look |
| 53 Date: 2005-12-17 06:11:49, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Norman Remember this is Josh Bozeman posting. His inability to see the projection, inconsistency and irony in his own comments is breathtaking. It never ceases to amaze me that Dembski allows such drivel on his blogsite. However, as someone else pointed out recently, it all contributes to the undermining of Dembski as having any remaining credibility. |
| 54 Date: 2005-12-17 06:18:34, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Norman I'll give it a go for you. What is the French word for "Fox"? |
| 55 Date: 2005-12-17 06:26:02, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Jim, follow |
| 56 Date: 2005-12-17 11:42:34, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Another exile from Dembski's blog writesI suppose if Darwinian proto-Nazis hadn't wormed their way into a closer and closer alliance with the State and worked to censor any opposition as they typically do, then the DI would recieve(sic) millions in State funding to do the research that you demand... and supposedly desire. (A word to the wise; Nazi references are best avoided unless you wish to claim martyrdom from this site too.) Can you elaborate on any suggested scientific research or experiment that is proposed by any proponent of ID? And why the millions Howard Ahmanson has handed over to the DI haven't been enough to fund any such research at all, yet, Mynym? |
| 57 Date: 2005-12-17 16:30:06, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Norman assertsWe have found microbes that survive in space. Really? Have you a link for that? Are they terrestrial microbe spores or real alien microbes? Norman postulates It seems very possible to me that microbial life is far older than life on Earth and got delivered to our planet by asteriods and/or comets. Well, it's a seductive hypothesis. But you still have to address abiogenesis at some point. There seem parallels with who designed the designer. |
| 58 Date: 2005-12-17 16:40:12, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Me too, but let's not blow his cover. |
| 59 Date: 2005-12-17 18:31:35, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Norman Your links seem to suggest the possibility of terrestrial bacterial spores surviving embedded in nooks or crannies on spacecraft, and more controversially, in meteorites or similar space debris. I suppose it does increase the time and the available environmental diversity in which abiogenesis must have necessarily occurred. I'm with Robert Shapiro in thinking we haven't begun to scratch the surface of this mystery, but it is hugely intriguing. PS did you see comment #63230? |
| 60 Date: 2005-12-18 04:07:29, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Norman Have you considered that outer space could be a preserving environment for a bacterial spore, akin to freeze-drying. Just enclose it in enough debris to protect it from radiation, and it might survive indefinitely. Just drop on suitable planet, add water and bingo. Still leaves you with the ultimate question, though, in some other time and place. |
| 61 Date: 2005-12-18 16:11:44, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| And from wherever or to wherever microbes may have travelled, we still eventually run up against the buffers of abiogenesis. We know it occurred because we are here, but how and why it happened is now and may always remain a philosophical question. |
| 62 Date: 2005-12-19 07:17:56, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Tim Meteor strike throws out debris into space; a lump is large enough not to get hot enough to incinerate resident bacterial spores; lump ends up drawn down to another planet, still big enough to avoid incineration of cargo, and ...bingo. OK, I'm not even convincing myself. Never mind. (And too many enoughs!) |
| 63 Date: 2005-12-19 07:18:14, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Tim Meteor strike throws out debris into space; a lump is large enough not to get hot enough to incinerate resident bacterial spores; lump ends up drawn down to another planet, still big enough to avoid incineration of cargo, and ...bingo. OK, I'm not even convincing myself. Never mind. (And too many enoughs!) |
| 64 Date: 2005-12-19 07:20:49, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
La vache! Xcuse double post. I promise I refreshed to see if post had registered first time. |
| 65 Date: 2005-12-19 09:51:17, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Aside to Norman No more relaying questions by me on to Dembski's blog for you, my lad. I've been |
| 66 Date: 2005-12-19 12:51:21, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Thanks Nick I'm sure I speak for everyone in thanking you for the time and effort you (and others) have put in. Fingers crossed. |
| 67 Date: 2005-12-19 13:59:21, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
David, I'm |
| 68 Date: 2005-12-19 14:08:09, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Carol Please don't take this as a general endorsement, but your comment #63337 seems eminently reasonable to me. You may be getting rained on for other posts. |
| 69 Date: 2005-12-19 14:42:24, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
David Your pretended outrage is disingenuous. As Russell says the anomymous review system at Amazon invited abuse. Hey, had I relied on reviews of such quality I could have ended up buying "No Free Lunch" or, God forbid, "Darwins Black Box". |
| 70 Date: 2005-12-19 15:02:12, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Yes and No. |
| 71 Date: 2005-12-19 15:15:15, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Seriously, David, I find it hard to take your question seriously. I think perhaps there is a scale of being ethical, from completely via very and somewhat to not at all. Substituting a scale of 1 to 10 (going from ethical to unethical) a spoiling review in Amazon counts around 2. |
| 72 Date: 2005-12-19 15:38:00, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Flint I think you a being a bit hard on Carol specifically with regard to post #63337. I suspect scientists often have subjective ideas when commencing a line of research. The scientific method and repeatability will eliminate subjective bias that creeps in to any meaningful research, in the unlikely event that the researcher has been unable to curb his own subjective bias. |
| 73 Date: 2005-12-19 15:42:01, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| You've backed me into a corner,David. Publishing a false review is unethical. And I know it's "et tu quoque" but everyone is at it at Amazon, and anyone who doesn't realise it probably has difficulty reading. |
| 74 Date: 2005-12-19 15:47:15, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Norman Mars has some surface features that are difficult to explain other than by erosion by liquid water. |
| 75 Date: 2005-12-19 16:47:45, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Flint I'm sorry, I was so taken with the Newton quote, I missed the following in Carol's post, until re-reading just. whether creationist or otherwise. Mea Culpa. Carol, science and religion are orthogonal, conflating the two is a disservice to both. |
| 76 Date: 2005-12-19 17:37:44, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Dawkins, If I recall correctly, mentions leaving out the statistics to simplify things for the lay reader. Whereas (At least according to Professor Perakh, in whom I place great confidence) Dembski's math is mostly superfluous and is intended to bluff the non-mathematician. Dawkins must know enough math to sum Bill up as a second rate mathematician. |
| 77 Date: 2005-12-19 18:50:08, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
I think Dembski has granted DaveScot some editorial responsibility, for example, see |
| 78 Date: 2005-12-19 19:18:40, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Re Chris Booth's |
| 79 Date: 2005-12-21 03:31:13, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Belated congratulations from France (bandwidth issues- I wonder why?) to everyone who contributed to such an amazingly reasonable and sensible result. Judge Jones sure does cut through the crap. I hope it sets the tone for a return to commonsense in the political arena in the US. Well done, everyone. |
| 80 Date: 2005-12-21 08:49:21, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
USMC Ex Sgt Springer fulminates on the weakness of the defence and 2) The expert witnesses on our side should be industrial design engineers not biologists. What are biologists doing testifying about design? Makes sense to me ;) |
| 81 Date: 2005-12-21 14:48:12, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Bill, you being a racist who claims to believe in geocentrism, your opinon is much valued. Have you read the judgement? It seems a no-nonsense assesment of the facts and evidence presented. I have to admit being surprised at its unequivocal clarity, |
| 82 Date: 2005-12-21 17:01:37, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Sorry, Bill, for the unfinished sentence, when my wife calls "Supper" I go. It seems others have rendered any further remark by me superfluous. |
| 83 Date: 2005-12-22 05:12:40, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| LOL, Norman! |
| 84 Date: 2005-12-28 11:07:34, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
From West part If this case were being argued in 1989, Pandas might be more dispositive as an authoritative guide to the theory of intelligent design. But there is now more than 15 years of scholarship by scientists and philosophers of science who think there are empirical means to detect design in nature. Pandas predates most of the major works of the contemporary design movement in science, including monographs by Cambridge University Press, and technical articles in peer-reviewed science and philosophy of science journals. The primary guide to the beliefs and views of intelligent design scholars today should be this record of scholarly and scientific and technical articles, not a supplementary high school textbook written more than a decade-and-a-half ago. 15 years of scholarship, peer-reviewed science? Is the man mad? |
| 85 Date: 2005-12-29 04:43:10, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Larry This site has had an air of anti-climax lately, with the Dover case over. Thanks for injecting a new fun topic. |
| 86 Date: 2005-12-30 08:19:40, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| I blame "Dover anticlimax syndrome". |
| 87 Date: 2005-12-30 12:57:19, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| repitition? |
| 88 Date: 2005-12-30 14:17:22, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Norman, At least the |
| 89 Date: 2005-12-31 10:40:28, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
So take heart --- you'll be rid of me soon enough. Lenny, I, and most others who read PT I believe, have enjoyed your no-nonsense posts enormously. You made a valuable contribution to the Dover issue. PT seems to be a victim of the success of the result. There's nothing much worth blogging about at the moment. Let us know where to find you if and when you move on. |
| 90 Date: 2005-12-31 13:05:32, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
You live in a country that has no separation of church and state and that has religion in the public schools. Physician, heal thyself. Which system manages to produce an extraordinarily low percentage of actively religious people (compared to the US at least). Letting Creationists loose in public schools and exposing kids to their hubris, hypocrisy and mendacity may not have the effect you perhaps desire. |
| 91 Date: 2006-01-05 08:07:51, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Peter Paulinmary? Ghost of Paley? Similarities? Len Shulz? Sockpuppet? |
| 92 Date: 2006-01-05 10:48:15, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
OT |
| 93 Date: 2006-01-07 05:14:16, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Does anybody else besides me think that everybody is being awfully hard on Dave? It doesn't't matter if he's trolling or not, it's possible to answer his questions and point out some problems with his premises---which others who are lurking may share---without being abusive (as Flint was able to do pretty thoroughly). Yes. Rants often seem "designed" to obscure the ignorance of the poster, it's a shame when people (I'm sure it's out of genuine exasperation) fall into this counterproductive mode too quickly. Mind you, Mr Fafarman, for example, has used up all his consideration credits. |
| 94 Date: 2006-01-07 05:30:51, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Hadn't read to the end when added previous post. Might still have some relevance. What do you think, Sir T? |
| 95 Date: 2006-01-09 16:40:50, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Panda's Arse might be an appropriate title. Seconded. |
| 96 Date: 2006-01-09 18:00:50, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
I have theory that pisswater the colonials drink addles their brains Have to disagree here, Dean. Some Canadian beer is very palatable, and definitely more potent than piss. E.g. Creemore wheat beer from Ontario is excellent. If you look at Dembksi's, ARN's, and a few other IDC blogs you can see an authoritarian type of get out of line and you will be punished party line seems to be a part of IDC culture. This makes perfect sense, especailly when you realize that it only take a few questions to bring the whole house of cards down. As one who has just got banned at ISCID for attemping to ask awkward questions, I agree. Demonstrating the inability of those maintaining ID sites to permit or sustain reasoned debate,I believe, continues to show the emperor has no clothes. |
| 97 Date: 2006-01-10 16:24:01, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Dr Heddle What puzzles me is why you want to post here. Your field of expertise is, I believe, cosmology, and you are a religious apologist. This is a blogsite where "The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation." No-one here seems particularly interested in what you have to say, and you only succeed in irritating people who then respond accordingly. You could avoid PZ's disemvowelling and general opprobrium by posting in more sympathetic arenas. Why, then, do you do it? |
| 98 Date: 2006-01-10 18:05:34, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Welcome Keiths. I must have Alan (Renard) |
| 99 Date: 2006-01-10 18:12:33, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Oops don't know how that happened, try |
| 100 Date: 2006-01-10 18:22:15, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Interesingly, two of the people he banned in the last four days are rabid ID supporters (Josh Bozeman and Benjii) who just happened to rub Dave the wrong way. I suspect they were too overtly religious for DaveScot who |
| 101 Date: 2006-01-10 19:10:36, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Larry Fafarman My question to Dr Heddle (which he didn't answer) was why does he want to post here. I am the last person to suggest banning anyone, not even you... well, maybe I would draw the line with |
| 102 Date: 2006-01-10 20:07:59, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Carol, If this were a blog devoted to cosmology or religious apologetics, I wouldn't be puzzled at Dr. Heddle posting here. Repeating myself, asking him why he should want to post here (and not getting an answer) is not the same as voting to ban him. I am also puzzled at how you think your posts here might improve the sales of Mr Landa's oeuvre. |
| 103 Date: 2006-01-12 17:14:42, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| This thread is a good argument for re-erecting the bathroom wall, with Larry being locked in. |
| 104 Date: 2006-01-13 05:33:04, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
If a British school starts teaching creationism as science they're going to get into trouble and will have their funds withdrawn. The UK education system has a National Curriculum with regular school inspections. The ultimate sanction fo a "failing" school is closure. |
| 105 Date: 2006-01-13 06:53:45, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
I'm bored with the 'British School' stuff anyway What about warm-bloodedness in the Great White Shark being another example of evolution in action. |
| 106 Date: 2006-01-13 12:22:37, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
If you ever come across it, I can thoroughly recommend Never heard of "Owd Roger", but Marston's Pedigree is excellent where the cellar care is good. I remember a pub near where I used to live (70's) with a clientele that seemed to be almost exclusively building workers. There was one beer pump in the bar and they only served Marston's Pedigree. On a Sunday lunchtime, that pump was in constant motion, and the beer was nectar. I have often been sorely disappointed since. |
| 107 Date: 2006-01-13 12:55:54, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Thanks Carol for 655 :) |
| 108 Date: 2006-01-14 08:47:26, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Champaign yeasts are good to 18%. As the subject of champagne has now been mentioned, I feel I should correct a widely held but erroneous belief, that the winemakers of Champagne were the first to invent sparkling wine. In fact the first recorded recipe for a sparkling wine can be found in the records of There is even a suggestion that Dom Perignon, the monk credited with coming up with the idea in Champagne may have spent his novitiate at St. Hilaire, but this is apocryphal. |
| 109 Date: 2006-01-14 08:57:52, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
@ Sir_Toejam I was hoping you might comment on |
| 110 Date: 2006-01-14 09:03:08, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
I believe that the concept of irreducible complexity has merit, and I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face by opposing it just to help stop the fundies. That is a bit scary. So, you will promote the vacuous concept of irreducible complexity, even though you know it is a ruse to help the religious right to gain political power via indoctrination of young impressionable minds. |
| 111 Date: 2006-01-14 11:41:22, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Trouble is, it would probably need the dropping of integrity to cash in. LOL |
| 112 Date: 2006-01-14 12:22:52, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Regardless of whether irreducible complexity is valid, it is clear that it has sparked a lot of important scientific research. Then cite some Mr. Fafarman, cite some. |
| 113 Date: 2006-01-14 13:57:22, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
@ Brian alias Sartre On balance I think DaveScot is a huge asset for those who wish to debunk ID. I am amazed at your patience and eloquence, and I'm sorry I missed this when dipping in to Uncommon Dissent before. Presumably you were banned soon after. :) |
| 114 Date: 2006-01-14 14:06:08, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
|
| 115 Date: 2006-01-14 14:08:02, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| And, no, I don't have shares in the business. |
| 116 Date: 2006-01-14 14:23:55, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| You seem to think I'm some kind of alcoholic, Stephen. The only Burton I associate with beer is the Mecca of British brewing, Burton-upon-Trent, home of Marstons. |
| 117 Date: 2006-01-14 14:31:47, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Actually, I think that should be Burtn-on-Trent. That probably comes of hailing from near Stratford-upon-Avon, where I did quite a bit of beer research as a lad. I'm old enough to remember the Flower's brewery (the Flower family were benefactors to the Royal Shakespeare theatre) before that was taken over and demolished. |
| 118 Date: 2006-01-14 14:37:25, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
BTW does anyone else think this tirade from Mark Perakh is a crazy Russian physicist known to say all sorts of crazy things. Russians are notoriously paranoid conspiracy theorists and bald faced liars. My favorite example was when I questioned his credentials and his response was essentially "the communists took my papers". Evidently Mark doesn't know the classic American excuse "my dog ate my homework". I had a field day with that one. In this case, it would again appear that Mark's proof disappeared in an unfortunate circumstance beyond his control. A mysterious software glitch in Amazon Canada magically and momentarily revealed the name "William Dembski" behind an anonymous reviewer's handle. Wow! What're the odds? At any rate Mark's "the Canadian software ate my proof" is par for the course for this guy. The short answer is Perakh, like a million other lunatics, doesn't deserve a response to his paranoid accusations. |
| 119 Date: 2006-01-14 14:49:17, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
I just checked to see what brewers remain in Burton and I am pleased to see |
| 120 Date: 2006-01-14 16:19:18, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Thanks for the offer, Sir T., see you over there. BTW, If Reed thinks this will blow a gasket, then I think he should at least post a comment here to confirm. |
| 121 Date: 2006-01-15 05:26:37, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Keiths, see As the bathroom wall has been mothballed, we are now asked to post OT items WRT to Professor Perakh, not once has Dembski attempted to honestly address Professor Perakh's criticisms, but (working through his sycophants) uses these despicable smear tactics. It is (perversely) a compliment to the Professor that Dembski has to resort to this sort of tactic, showing that Dembski cannot honestly address or rebut valid criticism of his own work, and resorts to shabby ploys like this example. And the man claims to be a scientist! |
| 122 Date: 2006-01-15 05:32:11, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Oops, OT items |
| 123 Date: 2006-01-15 09:32:51, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Caledonian wrote in comment #72060It would be more productive to ban the people who respond to him. Once deprived of sustenance, trolls inevitably wither away. It's the people who keep feeding the trolls that are the real problem. And yet in #72081... Should you not now ban yourself, Caledonian? |
| 124 Date: 2006-01-21 04:05:29, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| A whole week away working, must have missed a few pithy comments. Anyone able to fast-track me? |
| 125 Date: 2006-01-21 13:08:46, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Adnams Although based in Suffolk they do have one London pub, The Bridge House at 218 Tower Bridge Road (A100), SE1 2UP. |
| 126 Date: 2006-01-23 09:47:56, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Stephen asked, WRT The Bridge House,Can I assume that is near Butlers wharf and the new mayors building? It's south of the river on the approach to Tower Bridge, no more than 150 yards from the bridge itself. On the opposite side of the road from City Hall. I guess this would be where Ken has his office. |
| 127 Date: 2006-01-25 16:24:34, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| guts to gametes???????? |
| 128 Date: 2006-01-25 17:31:26, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| Guts to gametes, Mr P? |
| 129 Date: 2006-01-27 07:49:25, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
No, they have no sense of humor. My irony meter's flickering a little. Alternatively Lennie for contributor; it would be interesting to see how his moderating policy would pan out. |
| 130 Date: 2006-01-28 13:43:01, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
LOL Perfect. Does it have the same connotation in the US? |
| 131 Date: 2006-02-25 07:06:00, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
|
| 132 Date: 2006-03-05 18:00:54, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Poppers Ghost Are you acquainted with ts/morbius? |
| 133 Date: 2006-03-10 04:23:49, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Andy H You need an irony meter. Oh and... Shut up, Larry. |
| 134 Date: 2006-03-11 17:33:57, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
|
| 135 Date: 2006-03-12 04:14:27, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Some credit is due to Flitcraft for linking to the source material Comment #85937 Some other relevant comments follow the one above in the same thread. |
| 136 Date: 2006-03-12 04:15:37, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Some credit is due to Flitcraft for linking to the source material here Comment #85937 Posted by Flitcraft on March 11, 2006 12:46 PM (e) Dean, The Guardian piece you link to and the coverage of this story in the media in general has been pretty useless. It seems to boil down to people being unable to tell the difference between teaching Creationism and teaching history of science. Here is the actual syllabus that sparked the story http://www.gcse-science.com/file_downloads/pgd_f...... The relevant bits are pp.34-35. It covers things like debunking Lamarckism and examining the reception Darwin got at the time. All very handy stuff. The exam board itself is very clear: Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding. http://www.ocr.org.uk/OCR/WebSite/docroot/newsup......" I'm a bit concerned that people are going off half-cock over this and that it may lead to them being taken less seriously when they address real threats like the Vardy Schools. Some other relevant comments follow the one above in the same thread. |
| 137 Date: 2006-03-12 04:17:24, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Apologies. Posted #85996 on wrong thread, so, please ignore. |
| 138 Date: 2006-03-12 10:51:35, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
ID did fine in Dover. Is this statement meant to be taken seriously? Did you read the transcripts of Behe's testimony and cross-examination, not to mention Steve Fuller's po-mo contribution? Your link finds an article by Plantinga taking a similar line to Fuller, What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing science in accord with methodological naturalism? There is a good deal to be said on both sides here. For example, if you exclude the supernatural from science, then if the world or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused --- as most of the world's people believe --- you won't be able to reach that truth scientifically. Science redefined to include the supernatural ceases to be science, and becomes philosophy. |
| 139 Date: 2006-03-16 02:38:31, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Hope you have managed to get back to some sort of normality after that disastrous fire, Professor Perakh. Billy Redden ought to play Dembski. He was the guy with the banjo in "Deliverance". |
| 140 Date: 2006-03-30 01:41:35, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| We are sure this not a clever parody, aren't we? |
| 141 Date: 2006-03-30 01:44:42, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
| I mean, Mr. Newman wouldn't be trying a bit of Dembski street theatre, would he? |
| 142 Date: 2006-06-25 04:50:54, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
Hilarious.As I mentioned in passing above, the answer I like is modeled after Europe. We don't need to 'punish' or otherwise get rid of the religious --- we just need a more secular society in which people are free to practice whatever religion they want. They just don't get to expect that religiosity confers special privileges in public policy. Is is amazing to me that in a technologically advanced country like the States, which prides itself on being the "Land of the Free" that a large slice of the population and the controlling political grouping do not seem to accept that real freedom involves freedom for religion and freedom from religion. [/schadenfreude] |
| 143 Date: 2006-06-29 17:31:30, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
@Stephen Elliot Dawkins's latest work "The Ancestor's Tale" is a good investment. I thoroughly recommend it as an antidote to the nonsense on this thread. @ PZ I hope you have learned from this. I admire your posts on evo-devo immensely. |
| 144 Date: 2006-07-04 06:07:46, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Golly, Mark, you're famous. You must be on the right lines to get a thread on UD about you, notwithstanding they confuse authorship. But then the facts have never had high priority at UD. If Mr Springer is reading this and wishes to respond, he is welcome to do so |
| 145 Date: 2006-07-04 12:59:50, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
I could have responded to the Marks on Panda's Thumb but I'm banned there. I mean really physically banned there. Mark Frank's registration here is alive and he's not blacklisted. He's on the moderation list which means his comments take an editor's approval before they appear. He didn't even try responding here. How disingenuous of you, Mr Springer. We have seen many examples of posts that you would rather not acknowledge remaining in the moderation queue indefinitely. * |
| 146 Date: 2006-09-09 06:23:27, Link |
| Author: |Alan Fox |
Perhaps someone should tell him that empirical science doesn't deal in certainty,... I'm not certain, but isn't Pliny the Elder quoted as remarking "One thing is certain - that is, nothing is certain"? PS, PG, are you related to ts or Morbius? |
| 147 Date: 2006-09-19 02:35:18, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Re Stevaroni's PS may I add my thanks to Nick Matzke for a great article. |
| 148 Date: 2006-09-19 02:42:53, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
@ Popper's ghost I am really curious to know if you are related to ts and Morbius. Your wit and lightness of touch seems so similar. ' |
| 149 Date: 2006-09-19 02:54:52, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
@ Popper's ghost I am really curious to know if you are related to ts and Morbius. Your wit and lightness of touch seem so similar. |
| 150 Date: 2006-09-21 02:31:20, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
Everyone should read David Heddle's |
| 151 Date: 2006-12-01 15:44:32, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
In my pinheaded opinion, Popper's Ghost ain't the same guy. ts and morbius are much closer in style and tone---this has been asserted several times and not yet (to the best of my recollection) denied by PG. ts and morbius were definitely the same poster. Poppers ghost, for all his erudition, misuses ad hominem in exactly the same way. It is the same poster, no doubt of it. I know I'm right and I have this overwhelming sense of schadenfreude. BTW ts, that stands for "truth seeker", no? |
| 152 Date: 2006-11-27 14:35:10, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
However ill-tempered and littered with strawmen, the great thing is that such a debate can take place. Long live free speech and the free exchange of ideas, (or at least the free offer of ideas).Great! Nick Matzke endorses 1) deporting the fundamentalists (as if emigration would or did deplete them), 2) the establishment of a state church, and 3) more football. It might be worth a try, just don't send them back to Europe. Do you really believe the US has a sports-nut deficiency? Of the non-armchair sort, yes. |
| 153 Date: 2006-12-06 15:17:25, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
@Sir T You don't like Robert much, do you? I must say I agree with the "waste of space" assessment. Robert, Have a go at reading "The Ancestor's Tale". If nothing else, it should give you an insight into the mind of the enemy. |
| 154 Date: 2007-01-11 05:02:01, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
|
|
| 155 Date: 2007-01-11 13:44:59, Link |
| Author: Alan Fox |
That debate between Febbie and DaveScot was by far the best exchange I've seen on UD. I have mixed it up over there enough to come close to being banned, but nowhere near as masterfully as Febbie did it. She was so superbly lucid and persistent that DaveScot simply gave up in exasperation, unable to dismiss her arguments. So he dismissed her in the only way he could. I second the proposal and can offer spare server space if someone could help with setting it up (are you reading this, Lou) If you build it, they will come. Or will they? I forgot to mention, kudos to Lizzie! |