Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense: The BlogCzar Years. Er, Months.

Pages: (31) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4245 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,19:20    The Uncommonly Dense Nixplanatory Filter: the BLOG CZAR years. Er, months. In January 2006 Uncommonly Dense was resurrected, with DaveTard pulling the cord on the moderation guillotine.  He also introduced a new convention in these exchanges.  If posting ALL CAPS is tantamount to shouting, DaveTard's boldface interjections directly into others' posts is tantamount to commentary from a loudspeaker in the ceiling. 4 January 2006 The Resurrection of Uncommon Descent William Dembski By popular demand this blog is back in operation, though with only limited participation in the future from me. Past contributors to this blog have decided they are willing to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining this blog, namely, DaveScot, Bombadill, Crandaddy, and Gumpngreen. Unlike in the past, when they were limited to commenting on my postings, they now have full posting privileges. They will be in charge of the day-to-day business of this blog, everything from keeping it interesting to approving comments to booting recalcitrant commenters. Of these four, DaveScot has been the designated blogczar - the buck stops with him. First day on the job and DaveTard is already warming up: 38 DaveScot 01/09/2006 7:05 am KeithS I haven't seen any empirical evidence of the supernatural yet so I fail to see why it should come up in any discussion unless of course it's merely being used to further a personal/political agenda. When I do see empirical evidence of the supernatural I'll let you know. I expect you'll return the courtesy. Not a single thing yet discovered about the nature of life requires a designer to break any laws of physics in its design or implimentation. There are almost assuredly artificial structures in the machinery of life but no supernatural structures or supernatural mechanisms required to create said artifices. You evidently acknowledge this but are unwilling to divorce the supernatural from ID and insist that ID must take on the question of who designed the designer. That question is a strawman. ID (at least Dembski's latest, most refined works) is about design detection, not designer characterization. Please either restrict your arguments to design detection and take your arguments about the nature of the designer somewhere else. This is your final warning about harping on supernatural designers. And now, a Very Special Moment: DaveTard's first ban. He takes out Keiths, which arouses protests that would never make it to the light of day today: 40 DaveScot 01/09/2006 8:13 am keiths is no longer with us. 43 johnnyb 01/09/2006 2:24 pm Why was keiths kicked? 44 Feederbottom 01/09/2006 2:55 pm Keiths was booted for disagreeing with DaveScot and supplying the evidence to back it up. Heil DaveScot! 45 Feederbottom 01/09/2006 2:59 pm This blog is a sham. Crandaddy to the rescue! 46 crandaddy 01/09/2006 3:39 pm In Dave's defense, it does not logically follow that because nature bears marks which we recognize as being attributable to intelligence, a supernatural entity must be responsible for them. Keith was given a fair warning. Couple days later, DaveTard sharpens his knives and pounds his chest: 7 DaveScot 01/06/2006 1:35 pm Mr. Christopher Questioning Perry's motives as mere political maneuvering is dissing someone I respect. Your opinion is noted and if you insist on having the last word I'll make sure that was indeed your last word here. Consider yourself warned. 24 DaveScot 01/08/2006 11:05 am I want this body count nonsense to stop. This is your final warning. If you try to get in a last word on this you're out of here. The same goes for Keith. 27 DaveScot 01/08/2006 11:26 am Josh is no longer with us. Yip, yip! 28 Benjii 01/08/2006 11:30 am What happened to Josh? Grrrrrrrrrr: 30 DaveScot 01/08/2006 12:20 pm Josh wrote a flaming comment to me after being warned to drop the body count rhetoric. I deleted the flame and the flamer And now time out for another classic:   Quote 8 January 2006 Reminder to Stay On Message DaveScot This applies to everyone writing articles as well as writing comments. Professor Dembski excepted of course. The topic and purpose of this weblog is to instruct and promote the intelligent design work of Bill Dembski in particular and the ID movement in general. We are trying to convince that world that ID is based on math, science, and logic. While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion. I consider atheism to be a contrarian religion and ID offends them as one might expect of anything that pleases the faithful. If you want a soapbox for your favorite religion (including atheism) go somewhere else. I realize that it's hard to divorce our innermost faith from our writing and will try to tolerate a generous amount of spillage but the bottom line is if you're warned to ease up, ease up or the axe will fall. Professor Dembski advised me to be ruthless in policing this blog. I'd naively hoped it wouldn't come to that but as usual he was right. Stay on topic. Feel free to tell me I'm off topic if I wander but don't expect me to ban myself if I don't. Yet another innovation in conversation control: 12 DaveScot 01/09/2006 3:11 am KeithS Comments are now closed on this thread. And another.  Mr. Christopher's banning, which occurred not for comments made on UD, but for comments made elsewhere on the intertubes, gets its OWN TOPIC.  Jealous? 10 January 2006 (Off Topic) Mr. Christopher is no longer with us DaveScot People writing things like this are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Christopher will fit right in at Panda's Thumb. Time out for something special, as DaveTard reminds us that he is a moral relativist:   Quote 28 DaveScot 01/14/2006 7:09 am I'm pretty confused by all this, DT. Morals are always going to be subject to agreement between individuals. Thus there's really no such thing as absolute morals. The closest you can get is unanimous consensus amongst some arbitrary number of agreeable individuals. They can claim their knowledge is absolute but it's still just a claim backed by nothing more than consensus. A spelling lesson: 3 DaveScot 01/13/2006 7:14 pm Inoculated Mind Did you mean puerile? By the way, innoculated is spelled with two n's. How about if I go ahead and delete you so you can return using real words in your name and comments? Something that never was true 10 DaveScot 01/16/2006 7:05 am Josh, you're out of here again. This is not a soapbox for Christian apologetics. -ds Banning in secret code: 22 DaveScot 01/16/2006 12:37 pm Nice flames there Josh. Unfortunately they caught some bridges on fire DaveTard is SO afraid of clowns. 10 blipey 01/17/2006 2:18 am DaveScot: I am assuming, then, that my questions above count as trolling? Some of them were okay but you're in time out until you stop flooding the blog with so many comments. Come back in a couple of days and slow it down. I promise the blog will still be here and evolution will still be the biggest hoax in the history of science. (This is gonna get complicated because bannings may now occur in bold face, embedded in others' comments by means of the loudspeaker in the ceiling.) Now to shape up those Newbies: 5 DaveScot 01/19/2006 12:48 pm space monkey Maybe something to do with it only being up for 12 hours. Might also be that it's rubbish hardly worth a comment. In any case, that's your first comment to be approved on Uncommon Descent and if you don't have anything more constructive to say it's going to be your last. Some defensive comments:   Quote 19 January 2006 (Off Topic) Reasonable Expectations DaveScot I'm a bit aghast that some people here and elsewhere are offended that I will moderate commenters based on their behavior outside the Uncommon Descent blog. To wit, a number of commenters that have appeared here recently, while behaving reasonably here, are elsewhere gratuitously bashing Uncommon Descent, its founder Professor Dembski, Intelligent Design, and other sundry aspersions cast our way. Then these ill mannered children whose parents obviously were negligent in instilling basic manners into them are offended when I discover their extra-curricular activities and invite them to leave Uncommon Descent. In my opinion this is like someone in the real world that talks behind your back and then expects you to invite them into your home like cherished friends. I can't imagine that upon being disinvited for this they would come to you and say But I never said any bad things to your face! Why are you treating me this way?? Goodness gracious. Do we really have to refer this to Miss Manners for a definitive judgement? I think not. Jack Krebs gets his: 25 Jack Krebs 01/20/2006 7:06 am blah blah blah Jack - since I'm banned on Panda's Thumb from commenting I see no reason why I should allow authors from Panda's Thumb to comment here. Please make your responses elsewhere. -ds Stephen Elliot gets the Heave-Ho (but now he's with US! Yay!): 72 DaveScot 01/21/2006 3:24 pm Stephen Elliot is no longer with us. Can't fool ole' DaveTard: 12 DaveScot 01/21/2006 5:05 pm puckSR is no longer with us. He was banned in December and snuck back in. Banning as editorial 17 Thunar 01/23/2006 11:50 pm For some reason one of my posts keep being deleted. I don't think I am rude or something in the post, so I will try again. If the post is not acceptable, could the person deleting it please state his reasons? Thank you. If you have something new it gets a hearing. If it's something old it's subject to deletion. Repeat it elsewhere. Also, nobody here needs to have the scientific method repeated to them like they're morons who never heard it before. As I recall the scientific method is introduced in the sixth grade. If that's the best you have to offer you should probably move along to Panda's Thumb where they never tire of hearing 6th grade science lectures. -ds Another new innovation: The Quiz?: 9 DaveScot 01/25/2006 7:00 pm ftrp ET itself does not promote atheism. Understanding it to be an unguided, unplanned process, as the Wiesel 38 wrote for posterity to the Kansas BoE, certainly DOES promote atheism. Is there some part of unguided/unplanned that you don't understand specifically excludes guidance/planning and specifically excluding guidance/planning specifically excludes a guider/planner? You're treading on thin ice. Answer correctly or I'm tossing you out. Time out for a another classic.  Remember DaveTard warning UD to stick with the science, and science unquestionably indicates common descent?   Quote 31 January 2006 Common Descent at Uncommon Descent William Dembski I have consistently argued that intelligent design neither rules out the common descent of life on Earth (Darwin's single Tree of Life) nor restricts the implementation of design to common descent, as if that were the only possible geometry for the large-scale relationships of organisms. Thus, with regard to this forum, the truth or falsity of common descent is an open question worthy of informed discussion. To open up Uncommon Descent in this way reflects not just the ID community's diversity of views on this topic but also the growing doubts about common descent outside that community. For instance, W. Ford Doolittle rejects a single Tree of Life? and argues instead for an intricate network of gene sharing events. Likewise, Carl Woese, a leader in molecular phylogenetics, argues that the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms. In short, it is not just ID advocates who are suggesting that there is no universal common ancestor. Holy shit.  That was just January. February gets off with a bang: A one post banning: 2 William Dembski 02/01/2006 9:01 am Renier: You don't seem to have quite the right spirit for our little community here. Go in peace, but go. UD adds a time out room: 15 DaveScot 02/05/2006 12:51 am Saxe is in timeout while he thinks about why asking old people why they don't kill themselves is too insensitive for words. And on it goes.  It's "The Banning Fields" 30 DaveScot 02/04/2006 5:17 am Poisson I'm afraid you don't fit in very well here. It's time for you to take your rage elsewhere. 7 DaveScot 02/03/2006 2:27 pm M J has been awarded a time-out for failing to heed my warning to cease and desist with the man designed man nonsense. 10 DaveScot 02/09/2006 3:13 am Josh Rosenau's cowardly ducking of the question has earned him the right to take his bogus arguments elsewhere. That was easy. Thanks Josh! Fitting in is very important: 8 DaveScot 02/13/2006 8:14 pm Scrivner... So there. And don't bother responding as I've decided you don't fit in here. (The loudspeaker in the ceiling makes this project hell): 24 Sparrowhawk 02/24/2006 12:52 am Re: DS at comment #18 I might remind you that it WAS the DI that advocated the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. ("Wedge" document) You can make your future reminders at After The Bar Closes. I think you fit in better there. -ds 76 Mercury 03/12/2006 6:10 pm Hi Dave Goodbye, Mercury. 42 woody 03/08/2006 10:11 pm . Now I have a question for you. Why did I have to give you this information when it's freely available on the internet with a simple google? I'm not here to do your homework for you. Next time you question me I expect you to have done a little reseach youself first or you'll be asking questions on a different blog. Faid gets the axe: 4 Phed 03/14/2006 5:13 pm Comment deleted. Phed, you're not fitting in well here. I think it's time for you to bother a different blog. Thanks for all the fish. -ds Note for Phed. I can see the email address you used to register at UD and knew you were Faid on ATBC since you began commenting here. Even knowing your duplicity I tried to give you a chance. You got the axe for being terminally stupid. Don't flatter yourself or your playmates into thinking it was because your arguments were too good. Thanks for laughs though! I'm glad you found a circus where you and clowns like you can feel good about yourselves through mutual back patting.  -ds Wouldn't want to educate anyone: 25 JohnLiljegren 03/15/2006 8:49 pm Comment deleted. I'm sorry John, but this isn't an appropriate forum for you ask basic questions about evolution. Buy a book on evolutionary biology and read it. -ds Jim Wynne gets the Axe by means of a personal banning by WAD (R. Bill beams at Jim): 3 William Dembski 03/15/2006 8:37 pm JimWynne, You don't have quite the right spirit for our group. Go in peace, but go. -WmAD Tina Brewer finally gets cut (but she seems eternal): 36 tinabrewer 03/30/2006 10:54 am avocationist: hurray! thank you for your beautiful statement of the absolute blasphemy contained in the notion that God, in his majesty and justice, demanded the bloody torture and murder of his only Son in order to satisfy his bloodlust I was unaware, but interested to read, that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice. Thanks. I think that's about it for you here, Tina. Hasta la vista, baby! -ds Hamiltonn gets a theological scolding from DaveTard:   41 Hamilton 03/29/2006 4:07 pm You don't understand basic Christian theology if that's what you think. If they followed Christ perfectly they'd be the most loving, charitable, tolerant people imaginable. You need to go away and come back when you're not a stupid troll. -ds And good old Tiax seems to have unlimited appetite for punishment: 8 Tiax 03/31/2006 6:17 pm "I rue the day that public opinion dictates science." Given your inability think through any of the nonsense you write I'm surprised that you know dinosaurs and humans didn't live at the same time. Now go away and take both your brain cells with you. -ds and a moment later Three strikes you're out. Goodbye. -ds Here's an invisible bannation: 54 physicist 04/08/2006 6:55 am Equivocation deleted. Answer the question. What examples do you put forward that RM+NS is working and what tests were performed to determine that the mutations were truly random? You will not be allowed further participation here until you provide answers. Negative answers along the lines of "I don't have any examples" and/or "No tests were performed" are fine. Then everyone here will know exactly how much real evidence your assertions are based upon. Good luck. A moment later: Physicist is no longer with us. -ds TIAX seems to have slipped back in.  Not for long: 7 Tiax 04/04/2006 5:58 pm Tony's wrong, you can't carbon date a dinosaur. Tony didn't say you could carbon date dinosaurs. Tony mentioned carbon dating to dispute the general claim that the earth is 6000 years old. You can certainly carbon date things a lot older than 6000 years. I seem to recall asking you to pack your ignorant trash and leave this blog. If I didn't, I did now. Go. Go back to ATBC with the rest of the ignoramuses. -ds Great ape leaves no descendants (but he'll be back, too): 4 great_ape 04/12/2006 12:12 am I am unclear whether I should address the math/statistics applicable to biological diversity being generated by RM+NS, or, instead, those applicable to life ever having being initiated to begin with. I don't see anything constructive to further discussion as you aren't fooling anyone here and I'm sure no one here is going to change your thinking. An hasta la byebye is in order. Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.-ds Mr. MusTard does in Dartos with the candlestick in the bedroom: 13 Dartos 04/12/2006 10:39 pm Mr. Scot, If I understand correctly, Get a clue. And don't show your face around here again until you found one. -ds Time out for another classic:   Quote 9 DaveScot 04/15/2006 1:55 am I'm running out of naming options for these increasingly sick people. I started out a month ago with Church Burners. Then I had to add Ebola Boys. Church Burning Ebola Boys. Now what - Church Burning Baby Butchering Ebola Boys? That's too long. Too unwieldy. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Holy smokes.  The illustrated ban, as dhogaza bites the dust.  I had missed that:   1 dhogaza 04/20/2006 10:13 am Yeah, and ID has nothing to do with religion, uh-huh. In case anyone was wondering  -ds Holy shit, another one.  This is starting to feel like The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins: 11 Jazmine 04/21/2006 6:13 pm Flip. Flop. Flip Flung  -ds I think this is a banning from the speaker in the ceiling. An ambiguous ban: 8 cody 04/28/2006 6:59 pm Pay attention. That's not what PZ said. He said he would vote against tenure for anyone who *claims* ID is science. They don't have to teach it, they only have to think it. Thanks for playing. You can go back to your own blog now -ds Dave directs friendly fire at Sal: 8 DaveScot 05/03/2006 6:37 am This is not remotely comparable to detecting design in nature. It's comparable to detecting who wrote this comment. Sorry Sal. I'm closing the comments on this thread. WAD keeps his hand in: 9 William Dembski 05/08/2006 7:01 pm A comment by Chris_UK has been deleted from this thread (as has his user name). Chris chides our little community for surmising what this book is likely to contain only to interpret its content for us and then treat us to some chestnuts against ID. He is welcome to ply his wares elsewhere. The Loudspeaker in the Ceiling is sometimes magnanimous: 17 Jehu 05/15/2006 2:13 pm There is no doubt that Darwin inspired the eugenics movement. Francis Galton the founder the British Eugenics Society, was heavely influenced by Darwin's book, the full title of which is The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Galton once wrote... Excellent. You've earned your release from the moderation list. -ds 1 jpadilla 05/15/2006 2:51 am Don't worry about making a decision to leave this forum. I made that decision for you when you wrote the original nastygram. -ds UpdateYou acted like a spoiled little kid with nasty little mouth so you got treated like one. Now go away, little kids throwing hissy fits aren't welcome here. -ds And sometimes languorously sadistic: 1 John H 05/16/2006 7:58 am It's time for you move along to another blog, John. You've been doing entirely too much regurgitating of trite evolutionist arguments we've all heard a million times and don't care to waste our time refuting yet again. Yesterday I challenged you to provide evidence in support of how the notion that the digitally programmed self-replicating protein factory represented by DNA and ribosomes could self-assemble from inanimate chemical precursers was so strong that it should enjoy exclusivity in the classroom as the only possible way for life on earth to have originated. You declined by saying you were not enough of an expert in evolutionary biology. Well, I'm an expert in digitally programmed machinery and so I know you have no expertise there either so you really have nothing to contribute and are just wasting time and bandwidth by regurgitating things you don't even understand. So kindly find somewhere else to inexpertly pontificate. -ds Cute banning jokes: 12 ajl 05/19/2006 9:24 pm OK, I'll take the bait You're SO banned for that!  Just kidding. - ds Still feeling magnanimous, this time about Bob OH! 12 DaveScot 05/20/2006 12:33 pm Hark! What's that sound I hear from the peanut gallery? I do believe it's the sound of crickets chirping! You're not banned Bob, in case you thought that. Feel free to keep on playing if you think you have a move left. But it doesn't last: 25 Bob OH 05/23/2006 1:23 pm ...To answer your second question, organisms can't evolve (in a Darwinian sense). That sort of change within an organism is called development. Bob No Bob, it's called evolution. This isn't an egg turning into a mature organism. It's a vegetative colony happily reproducing asexually. We'll have to agree to disagree. You can go home now. Come back again soon, but not too soon. -ds Haven't we already heard this line? 15 William Dembski 05/23/2006 10:17 pm Shalini: You don't seem to have quite the right spirit for our little band. Go in peace, but go. -WmAD I have no idea how Shalini escaped the moderation list. I reviewed his comment history and nothing in it warranted letting him off the leash. -ds DaveTard has enough work on his hands: 11 plunge 05/26/2006 11:05 am I have no idea why you couldn't have looked these things up for yourself and posting uninformed crap is why you're banned. I made an exception to this comment just to make an example out of you. Don't bother responding. -ds Not nice to fool with mother nature: 7 SteveB 05/25/2006 3:43 pm I was curious and so I went back and looked at the last several of DaveScot's posts. Dr Dembski: You're not doing yourself or the cause of ID any favors by continuing to grant DaveScot a forum to articulate his parochial, right-wing political agenda on a site which has your name and likeness in the banner, and which perports to be about ID. Thanks... Well Steve, since you reviewed my articles I thought it fair I review your comments and upon so doing I decided you're not fitting in very well. I think it's time for you to move along. -ds Secondclass gets it from WAD hisself: 9 secondclass 06/07/2006 5:08 pm This is utterly false. Nowhere in the referenced paper does Dyson say that zero-energy waves can impart information. And nowhere in my quote do I say that zero-energy waves impart information - I say that they do in the limit. Let me suggest you read the appropriate chapters in Michael Spivak's calculus book on limits. In the meantime, you're out of here. -WmAD Spelling continues to be crucial: 2 Gary Hurd 06/21/2006 12:45 pm PS: It is ironic that I have done archaeological work at both locations in the photos (the Olmec head was originally from La Venta, Tabasco Mex, and the first image was from Semmi Valley Ca, specifically part of the Corrigan Movie Ranch park. Bob Hope bought the Corrigan Ranch and subdivided most of it. Various parts were selected for parks based on their scenic and scientific features. The scientific features considered included archaeology. Gary, you can't even spell Simi Valley much less figure out if you've been there or not. Get lost. -ds Something newly twisted:backstage banning with disemvoweled bad language: 5 DaveScot 06/08/2006 10:24 pm Pi Guy Professor Dembski isn't the one deleting your trollish comments. That would be me. Take a hint and take a hike. Y r n sshl. Sometimes just a touch of the riding crop to keep them in line: 13 ftrp11 06/09/2006 1:14 pm DS?Do you really think its that simple? Christianity + capitalism + democracy = prosperity? During the Middle Ages the Muslim world was far more advanced and prosperous than Europe. Yes. It really is just that simple. This isn't the middle ages. And you're wrong about trade balance. And now you're back on moderation again for making me correct you twice. -ds Oftentimes DaveTard invited departure without actually banning: 10 Mark Frank 06/14/2006 8:37 am I tolerate bright, thoughtful contrarians and you just don't fit that category. You had no knowledge whatsoever from which to base your statements but you made them anyway. That's not thoughtful. Move along now. -ds 32 DWSUWF 06/14/2006 10:23 am DS, My specious on-line poll reference was in response to turandot's specious on-line poll reference, which I note you did not feel needed any editorial comment. Wonder why? Wonder no longer. Coulter's Godless is the top seller in non-fiction this week according to Nielsen's and is #3 in all categories. Given her well established popularity the poll Turandot quoted, while not reliable, is probably reasonably accurate. The one you quoted was not. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. If so take it somewhere else. -ds More hilliarious banning humor, reserved for the masochistic Tiax: 2 Tiax 06/15/2006 11:42 pm I notice that the news story uses the phrase "the missing link" and the scientist quoted uses "a missing link." If you consider the use of a rather than the, I suspect your point of confusion will disappear. I can make YOUR confusion disappear, pal.  -dt 4 Bob OH 06/16/2006 12:36 am You're mis-construing the inportance. It's not "we've found a missing link, therefore evolution is proved", but rather "we've found a fossil ancestor that tells us something interesting about how birds evolved". There's a good write-up on Living the Scientific Life. Bob Wanna see me turn YOU into a missing link? -dt And now time out for yet another classic:   Quote 33 wheatdogg 06/20/2006 9:34 pm DaveScot - Given your obvious mastery of the finer aspects of gravitational physics, would you care to share with us your credentials and/or background in the field? Certainly. I'm an autodidact with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests). I had a college level vocabulary at 9 years of age and was reading everything about science I could get my hands on starting a few years before that. I've continued on that course for over 40 years. In my spare time I became a computer design engineer and self-made millionaire. I quit my day job after making my third million (about 6 years ago) so I can concentrate on fun subjects like science that has little or nothing to do with computers (if I can help it), politics, and religion. So basically all the scientific discovery of the last 40 years important enough to make it into the pages of Scientific American I read about at the time it was discovered. For the last 13 years though I've had a broadband connection to the internet and my sources expanded exponentially. For the last 6 years I haven't been burdened with being a computer whiz kid and my time to learn new things has expanded not exponentially but at least doubled or trebled. Any more questions? -ds DaveTard's errors are deliberate: 35 jrockoford234 06/20/2006 10:57 pm Hmm... DaveScot, you said you had broadband for 13 years, and while I'm nowhere as brilliant as you obviously are, I really don't think broadband was available until 1997 - at the extreme earliest - which is.. let me see  only 9 years ago. Indeed, in practical terms, broadband wasn't commercially available 'till much later. I'm certain your error was totally inadvertent. P.S. Gravity continues to be the weakest force in the universe, with or without broadband availability. Not inadvertant at all. 13 years ago I was a senior engineer at Dell Computer Corporation where we pioneered using the internet to manage the business, supply chain, and eventually much of our sales. I had a high speed internet connection there in 1993. A few years later, must've been around 1997, I was one of the first 500 people in the city of Austin to get RoadRunner broadband cable modem service in my home - it was their beta test program. Gravity is the strongest force in some situations and it's time for you to take a hike. See ya. -ds Zachriel gets resurrected only to be crucified again: 17 Zachriel 06/26/2006 1:08 pm ds:  in a hard science journal Ho hum. Scientific American is not a "hard science journal". It is a conventional magazine providing a roundup of science news for a scientifically educated readership. I'm not sure it was worth fishing this out of the spam bin but I thought it might a good way to point out that the picking of semantic nits is about the best you got. Get lost. And stop taking up space in the spam bucket. I'd rather see the thouands of ads for online casinos, low interest loans, and viagra than more of your tripe. Thanks in advance for your courtesy. -ds 18 Zachriel 06/26/2006 3:12 pm I had assumed my comment was in your spam bin and not for general publication. It was meant for your personal edification so that you could quietly correct your misstatement. There is a significant difference between the philosophical speculation suitable for a column in a magazine and the publication of original research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That you conflate the two is telling. ds: I'm not sure it was worth fishing this out of the spam bin but I thought it might a good way to point out that the picking of semantic nits is about the best you got. I take that as a retraction. 19 DaveScot 06/26/2006 6:43 pm Zachriel You don't handle rejection well do you? I don't want your private correspondences. Leave me alone. And on, and on, and on, and... 23 misanthrope101 06/24/2006 8:01 am "You are supposing that design is an invalid answer." No, I'm only asking for more meat to the theory... This is simply wrong and I'm sick of correcting you over and over about it. You are imagining chemical reactions that do not exist. Go find another blog. You're done here. -ds 11 DarwinCatholic 06/27/2006 1:36 pm Why do questions as to why theistic evolutionists are 'ashamed' of their faith constantly brought up if nearly everyone is not, at least implicitly, assuming that at one level or another God is the designer? I warned you not to embellish the definition of ID on the sideboard. You did. Go now and find a different blog to bother. -ds DaveTard has bandwidth concerns: 13 SME 07/10/2006 1:24 am So It looks like "it's designed" is not a robust rationale. At least not for the scientific community. Maybe it looks designed to you but not to me. I use an example of a digitally programmed protein factory (DNA and ribosome) and you offer me a rock with a couple of square crystals in it as a rejoinder? You're out of here. Go waste someone else's time and bandwidth. -ds Time out for another classic:   Quote 7 DaveScot 07/10/2006 4:56 am Speaking of Scientific American the peanut gallery at ATBC is raising some questions about why I've variously mentioned reading it for 20, 30, and 40 years. Here is clarification. The earliest I recall regularly reading SciAm was in the 7th grade. The school library subscribed to it and I spent a lot of my time at school in the library. That would make it at least 36 years ago that I started reading it every month. I've no doubt rounded that up to 40 years or down to 30 years just because I like round numbers and it doesn't really matter that much. From age 18 to 23 I might not have read it every month as I wasn't in a library much except when required for college assignments and bought it off the newstands. Shortly after I married (at age 24) I began subscribing to it. That was over 20 years ago and I've no doubt mentioned that I've been a subscriber for 20 or 25 years. I missed a few months of it last year in protest over John Rennie's crusade against ID. For the first time in decades I let my subscription lapse and promised to never subscribe to it again. So I told my wife it would make a nice Valentine gift and now she subscribes to it for me so I can have my cake and eat it too. After all, I didn't promise to stop reading it, I only promised to stop subscribing to it. So there. And now, quite abruptly, the end of an era: Quote 17 July 2006 Evolution's Idiot Stepchild - Evolutionary Psychology (this time without the gratuitous comments) William Dembski Here's your second chance to make this thread productive. Stay on topic. Janiebelle has been booted. NEW RULE AT UD: No more bold insertions into existing comments. I've done it as has DaveScot. That's now a thing of the past. One-comment-one-poster is now the rule. DaveTard's feelings are hurt. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. 1 DaveScot 07/18/2006 2:10 am I only have time to go through the comments in the administrative windows which list them in order received on the whole site. I can respond in that window quickly by appending at the bottom of the comment. If I have to drop out of that window to do it another way it will take too much time. Commenting is what I like doing here. Moderating is a pain that I can do without. If appending my comments directly onto others is too much to ask in return for all the time spent moderating then I'm going to quit moderating. Someone else can do it and I'll just be a regular user once more. Which I think begs the question: Was DaveTard EVER "regular" at anything? Now its off to investigate the brain tumor that I've sprouted over the last couple days, reviewing this stuff.  Bye! -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

stevestory Posts: 9067 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,19:39    Wow. What an effort. Good job, Bill.

someotherguy Posts: 367 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,20:05    Free beers for Bill! -------------- Evolander in training

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,20:12    A masterpiece, again. Careful, Bill: you're writing the complete Annotated History of Uncommon Descent. stray comments: * I hope Keiths feels special for being DT's first ban. That deserves to go on the resume. * When did Dave switch from DS to DT? Shows he was reading ATBC and trying to show he had a 'sense of humor'. * I never cease to chuckle at the fact that Josh Bozeman was banned for TOO MUCH god-bothering. Oy. Splendid job! -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Lou FCD Posts: 5379 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,20:47    Bravo! -------------- Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound Work-friendly photography NSFW photography

stevestory Posts: 9067 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2007,23:42    Ordinarily I'd gripe that this should have gone on the existing UD thread, but the amount of work that went into this qualifies it for special status.

Bob O'H Posts: 1998 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,03:54    Should we set up a fund to pay for Bill's psychotherapy? Thanks for the hard work: somebody had to do it, and I'm glad it wasn't me. Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

J-Dog Posts: 4372 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,10:56    Quote (Bob O'H @ July 30 2007,03:54) Should we set up a fund to pay for Bill's psychotherapy? Thanks for the hard work: somebody had to do it, and I'm glad it wasn't me. Bob Outstanding!  Thank you.  You've already done more research and real work than all the DI Fellows combined. Of course your reward for doing great work, is doing more great work....  I hope you can keep up with the bannings in the future.  Fortunately, as interest in ID has waned, so have the posts and bannings at UD and the best case scenario is that you are out of posting material soon. -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Richardthughes Posts: 10341 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,16:41    Any Chance of getting this on PT? -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Richardthughes Posts: 10341 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,19:09    Congrats, Bill: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....n_t.php No, not you, D*mbski. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,20:16    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2007,19:09) Congrats, Bill: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....n_t.php No, not you, D*mbski. Hey, loco boy makes good! Expect the peevish acknowledgement at UD any time now... Can we expect Dave to miss the point utterly and say that RBill is motivated solely by 'sour grapes at not being allowed to post at such a cool blog as UD'? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,20:20    Oy. You know UD is really thriving when the last six posts there are all from Grandma Bonehead.   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Robert O'Brien Posts: 348 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,20:32    I am not 'de jure' banned at UD (as far as I know) but I am 'de facto' banned, probably for posting unflattering things about DaveScot. -------------- Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

Richardthughes Posts: 10341 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,20:36    Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 30 2007,20:32) I am not 'de jure' banned at UD (as far as I know) but I am 'de facto' banned, probably for posting unflattering things about DaveScot. R.O.B., Dave Heddle..we're like a sanctuary for wayward fundies... Don't worry, your care is not contingent on you listening to our sermons... -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

stevestory Posts: 9067 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,20:48    Heraclean though Bill was, he still only documented six months of UD moderation. Mental health professionals would probably advise him to discontinue the effort.

stevestory Posts: 9067 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,21:09    Bill, I'm hoisting a shot of cheap gin in your honor. Yours might be the greatest post in the history of AtBC.

RBH Posts: 49 Joined: Sep. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,21:14    Let me add the banning of Febble, a Ph.D. neuroscientist and theist, who argued that based on Dembski's definition of intelligence, the process of random mutations and natural selection is an intelligent process.  DaveTard banned her saying Quote febble is no longer with us - anyone who doesn’t understand how natural selection works to conserve (or not) genomic information yet insists on writing long winded anti-ID comments filled with errors due to lack of understanding of the basics is just not a constructive member - good luck on your next blog febble -------------- "There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things, one is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex." - Danny Hillis.

stevestory Posts: 9067 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,21:17    I'm beginning to suspect that Reciprocating Bill is actually SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts. A day after Bill completes documenting six whole months of UD moderation, Roberts has a seizure, foams at the mouth, and takes a fall. Weird symptoms...unless one's just been exposed to a dangerous concentration of tard....

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,21:25    Quote (stevestory @ July 30 2007,21:09) Bill, I'm hoisting a shot of cheap gin in your honor. Yours might be the greatest post in the history of AtBC. On the subject of cheap liquor, when I was a kid in the late 60's/early 70's in the SF Bay Area, there used to be a chain of grocery stores called 'Brentwood'. One day when I was there with my mom, I noticed that they had a store brand of vodka called, I kid you not, 'Brentnov'. Even when I was 8 years old, I knew that was horribly, horribly wrong.   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 9067 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,21:37    I'm just in awe of that post. I'm not surprised that we haven't heard much from Bill since he posted it. He's probably catatonic and disoriented. Bill, give us your address. We will send you cheap liquor and DVDs while you recouperate.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4245 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2007,23:15    Thank you for your kind words. The bleeding from my ears has almost stopped, and I'm sitting and taking nourishment. I mostly think we have WAD, DaveTard and the usual suspects to thank for creating such a massively dysfunctional and therefore deliciously entertaining forum. Distill the material a bit and it becomes self-ridiculing.   (Some things just kind of write themselves. That post wasn't one of them.) -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,00:26    Will there be a Part Three? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4245 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,07:02    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 31 2007,01:26) Will there be a Part Three? Same answer as DaveTard's Quiz-Koan: Is there some part of unguided/unplanned that you don’t understand specifically excludes guidance/planning and specifically excluding guidance/planning specifically excludes a guider/planner? Yes. I mean, no. Yes. OK, alright, yes.  NO. Yes... -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Rob Posts: 154 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,14:08    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 31 2007,07:02) Same answer as DaveTard's Quiz-Koan: LOL!  Dave the Zen Master.  Who knew? -------------- -- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

Amadan Posts: 1275 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,15:48    * sniff * After all my hard-earned efforts to tardiculate UD and have myself banned there (de facto, de jure, and de Seven Dwarves), I now suffer the indignity of being overlooked in this Canon of the Castaways. Expect to feature unfavourably in my next Snippette... -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4245 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,16:09    Quote (Amadan @ Aug. 01 2007,16:48) * sniff * After all my hard-earned efforts to tardiculate UD and have myself banned there (de facto, de jure, and de Seven Dwarves), I now suffer the indignity of being overlooked in this Canon of the Castaways. Expect to feature unfavourably in my next Snippette... Dry your eyes, and take note of the dates of the above hall of shame. Seems to me you worked your magical mischief somewhat later. ? Report of your honorable deeds awaits a final installation of this project, which I plan to write forthwith. Which I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Which is near completion. Which I'd be insane to attempt... To tide you over, I offer you this -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4245 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,22:26    The Uncommonly Dense Nixplanatory Filter: Second Childhood A little over a year ago, DaveScot stepped down from his post as BlogCzar. He was seen cavorting in greener pastures - Janie's titillating blog, in particular. A few hours later the New UD was born, the loudspeaker was torn from the ceiling, a brief moratorium on commenting was imposed, and the New Look UD ventured forth with the rededication of Lost in Space, season three. No more camp theater for us. Alas, the reform was equally durable. 7 William Dembski 07/21/2006 8:42 pm Stevie Steve is no longer with us. WmAD Patrick found DaveScot's demotion amusing: 44 Patrick 07/25/2006 4:20 pm Be careful or I might go all DaveScot on you. But he couldn't keep it up. Patrick understood that simply emulating DaveTard could be offensive. 46 Patrick 07/25/2006 6:14 pm I also must apologize for the tone of my last couple messages. But none of that Mr. Nice Guy stuff for WAD 12 William Dembski 07/25/2006 7:52 am TANSTAAFL appears to be blowing smoke, which he is welcome from now on to do elsewhere. WmAD 42 William Dembski 07/26/2006 8:24 am Max Kirk: I'm afraid I'm not entirely happy what you bring to our discussion, so you're out of here. As for my reference to professed Christians, it was not meant as a slur. By professed Christians, I simply mean Christians who publicly/explicitly acknowledge that they are Christians, I am as much a professed Christian as is Ken Miller. 16 William Dembski 08/08/2006 12:50 pm This thread is now closed. I'm going to have Joel go through this thread and remove anyone who was getting out of line. Since, Farshad, you thought slowness in moderating was something to exploited, you'll be the first to go. WmAD 5 William Dembski 08/07/2006 10:38 pm Olegt: I'm not entirely happy with the spirit you bring to our discussion. I'm removing you from the user list. Good bye. 3 William Dembski 08/08/2006 12:14 pm Diegopig: Reach chapters 1 and 2 of THE DESIGN INFERENCE. Also, for my scholarly work, as opposed to cultural commentary, look at www.designinference.com Diegopig & Timcol: You're both out of here. Scott tries something new: a Graphical User Interface: 19 Scott 08/03/2006 8:09 am MrsCogan A particularly clear (and simultaneously surreal) instance of Agree with me or you're out of here, from Uncommonly Denyse. I think she is drawing upon personal experience: 20 O'Leary 08/13/2006 10:29 pm Houdin, you know perfectly well what a species is. If you can eat a pair of pantihose and live, that does not make you a new species. Also, you know as well as I do that many supercilious but badly informed persons assume that Darwin explained the origin of life. Quit twisting my words. My finger is close to the delete key, but I actually hate to use it. Don't force me. Lest we forget, you must amuse, and never bore: 12 William Dembski 08/17/2006 10:24 pm Tiggy, you've become boring. Farewell. WmAD Stripped of his dignity by his experience with Janie, (or was it just stripped?), DaveTard tiptoed back into UD: 5 DaveScot 08/18/2006 5:54 pm I wasn't aware there was anything in Wordpress that allowed you to relocate a comment from one thread to another. Misery loves company: 7 William Dembski 08/18/2006 8:41 pm DaveScot: Glad to see you again. You've done inestimable service for this blog, and your insights have been missed. I've upgraded the account under which you posted this comment to Author, same as Sal. I want to see you posting here again and lets ban like it's 1999: 6 William Dembski 08/22/2006 7:23 am Sophophile: Two points before you are booted: (1) the burden of proof is on the chance worshippers to show that natural selection has the creative power attributed to it in building, say, molecular machines, we already know that intelligence can build machines, including nanomachines; (2) the issue is not the number of articles or books cited, but their quality and detail in demonstrating that Darwinian paths exist to such systems. Good bye. 7 William Dembski 08/22/2006 8:51 pm Valkhorn & EJ Klone: GilDodgen got it. Apparently neither of you did. With Dennett and Dawkins hawking Darwinism and thoroughly alienating the unwashed middle, the comparison seems apt. Tiggy: If you want my technical work, go to www.designinference.com. As I indicated a long time ago, this blog is my playground. When I have a moment, I'll be booting all three of you. Sal, OTOH, just isn't cut out for this kind of work: 33 scordova 08/25/2006 4:38 pm Leo, In the interest of keeping the peace, can you hold off on further comments on this thread? Thank you for your participation, even though I disagree. However, I will have to defer to Dr. Davison since this thread is about his work, and he should have some say as to what sort of dicsussion he wishes to entertain regarding his work. So if you could hold off further comments here, I would appreciate it. thanks,?Salvador Who is THIS guy?  He won't last long: 13 Reciprocating Bill 08/27/2006 1:11 pm S. J. Gould addressed this specific argument vis Blyth in his 2002 masterwork The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. To wit, on page 137 and 139 (138 is entirely footnotes) A Big Moment: DaveTard's first ban since returning. Better put your shithat on, because a shit storm is coming. 132 DaveScot 08/31/2006 9:35 am trrll Arms are not slings. Nematocysts are not blowguns. And I've grown weary of your silly replies. Adios. 73 DaveScot 08/30/2006 8:51 pm Flippantly talking about priests molesting altar boys is over the top, John. Yer outta here. Again. 7 Scott 08/29/2006 7:19 am Thanks for the tip, Davescot. Clowns have always creeped me out. He's outta here UHgain. Take a break, and contemplate these:       ? Quote 4 DaveScot 09/06/2006 7:57 am I wouldn't give you a plugged nickel for all the music and art in the world. 18 DaveScot 09/07/2006 4:48 am Music doesn't give me feeling you describe, nor art, but sometimes natural beauty and inner reflection will cause that response. It's not at all the same pleasure response evoked by food, a bit like sex, and very similar to scalp tingling caused by amphetamines. DaveTard reaches for that tingling of the scalp: 71 DaveScot 09/12/2006 1:02 am Thought Provoker just doesn't have the right spirit for our little community and won't be with us any longer. Fare thee well, Thought Provoker. This guy is a real pain in the ass: 1 Reciprocating Bill 09/07/2006 7:32 pm Bring on the Poof model! 2 DaveScot 09/07/2006 8:33 pm Okay. POOF! You're now in the moderation sandbox. (I thought DT's rejoinder was pretty funny) WAD is very conflicted about that tingling in the scalp: 11 William Dembski 09/10/2006 1:19 am Carlos is no longer with this forum. [Updated 9.10.06] I don't know what I was thinking. He's back if he'll have us. WmAD Can't fool ole' DaveTard: 26 DaveScot 09/13/2006 4:31 am ... Strangelove and Cogzoid are the same person. Since Cogzoid was banned by Professer Dembski a year ago, and it's been my experience that Bill's decisions in these matters are sound ones, Cogzoid under his new name is no longer with us. Fare thee well, Cogzoid. This is one of the weirder bans/unbans you'll ever see: 151 DaveScot 09/14/2006 4:07 am ofro If you had the first clue about pets people keep you'd know how popular small mammals are. Hamsters, guinea pigs, dwarf rabbits, hedgehogs, sugar gliders, chinchillas, and ferrets are a few that come to mind that my kids have had. One of my daughters had a chihuahua the weighed about 3 pounds full grown. You can take it to the bank that an even smaller dog would be very popular. All you have to do is google teacup puppies and you'll get hundreds of thousands of hits. I never said anything about scaring away an intruder. I said a tiny dog would function as a home intrusion alarm while not being loud enough to be a nuisance to neighbors. It doesn't have to be any louder or lower pitched than a wrist watch alarm to perform that function. Pitch is dependent on the length of the vocal cords not the size of the animal. A young girl that masses as much as a large dog has a very high pitched scream in comparison. But that's beside the point as small mammals that have no practical use at all sell well as pets. Given your proclivity for making up facts out of thin air in a desperate attempt to defend your dogmatic chance worshipping worldview and wasting everyone's time in the continual process of correcting you, you're going to have to find another forum for it. Goodbye. 154 DaveScot 09/14/2006 5:34 am On second thought I'm not going to restrict ofro but rather point out that he is an Associate Professor of Physiology at a well known U.S. medical college and obtained his PhD over 30 years ago in Germany. It's enlightening that I was able to box him into an indefensible position regarding the built-in size/weight limitations in the dog genome so easily and such that I had him making up things up like there being no market for tiny dogs and thus no one had tried to breach the 1 kilogram barrier. A simple google that takes just seconds reveals the huge market for the smallest possible dogs and anyone with any exposure to much of the real world knows how popular small mammals are as pets for children. Yet this esteemed professor couldn't be bothered to check the validity of the assertions underpinning his arguments. Why would an otherwise respectable professor do this? Hubris? Unaccustomed to being defied? I don't know. But I do no one thing, it's people like Ofro that have caused me, over the decades, to have no intellectual respect for any professor until they've demonstrated to me they deserve it. Titles unfortunately have come to mean nothing. Ofro has demonstrated just the opposite of deserving respect. His inability to concede a point and the lengths he went to to avoid doing so earned nothing but contempt. I'll let him stick around just so I can make an example of him again in the future. A bit of down home American advice, Ofro: People who get too big for their britches get exposed in the end. Is there a German equivalent to that meme? Cjok is put out to pasture: 13 DaveScot 09/14/2006 3:42 pm cjok just doesn't get it and is no longer with us And Alan Fox forgot! It's Dave's way or the highway (I told you to put on your shithat): 77 DaveScot 09/20/2006 8:43 am Alan Fox is no longer with us. His email to Rieseberg said his finding were being used to dispute evolution. I have never disputed evolution (only the role of chance) and didn't use Riesberg's article to do anything other than dispute trrll's assertion that evolution is unrepeatable. Alan knows this and purposely misrepresented what was in dispute. 20 DaveScot 09/27/2006 7:37 am You're not fitting in with the spirit of our little community here Hawks and your arguments have deteriorated from well constructed to frustrated rants. I'm afraid it's time for you find another blog. David Heddle is unwelcomed by WAD hisself: 23 William Dembski 09/27/2006 4:51 pm David Heddle: I don't like your attitude. I recently booted you off a listserve that I moderate. I'm now booting you from this blog. Goodbye. You can't fire me, I quit: 11 DaveScot 09/28/2006 1:51 pm carl Your delicate flower remark earned you a place on the moderation list. A repeat and you're gone. Capisce? 14 Carl Sachs 09/28/2006 2:18 pm 11 Don't bother. I won't be back. Tom English learns what happens if you make DaveTard cry: 139 DaveScot 10/03/2006 5:44 am Thanks for playing, Tom. There's a lovely consolation prize waiting as you exit stage left. It's an Avida generated EQU instruction autographed by fellow chance worshipper/ professor-in-denial Richard Dawkins. As does KarlFluger 161 DaveScot 10/04/2006 9:12 am Karl I never said anyone modeled microprocessors at the transistor level. That's a straw man. Tom English put those words in my mouth. He said modeling evolution at the protein level is like modeling processors at the transistor level. I replied with an article talking about modeling processors at the gate level. I presumed Tom knew that gates are just a few transistors each and wouldn't quibble. But of course to save your egos both of you did continue to quibble. In point of fact electronics are modeled and understood even at the quantum scale as necessary. I suspect both you and English knew that but are simply too intellectually dishonest to admit that biological systems are not well enough understood to model them like a microprocessor. You're done here, Karl. I find your dishonesty offensive. And yours truly: 190 DaveScot 10/05/2006 2:28 pm recip - ... And just so we are clear, that's the last bit of stupidity you're going to be posting here. Hasta la vista, baby. JAD's immortal question 191 John A. Davison 10/05/2006 6:57 pm Who is left? WAD is left: 7 William Dembski 10/01/2006 2:37 pm MikeFNQ: There's a phenomenon called a neighborhood effect, in which similar entities enhance and reinforce each other. I've removed you from the forum The forces of whackery collide: 46 DaveScot 10/11/2006 2:16 pm John Davison is no longer with us due to abusive personal emails sent to me by him. 41 DaveScot 10/23/2006 3:41 am Due to his refusing to recognize that snowflake patterns derived from looking at snowflakes is self-referential DharmaBum is no longer with us. He's done wasting our time here. Crandaddy is gonna hafta grow a pair if he expects to moderate here: 21 crandaddy 10/24/2006 5:37 pm Speaking of anger, mine is growing fast. To compare my silence with regard to the Wikipedia article to a bystander watching a woman being murdered is a low blow, and you should know that. I believe I have sufficiently justified my course of action, and if you don't like it, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've never banned a commenter before, and really don't want to start now. I fear that one more comment from you will be enough for me to give you the boot; it is for this reason that I'm closing this thread. 4 DaveScot 10/23/2006 10:17 am DvK Eugenics is good science with repugnant ethical implications. Don't bother responding, DvK. I've reached the limit of how much time I'm willing to spend correcting your comments. You're history here. No limit to the pseudoscience, but pseudotheology is another thing entirely. 20 William Dembski 10/25/2006 5:08 pm JaredL: You are herewith limited to two theological posts on any thread. Your confidence in your theological position is out of keeping with its pedigree. Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Thomas were not slouches and did not derive the reductio ad absurdum that you do. Let's get this thread back on track, which is the connection between atheistic Darwinism, determinism, and the inability, as a matter of practical life, to live out the latter. DaveTard doesn't get that you can't simultaneously be both good cop and bad cop: 4 DaveScot 10/26/2006 11:03 am PhilVaz There has been debate among the moderators whether to ban you. I defended you. However, given your uninformed comment that ID claims the designer is God I'm going to admit an error and correct it right now. You're history. Waste not want not: 34 DaveScot 10/26/2006 6:17 pm bebbo In answer to your question, have you seen any posts by Phil here? 38 DaveScot 10/26/2006 7:34 pm Jerry PhilVaz wasn't just banned for this one comment. As I mentioned his banishment was debated among the moderators some time ago for badly misquoting Todd Norquist. I defended Phil at the time but I realize now I shouldn't have. As to your request that I ban you too. No problem. It's done. And the shitstorm continues. Maybe this is that flood they've been talking about: 22 DaveScot 10/29/2006 9:36 am ScaryFacts is no longer with us. After looking at his blog I determined that he isn't the kind of person that belongs in our community. 37 DaveScot 10/30/2006 1:55 am Frisbee has been weeded out. Kristine briefly shimmies through: 19 Scott 11/04/2006 6:32 pm kharley471: Adios o thou who art enomored with 19th century mystery religions. Thou shalt be greatly missed. DaveScot sees an analogy: 36 DaveScot 11/06/2006 4:20 am cfrench I just threw up. And I just banned you. Zachriel gets banned AND censored yet again. He's gonna remember that. 37 DaveScot 11/13/2006 4:12 am Get lost Zachriel. I gave you a second chance to mend your ways but you're still running about on the net posting trash talk about our site here. I consider that duplicitous and don't want your two-faced kind around here. Hasta la vista. I'll be deleting your previous comments along with you. Call it taking out the trash. 21 DaveScot 11/10/2006 8:50 pm Touchstone I've had it with you. Go find somewhere else to post your pap. 22 DaveScot 11/13/2006 6:04 am PaulM: .As a reward for your fabricated-on-the-fly stupidity about SETI you are hereby banished from this blog. Have a nice life. Just the facts as PWE goes down by WAD's hand: 10 William Dembski 11/29/2006 10:43 am PWE is no longer with us. WmAD 13 DaveScot 12/03/2006 9:20 pm Three strikes and you're out, Robin. I've had quite enough of correcting your shabby comments. 80 DaveScot 12/06/2006 6:31 am KL is no longer with us. A new user flying off the handle because he was asked and failed to provide a better reference for the Templeton Foundation's supposed request for ID research proposals isn't acceptable here. 37 DaveScot 12/07/2006 11:34 am Ellis So if we say something can falsify ID and it happens you just know we'll somehow renege on what we said. You're out of here. Buh bye Time out for a classic: Teach the controversy:       ? Quote 15 William Dembski 12/12/2006 2:47 pm Okay, I changed putz to schlemiel. Satisfied? 23 William Dembski 12/12/2006 4:12 pm Putz sounds better, so we're back to putz. (This is the Isaac Newton of information theory speaking, mind you.) 50 DaveScot 12/13/2006 3:45 am Putz does have a better sound to it. No argument there. Absent a more complete single word descriptor I guess it'll have to do. Dickweed would be more hip. Beavis and Butthead really popularized it 64 William Dembski 12/13/2006 10:35 am I'm beginning to find you tiresome, Raing Bee. Goodbye. WmAD Hooligans begins his journey home: 75 DaveScot 12/13/2006 1:56 pm Hooligans is no longer with us. We fail to impress him and he fails to impress us. How far have they fallen?  A classic:       ? Quote 16 December 2006 The voice in the Judge Jones School of Law William Dembski Over at www.overwhelmingevidence.com there is a flash animation featuring Judge Jones spouting inanities (inanities that he actually did write or say). There's been a design inference made that it's my voice in the Jones animation. A disgruntled former UD commenter KeithS slowed it down and lowered the pitch. Well, it's true, it actually is me. But that's only temporary. We are inviting Judge Jones to do himself. Stay tuned. 17 December 2006 Flatulence removed from The Judge Jones School of Law William Dembski The Rembrandt of flash animation and I are working to enhance The Judge Jones School of Law. As a first step we have made the animation less offensive to more refined sensibilities. All the overt flatulence has therefore been removed. Go to www.overwhelmingevidence.com for the less objectional version of this animation (we are keeping the original, however, so that when the history of evolution's demise is written, all versions of this animation will be available to historians). A sucker punch ban: 7 DaveScot 12/20/2006 10:59 am Larry, why do Darwinists insist on calling ID creationism? You'll need to answer on your own blog because you're no longer welcome on this one. Febble was way too smart to last at UD 66 DaveScot 01/09/2007 3:17 am febble is no longer with us - anyone who doesn't understand how natural selection works to conserve (or not) genomic information yet insists on writing long winded anti-ID comments filled with errors due to lack of understanding of the basics is just not a constructive member - good luck on your next blog febble. 17 DaveScot 01/18/2007 2:18 pm Franky This is your last comment in this thread. You're just cluttering it up with nonsense and pedantry. 5 William Dembski 01/20/2007 8:52 pm Kengee is no longer with us. Denyse, longsuffering is a virtue, but not with the insufferable. 12 DaveScot 01/21/2007 7:22 pm steveh is no longer with us 12 DaveScot 01/19/2007 6:28 am ludwig That's so hopelessy wrong I hardly know where to begin. I think you need to find a different blog. Now pay special attention.  Amadan has been made not to exist.  But we know he did in fact exist, because he was well liked as he set his hook: 5 DaveScot 01/25/2007 6:30 am amadan Great comment. Welcome. Amadan can't be seen, but his silhouette in negative space can be felt: 1 tribune7 01/26/2007 8:46 am Any science fiction fans out there remember what Dr Who's time machine was called? The TARDIS 9 DaveScot 01/31/2007 9:44 am amadan ...Intelligent people of all backgrounds experience the numinous which can be quite compelling, quite impossible to ignore, and thus resists discounting by rationalization. 11 DaveScot 01/31/2007 2:04 pm amadan That is not good ‘evidence for a god'. Agree? It's good evidence for the millions or billions of people who experience it. You have no evidence of self-awareness in anyone but yourself except for testimony from others that they too feel self-aware. What's the difference in kind or quality of evidence between that and the numinous?[/quote] Dear Reader (did I just sound like O'Leary? Take me out back and shoot me), please appreciate that I am now wading through countless global warming, DCA, and the sound of some dumb thing or other exploding posts. On and on its dysfunctional way UD goes, and I stagger forward, shithat pulled hard down over my ears: 21 DaveScot 03/08/2007 8:31 am Tims .Inferring that something is designed does not require knowing how it was manufactured. You clearly can't accept that so there's really no reason for you to continue here. We all need a break. Hell, I need a break:       ? Quote 6 DaveScot 03/26/2007 3:55 pm It just ocurred to me that according to Ernst Mayr I must be a different species from Inuits. We're reproductively isolated by geography and there isn't a snowball's chance in south central Texas I'd be attracted to an Inuit woman anyhow even though we're probably still physically compatible on a hypothetical basis sort of like brown bears and polar bears. shithat. Check. 14 DaveScot 04/02/2007 12:27 am Ilion is no longer with us. His first comment here included the rather grandiose claim that he is certain he can show us modern evolutionary theory is false. His subsequent comments have been large on claims and short on substance. We wish him luck and await his Nobel prize for disproving ToE but won't be holding our collective breath in the interim. 7 DaveScot 04/03/2007 6:30 pm Anybody looking for Bilbo's comments if he hadn't been such an ass they would have stayed up. As a general rule any comment that starts out with the theme I don't expect this to get posted because disagreement isn't tolerated I consider to be a death wish and I grant the wish. So don't do it. Quote 11 William Dembski 04/03/2007 9:19 am Some time back I wrote that it can be used to advantage that the other side thinks we're such morons. 92 William Dembski 04/26/2007 10:21 am George Murphy: Your D&D comment merits a boot. I see subsequently that are claiming to remove yourself from the discussion here. That's a happy coincidence. Yet to ensure that you don't change your mind, I'm disabling your posting privileges. 19 William Dembski 06/15/2007 7:05 pm bdelloid is no longer with us. 8 William Dembski 06/21/2007 11:32 am Pixie is no longer with us. 151 DaveScot 07/11/2007 5:54 pm JAM is no longer with us. Patrick Caldon is no longer with us. Attention must be paid: 19 William Dembski 06/28/2007 2:56 pm Hermagoras is no longer with us... -------------------------------------------------------------- We come now, at last, to the most recent banning I detected at UD: 3 William Dembski 07/25/2007 8:24 am JT75 is no longer with us. There are other forums where his views will receive a much warmer embrace. 7 William Dembski 07/25/2007 4:10 pm JT75 emailed me, and I gave him the option to reregister. Perhaps I was hasty. 6 William Dembski 07/25/2007 4:49 pm JT75 has been invited back to the blog. I find it fitting that this final entry depicts WAD, and UD, staggering in circles, because it beautifully characterizes the state of ID. Indeed, having scanned every post at UD (most very quickly) I was in the end struck by how empty it has become, relative to it's high points of dysfunctional vitality. Again, like ID itself. Two more to close this post: 10 scordova 07/10/2007 3:34 pm ...That's fine. I expect I'll get a lot of opinions on this topic. Speak freely. 25 DaveScot 08/01/2007 11:52 am Someone should keep a compilation of dirty darwinist tricks. It'll be full time job needing frequent attention. Bye! -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4553 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,22:38    Springer: Quote John Davison is no longer with us due to abusive personal emails sent to me by him. This should go in the dictionary as an illustration of "hypocrisy". -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,22:46    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 02 2007,22:38) Springer: Quote John Davison is no longer with us due to abusive personal emails sent to me by him. This should go in the dictionary as an illustration of "hypocrisy". Well, THAT reconciliation didn't last long, did it. (snicker)  (giggle) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1754 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,01:21    Bloody hell R. Bill. You deserve a medal for delving so deep into the mess that is UD. That place gives me the creeps.

Pages: (31) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard