RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (32) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Young Cosmos, A Salvador Cordova project< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,08:19   

I don't know if this deserves its own thread. But we'll see what happens.

http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=53

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,09:11   

Quote
Quartic decay (as Dr. Cheesman suggested) of light intensity vs. distance would suggest the universe is not 13,000,000,000 light years in "radius", but rather the square root of that, namely 114,000 light years across


Oh, it needs it's own thread. However, the only problem will be the lack of participation over there. There are simply not enough kooks to keep OW, UD, Brainstorms, and youngcosmos amusing. The most notable thing about most of those sites is the lack of discussion, in comparison to something as inane as "pokemon forum" which gets almost 50,000 hits in google, for example. And I imagine most of them get more traffic the all the ID forums combined!

Quote
I have less trouble than most regarding 6 literal days for creation as meaning the stars were made in those 6 days.

It's nice to see Sal openly admitting the depths of his folly though.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,09:15   

Quote
The mission of YoungCosmos is to provide a forum where the most serious scientific objections to a Young Earth can be raised and carefully considered. Although the process may not be pleasant for those sympathetic to a Young Earth, the process is necessary for Young Earth theory to progress as a serious scientific competitor.

http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=73

So, it's like ok to go and present some objections :)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,09:34   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 31 2007,09:15)
Quote
The mission of YoungCosmos is to provide a forum where the most serious scientific objections to a Young Earth can be raised and carefully considered. Although the process may not be pleasant for those sympathetic to a Young Earth, the process is necessary for Young Earth theory to progress as a serious scientific competitor.

http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=73

So, it's like ok to go and present some objections :)

Hope he does better than the EF...

--------------
"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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,09:53   

Sal says
Quote
stars were made


If they were made, they were designed. If they were designed the EF claims to detect that. I'll ask Sal if the EF notes the sun as designed......

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,10:20   

Quote
I'll ask Sal if the EF notes the sun as designed......


anyone want to wager on the form of the response?  i'm dying inside.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,10:57   

I started to look at the main site (http://www.youngcosmos.com).  Sadly, I can't get past the second paragraph without falling off my chair:

Quote
Advanced Creation Science


Whoops!  On the floor again!  This is starting to hurt.  

Let's try it once more.  I'm going to hold on really tight this time.

Quote
Advanced Creation Science


Ow!  Ow!  Ow!

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,11:08   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 31 2007,10:20)
Quote
I'll ask Sal if the EF notes the sun as designed......


anyone want to wager on the form of the response?  i'm dying inside.

well how about that, somebody asked already....

Link

:p

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,11:15   

Quote
Dedicated to exploring the possibility that all universe and life have come into existence very recently by an act of Intelligent Design


Well, Sal is a good sport to acknowledge what we've known all along, namely that there's no principled difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Or would Sal object that "Young Earth Intelligent Design" is a very different thing from Young Earth Creationism?

--------------
"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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,13:05   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 31 2007,11:15)
 
Quote
Dedicated to exploring the possibility that all universe and life have come into existence very recently by an act of Intelligent Design


Well, Sal is a good sport to acknowledge what we've known all along, namely that there's no principled difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Or would Sal object that "Young Earth Intelligent Design" is a very different thing from Young Earth Creationism?

Sal Cordova is a huge liability to any pretense that ID is not religion.

Not to mention other liabilities, such as quote-mining.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,14:05   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 31 2007,09:11)
 
Quote
Quartic decay (as Dr. Cheesman suggested) of light intensity vs. distance would suggest the universe is not 13,000,000,000 light years in "radius", but rather the square root of that, namely 114,000 light years across


Oh, it needs it's own thread. However, the only problem will be the lack of participation over there. There are simply not enough kooks to keep OW, UD, Brainstorms, and youngcosmos amusing. The most notable thing about most of those sites is the lack of discussion, in comparison to something as inane as "pokemon forum" which gets almost 50,000 hits in google, for example. And I imagine most of them get more traffic the all the ID forums combined!

   
Quote
I have less trouble than most regarding 6 literal days for creation as meaning the stars were made in those 6 days.

It's nice to see Sal openly admitting the depths of his folly though.

Well, SN1987A is 169,000 light years away.

This distance is independent of the speed of light decaying or not!  A counter-intuitive result, but one
you can check for yourself.  

SN1987A formed a ring, and light from the supernova bounced off the ring and arrived at earth 400 days later than the supernova.  To keep the analysis simple, make a right triangle (the ring is not perpendicular but tilted in reality).  

The angle is 1.66 arc seconds or 1.66 / 3600 degrees.  The sine is the diameter of the
ring.  The cosine is the distance to the supernova.  The hypotenuse is the light bouncing off the ring.  The path length difference is 400 days, since the hypotenuse and cosine are very close to the same length.  Now assume that the speed of light was ten times faster for one year.
Both rays of light travel the same distance (10 light years), with the remaining distance to be travelled still 400 light days different, and the light arrives 400 days apart.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,14:13   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 31 2007,13:05)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 31 2007,11:15)
 
Quote
Dedicated to exploring the possibility that all universe and life have come into existence very recently by an act of Intelligent Design


Well, Sal is a good sport to acknowledge what we've known all along, namely that there's no principled difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Or would Sal object that "Young Earth Intelligent Design" is a very different thing from Young Earth Creationism?

Sal Cordova is a huge liability to any pretense that ID is not religion.

I couldn't be happier with Sal as a prominent internet advocate for Intelligent Design.

--------------
"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 31 2007,14:56   

SAL CORDOVA: And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

BILL DEMBSKI: This new learning amazes me, Sal.  Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

SAL CORDOVA: Of course, my Liege ...

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,17:06   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 31 2007,13:05)
Sal Cordova is a huge liability to any pretense that ID is not religion.

Well heck, **all** IDers are.  Ain't NONE of them can go ten minutes withoput launching into the "Bible blah blah blah Jesus blah blah blah God blah blah blah" routine. Just read UD for ten minutes.

As I've always said, all you gotta do is just sit back and let them talk long enough, and they shoot *themselves* in the head every single time.  Proudly. They simply cannot shut their big mouths.

They are by far their own worst enemies.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,18:02   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 31 2007,14:56)
SAL CORDOVA: And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

BILL DEMBSKI: This new learning amazes me, Sal.  Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

SAL CORDOVA: Of course, my Liege ...

Someone needs to photoshop photos of Sal and Dr Dr Dembski onto a picture of Arthur and Bedivere.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,18:47   

FSM help me but I'm a masochist.  I went and hit Sal with the same C14 cal curve consilience question in his C14 thread we've been beating AFDave with (I posted there as 'Tiggy' ).  He's already gone through one iteration of mindless AIG C&P 'evidence' that completely fails to address the question.  Wonder how long before he introduces Jesus into the equation?  He's already brought in DA FLUD.  :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,20:29   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 31 2007,15:56)
SAL CORDOVA: And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

BILL DEMBSKI: This new learning amazes me, Sal.  Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

SAL CORDOVA: Of course, my Liege ...

LOL. Rob, you're not a bad guy sometimes.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2007,22:38   

Re "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped."

That idea could have a peel...

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,00:42   

Well, that didn't take long.

Sal has already removed my criticisms from the C14 dating thread and banned me from posting there.

One a craven YEC always a craven YEC I guess.  Dembski and DaveTard woud be proud!

Now let's see how long before I get banned totally.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,04:23   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2007,02:29)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 31 2007,15:56)
SAL CORDOVA: And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

BILL DEMBSKI: This new learning amazes me, Sal.  Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

SAL CORDOVA: Of course, my Liege ...

LOL. Rob, you're not a bad guy sometimes.

No Steve! Bad Steve. We DON'T say that.

Louis

P.S. I AM joking, I read RO'B's post, laughed, read the poster's name, did a double take, laughed and raised a glass in RO'B's honour.

--------------
Bye.

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,09:33   

If things fall apart at Sal's place, I think I've got a live one here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-search-of-evolution.html

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,10:09   

Quote
scordova Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:04 pm
Dr. Jellison,
I do not want to minimize whatsover that you may be right. I was merely pointing out the possible (even if remote) chance CDK might be able to survive the problem you pointed out. The eclipsing binaries in Andromeda may have an alternative explanation, and the fact that 9% of spectroscopic binaires are eclipsing was suggested as an anomaly (perhaps a disconfirming anomaly) as well. We are afterall only getting pulses out of "eclipsing binaries".

We do not in fact have their orbits in plain sight.


I read this and heard the distinct sound in my mind of:

"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"
"WERE YOU THERE?"

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,10:43   

Quote (JAM @ Aug. 01 2007,09:33)
If things fall apart at Sal's place, I think I've got a live one here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-search-of-evolution.html

JAM - Excellent catch - How and where did you find these nuts?  Did you just google "nut-jobs"?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Maybe we should have a contest some day to find the runner-up dumbest ID blogs (UD of course will always be #1 - in our hearts, if not in the numbers).

--------------
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

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,12:40   

Sal is a self-fluffer...                      
Quote
Sal: I delight to consider myself [Dr. Cheesman's] partner
                 
Quote
Sal: I'm going to call this dilation SCC Dilation (Setterfield-Cheesman-Cordova)

Sal has been talking about Setterfield for over three and a half years, at least:  Sal @ ARN  But, how serious is he about following the science with YEC implications?  Just last week, he admitted:                    
Quote
Actually until you pointed out the Andromeda and Magellan formations I was not aware of binaries that far away.

From his C14 radiometric dating thread:                  
Quote
In 2004 some of my personal research augmented that of Loma Linda/GRI

Either that is more self-fluffing, or Sal must have been pretty knowledgeable about radiometric dating.  From the ARN post linked above:          
Quote
               
Quote
faded_Glory:
Salvador,
All you show are 'proofs by contradiction', but surely a young Earth would have many traces left of its short history? One example would be short-lived radioactive isotopes. Where are they?

fG, I do respect your opinion here, you are clearly more knowledgeble in these areas.  I present the argument with caution, I could be wrong (and fall back to OEC), but for the sake of defending the YEC thesis, I will try to entertain your objection to the best of my ability.
Can you point me to a link to spool me up on radiometric dating? Your question deserves to be answered. I will do my best to honor your question. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, however, there may be some possibilities to radioactive decay related to the speed of light being variable (strange as that may sound).

What a fluffer!  The argument he cautiously presents is that "there may be some possibilities to radioactive decay related to the speed of light being variable" and to ask for a link where he can read up on radiometric dating.  How telling that his personal research ignorant googling can augment YEC research.  Sal puts the "fun" in fundie.

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,12:46   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 01 2007,10:43)
 
Quote (JAM @ Aug. 01 2007,09:33)
If things fall apart at Sal's place, I think I've got a live one here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-search-of-evolution.html

JAM - Excellent catch - How and where did you find these nuts?  Did you just google "nut-jobs"?

Inquiring minds want to know!

I found it because Bradford of TT linked to it on his own blog. This guy is hysterically funny, yet articulate--check out his justification for using the term "female drones."

It's a special brand of tard.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,14:12   

Quote (Gunthernacus @ Aug. 01 2007,12:40)
Quote
Sal: I'm going to call this dilation SCC Dilation (Setterfield-Cheesman-Cordova)

From the Crackpot Index.

Quote
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)


--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,16:27   

Sal is living up to his reputation as one of the most dishonest  scumbag YECs to ever touch fingers to keyboard.

He is now using his Mod powers to go into threads I started, delete posts, and remove / edit damaging evidence without any notice that the post was edited by him.

What a dishonest piece of shit.

:angry:

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,16:42   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 01 2007,16:27)
Sal is living up to his reputation as one of the most dishonest  scumbag YECs to ever touch fingers to keyboard.

He is now using his Mod powers to go into threads I started, delete posts, and remove / edit damaging evidence without any notice that the post was edited by him.

What a dishonest piece of shit.

:angry:

http://www.apostolic.edu/biblestudy/files/9th-com.htm

--------------
"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: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,02:01   

Sal explains why he's pro ID:

http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=43



Quote
I started getting interested in ID in 2001 when my father was terminally ill and I was searching for meaning in life. There were also future missionaries from my churches and Bible studies who were risking their lives for their faith. It bothered my conscience that if the Bible were false, I was merely encouraging them toward their doom. One of the missionaries was Heather Mercer who became world famous in 2001 when US Army rangers rescued her from the Taliban. Thus, I had to be assured that ID was probably true so I could sleep at night, for their sake. If ID were false, the moral thing to do would be to discourage them from being missionaries.


This sums up Sal. He re-imagines reality to compensate for his immorality.

--------------
"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: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,09:30   

That's textbook bad reasoning.

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,09:40   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 02 2007,09:30)
That's textbook bad reasoning.

Or, as Sal would say "Even Darwinists agree my reasoning on the subject belongs in textbooks."

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,09:47   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 02 2007,17:30)
That's textbook bad reasoning.

Oh no it's not, it's textbook YEC reasoning. If the world is old the Bible is false and god don't exist.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,10:42   

Quote
There were also future missionaries from my churches and Bible studies who were risking their lives for their faith.


Are these:

A)  Missionaries who don't exist yet
B)  Missionaries extolling various prophecies
C)  Missionaries that people are buying as commodities

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,10:48   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 01 2007,16:27)
Sal is living up to his reputation as one of the most dishonest  scumbag YECs to ever touch fingers to keyboard.

He is now using his Mod powers to go into threads I started, delete posts, and remove / edit damaging evidence without any notice that the post was edited by him.

What a dishonest piece of shit.

:angry:

Agreed.
Some of Sal's posts make my teeth itch.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,10:50   

Quote (blipey @ Aug. 02 2007,10:42)
Quote
There were also future missionaries from my churches and Bible studies who were risking their lives for their faith.


Are these:

A)  Missionaries who don't exist yet
B)  Missionaries extolling various prophecies
C)  Missionaries that people are buying as commodities

blipey - Looks like you've really nailed Sal on his "missionary position"... :)

--------------
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

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,11:36   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 02 2007,09:47)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 02 2007,17:30)
That's textbook bad reasoning.

Oh no it's not, it's textbook YEC reasoning. If the world is old the Bible is false and god don't exist.

Well,  The world IS old, the bible IS false, and god DON'T exist, so this is all valid reasoning.  :D

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,17:23   

the tard harvest is coming in early this year people!

Talking about how to moderate a forum, Sal says:
 
Quote
DaveScot pioneered the model, I'm just improving upon it.


Sal (last post)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,19:56   

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that sal might be the biggest fool of all those fools.

As a wise friend once said, "You could pick that [fool] out from all the [fools]".  (that isn't exactly what he was talking about but it works).

Davetard pioneered the model ROFLMAO

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,21:38   

Sal Cordova the slimy piece of shit has hit a new low.

It didn't surprise me that he deleted my threads with no board notice

It even didn't surprise me when he began cutting out parts of my replies to give the impression I agreed with him, again with no board notice

Now the cocksucker has started editing my posts and replacing my words with his own words praising Sal's work.

Not even AIG, ICR, or UncommonDescent stooped to falsifying posts under a user's name.

I hope everyone disseminates this far and wide, to let the world know what a worthless shitheel that asshole really is.

Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,21:39   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,21:38)
Sal Cordova the slimy piece of shit has hit a new low.

It didn't surprise me that he deleted my threads with no board notice

It even didn't surprise me when he began cutting out parts of my replies to give the impression I agreed with him, again with no board notice

Now the cocksucker has started editing my posts and replacing my words with his own words praising Sal's work.

Not even AIG, ICR, or UncommonDescent stooped to falsifying posts under a user's name.

I hope everyone disseminates this far and wide, to let the world know what a worthless shitheel that asshole really is.

Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.

Can you provide some examples or links?

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,21:57   

Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 02 2007,21:39)
     
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,21:38)
Sal Cordova the slimy piece of shit has hit a new low.

It didn't surprise me that he deleted my threads with no board notice

It even didn't surprise me when he began cutting out parts of my replies to give the impression I agreed with him, again with no board notice

Now the cocksucker has started editing my posts and replacing my words with his own words praising Sal's work.

Not even AIG, ICR, or UncommonDescent stooped to falsifying posts under a user's name.

I hope everyone disseminates this far and wide, to let the world know what a worthless shitheel that asshole really is.

Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.

Can you provide some examples or links?

   
Quote
Tiggy

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 33


PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:52 pm  
:
Salvador did an outstanding job.

[admin note: Tiggy's post had some editorial imporvements made to it by the moderators]


The admin note was just added a few minutes ago, after which the post was locked so I can't edit it.

Sal's a classy act for sure  :angry:

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4902
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,22:02   

C'mon, folks, please remember that before hitting "Submit" for a comment at one of those antievolution advocate-run fora, "Select all" and "Copy" your work. Then bring it here and enter it in the appropriate thread. If you want to really give the admins at those other sites hissy fits, do what I used to do when posting to ISCID, and enter the comment here *first*, then drop in the link to the unedited original in the comment posted there. That way, if they remove the link that shows that they have no tolerance for open discussion, and if they leave it but muck about with your words, it will become obvious what they are up to.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,22:07   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,21:57)
Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 02 2007,21:39)
     
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,21:38)
Sal Cordova the slimy piece of shit has hit a new low.

It didn't surprise me that he deleted my threads with no board notice

It even didn't surprise me when he began cutting out parts of my replies to give the impression I agreed with him, again with no board notice

Now the cocksucker has started editing my posts and replacing my words with his own words praising Sal's work.

Not even AIG, ICR, or UncommonDescent stooped to falsifying posts under a user's name.

I hope everyone disseminates this far and wide, to let the world know what a worthless shitheel that asshole really is.

Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.

Can you provide some examples or links?

     
Quote
Tiggy

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 33


PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:52 pm  
:
Salvador did an outstanding job.

[admin note: Tiggy's post had some editorial imporvements made to it by the moderators]


The admin note was just added a few minutes ago, after which the post was locked so I can't edit it.

Sal's a classy act for sure  :angry:

That is very, very lame. :angry:

--------------
Evolander in training

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,22:31   

Awwwwwww, I wanted to continue my conversation from AtBC from a while ago (the one he ran away from).

But for some odd reason, Sal (1) deleted all my questions and (2) closed out my login account.


I'm shocked.


Shocked, I say.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,22:33   

Hey Sal .....JESUS MUST BE SPINNING IN HIS GRAVE.
Salvadore Cordova is about as useful as a one-legged man in an arse kicking contest.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,23:46   

To finish my story, Sal the Shithead just deleted all my posts and deleted my account

I'd much rather have that than have the asshole posting stuff in my name.

Gawd, I feel dirty after having to deal with that scumbag.  I'm gonna go take a nice hot shower and try to scrub off the stink.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,23:57   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 01 2007,14:12)
 
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Aug. 01 2007,12:40)
 
Quote
Sal: I'm going to call this dilation SCC Dilation (Setterfield-Cheesman-Cordova)

From the Crackpot Index.

 
Quote
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

40 points for including a known crank (Setterfield) in the name.  Possibly 60 points, depending on who Cheesman is.

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,00:47   

My contribution to the Young Cosmos rhetoric forum:
Quote
Rhetoric is civic discourse. It depends on the willingness to engage the other. Given the passionate commitment of participants in the YEC debate, it's not surprising that passions get engaged.

In this regard, notions of "politeness" can morph very easily, and have already on these forums, into practices of policing that always end up protecting the owners of the forum. The Young Comos "discussion" forums are quickly morphing into a set of manifestly unfair forums -- among the least fair I've ever seen -- where "civility" is used like a cudgel and rhetorically suspect practices (such as changing the words of a poster) are not treated as gross violations of decent practice.


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,00:55   

Just saw Behe on The Colbert Report. Behe looked kind of like a street preacher.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,02:58   

Sal is reduced to doing a AFDave and making up "data"

Quote
The red line is the super imposed line from the above fabricated points. The redline is where we would expect FABRICATED points to lie (give or take a little going up or down). The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.

There are more details to consider, but the point was to show that FABRICATED ages will result in downward slanting lines.


So, C-14 is flawed beyond 1000 years.......Sal generates some random numbers, plots them on a graph and disproved C-14 Dating. Nice.

On a different thread Sal quotes John Stuart Mill
Quote

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …


Indeed Sal, indeed....
Link

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,06:54   

Sal is, of course, a dishonest coward.

Always has been.

Always will be.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,08:21   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 03 2007,06:54)
Sal is, of course, a dishonest coward.

Always has been.

Always will be.

Let's see how long I last over  there:

Quote
The moderators seem to have taken Tiggy's posts and moved them silently to a location called "the recycle bin." These posts are apparently called "uncivil" because they say that Sal doesn't know what he's talking about with respect to C14 and that Sal's "refutation" of C14 by means of random numbers is "stupid."  Apparently such comments are deemed too much for the delicate sensibilities of the moderators.  So:

Forums then:


Forums now:


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,08:21   

I just hope this douchebag gets involved in the next court case.  

Sal, we love you babe, honest.  Just not for the reasons that you would want to be loved. (Jesus is spinning in his grave ROFLMAO)

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,08:32   

My latest at Sal's fiefdom, while I still can:

Quote
SC sez:

Quote
After ignoring my querry [sic] to do a simply calculation, I do the calculations.

Tiggy then offers his unuseful opinion after I make the calculations. Tiggy's posts on my C-14 thera [sic] are subject to the follwoing [sic] rule: If I find them uninformative, they'll end up in the recycle bin.

He can reciprocate on any thread he starts and treat me the same way. He is a co-moderator in that respect. Although, I have no intention of making too many appearances on his threads if any at all.

Offering the opponent a chance at reciprocal moderation abuse is hardly symmetrical behavior. especially when the major dialogue opponent refuses to engage in any forum he does not control.  


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,09:35   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 03 2007,02:58)
Sal is reduced to doing a AFDave and making up "data"

     
Quote
The red line is the super imposed line from the above fabricated points. The redline is where we would expect FABRICATED points to lie (give or take a little going up or down). The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.

There are more details to consider, but the point was to show that FABRICATED ages will result in downward slanting lines.


So, C-14 is flawed beyond 1000 years.......Sal generates some random numbers, plots them on a graph and disproved C-14 Dating. Nice.

On a different thread Sal quotes John Stuart Mill
     
Quote

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …


Indeed Sal, indeed....
Link

It's even funnier than that!

The colored points on the graph are actual empirical data from peer-reviewed studies.  They show that the racemization constant for the amino acid decay in NOT constant but decreases with time.  

The equation Sal uses to generate his red line is an approximation that was derived from that empirical data.

OF COURSE if you plug any numbers into it you're going to get the same sloping line SAL YOU FUCKING MORON

The green line that Sal says is the "good" data is what you get if you assume the racemization constant IS actually constant over time.  Problem is, both YEC authors that Sal is drawing from acknowledge that is NOT the case

   
Quote
M Brown: Let's look at the graph below. If Amino Acid dating was a predictable process, like other dating techniques with a predictable rate, the points on the chart would align themselves in a horizontal line. That would indicate that the Racemization constant really is a constant. It would mean that this method would be able to predict an age by itself. It would indicated that the rate would be the same rate for all the samples collected.

This is definitely not the case. Looking at the graph we can see that the Racemization constant changes almost as much as the predicted date!


   
Quote
RH Brown: The most impressive immediate impact of these plots is that for a particular amino acid there is no characteristic racemization rate constant that can be used to estimate the age of every fossil containing that amino acid. If each amino acid could be described by a characteristic racemization rate constant as a component of fossil protein, the data points in figures (3) and (4) would cluster about a horizontal line. The demonstrated clustering about a line which slopes downward indicates that the apparent racemization rate constant is actually not a constant, but is related to fossil age, diminishing as age increases. This observation has been made frequently in the literature (e.g., Lajoie et al. 1980, Bada and Schroeder 1972, King and Hare 1972, Wehmiller and Hare 1971, Hare and Mitterer 1966).


So not only does Sal not understand C14 dating, he doesn't even understand the YEC articles he is arguing!   :D  :D  :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,09:44   

Oops!  Two other posters noticed the rash of deletions, and had the nerve to question the Mighty Sal

     
Quote
chunk: Hi,
If you believe in freedom of expression why are you editing peoples posts and deleting peoples accounts and posts?

/confused


   
Quote
rrf:Sal quoting from John Stuart Mill

     
Quote
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …


You know, Sal, as you pretend to honor Mill while concurrently editting and deleting the comments of dissenting posters, you would do well to remember Psalm 101:7 which says "No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who
speaks falsely will stand in my presence."


Sal deleted these from the Board Comments as soon as he saw them, but forgot that they are still visible in the Recycle bin.

Hermagoras' posts (see above) got waxed too.

Looks like Sal has a mini palace revolt on his hands.   :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,09:54   

Young Cosmos is just another version of ISCID Brainstorms, a low-traffic site which attracts only the occasional crackpot like John Davison.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:05   

speaking of ISCID, it doesn't make sense that PCID is defunct. The procedure for submitting papers to PCID is to post them to the ISCID Archive. Then, one of the ISCID creationist honchos approves it and it goes into the next issue. There are a dozen or so submissions since the last issue in Dec 2005. Why let your journal go defunct when you could just bundle those as your next issue? Why let us exult in the fact that Revolutionary New ID Science can't keep a single journal going, when you could just round up these bullshit 'papers' and pretend not to be defunct?

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 03 2007,11:07

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:22   

Yeah! This Sal editting other people's posts thing is disgusting.

Wes and Steve would never stoop to editting other people's posts because we here at AtBC are not afraid of dissent or discussion. Also because we know we have the facts on our side!

Louis

Edited by stevestory  and Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 03 2007, 16:24

No it fecking well wasn't. WRE

Yes it fecking well was. SQS

Will the pair of you knock it off? All this editting of posts and reality by supplying overwhelming and uncontrovertable evidence is interfering with my young earth creationism.

This post is purely intended as mockery of Salvador "I love lying, me" Cordova's Iraqi Information Minister-like tendancies when it comes to editting other people's posts. I categorically state, for the record, that neither Wesley R. Elsberry, nor Steve Story have ever editted any other poster's posts to the best of my knowledge. Except this one. Which of course they didn't edit. I should also point out that neither of them is a member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. a) Because it doesn't exist and b) because at least 50% of them are not an atheist. Why does my head hurt? I should always remember never to try to duplicate UD style tard on a full stomach.

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:27   

Louis whatever happened to the animated Neill De Grasse Tyson thingy?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:36   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 03 2007,09:44)
Oops!  Two other posters noticed the rash of deletions, and had the nerve to question the Mighty Sal

     
Quote
chunk: Hi,
If you believe in freedom of expression why are you editing peoples posts and deleting peoples accounts and posts?

/confused


     
Quote
rrf:Sal quoting from John Stuart Mill

     
Quote
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …


You know, Sal, as you pretend to honor Mill while concurrently editting and deleting the comments of dissenting posters, you would do well to remember Psalm 101:7 which says "No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who
speaks falsely will stand in my presence."


Sal deleted these from the Board Comments as soon as he saw them, but forgot that they are still visible in the Recycle bin.

Hermagoras' posts (see above) got waxed too.

Looks like Sal has a mini palace revolt on his hands.   :p

How old is Sal anyway?  He seems like such a child.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4902
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:37   

Hermagoras:

 
Quote

especially when the major dialogue opponent refuses to engage in any forum he does not control.


I limit where I will participate, but I know of some open fora that I don't control that I would trust for a discussion, the USENET newsgroup talk.origins being the most prominent. I have tried to treat discussions where I am moderator with care; you may have noticed that any post that I edit automatically is labeled as having been edited by me. So far, my changes to content of comments has been limited to fixing up broken URLs and the like. Spam gets deleted on sight, and banned people's comments are likewise deleted as they are recognized.

Sal Cordova himself has previously used the fora here to criticize things I've written, and his posts, filled with falsehoods as they are, remain unmolested here.

Cordova:

Quote

His posts violated forum rules and thus were free game for mutilation and humiliation and pranking. It was marginally entertaining.


I have found that Sal's comments require no further changes to be humiliating. Of course, humiliation requires a capacity to experience shame, and it appears that many antievolutionists have a conscience-ectomy at the same time they get their moral compass degaussed, depriving them of a range of human experience that would be good for them.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:37   

Damn! Was I meant to learn how to animate Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

My suggestion would probably involve Mrs De Grasse Tyson....

Anyway, colour me clueless on this one, what are we talking about. Exposure to The Argument Regarding Design* has momentarily blanked my mind. Remind me....

Louis

*Hat tip to Zachriel, love your work!

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:53   

Oh well.  Someone here once had as an avatar a picture (now that I think of it, it might have been either Penn or Teller) pointing angrily and saying 'shut the feck up'.  and i loved it.  and now it is gone.  probably one of those darwinist dirty tricks davetard is wanting to chronicle.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,10:59   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 03 2007,10:37)
Hermagoras:

     
Quote

especially when the major dialogue opponent refuses to engage in any forum he does not control.


I limit where I will participate, but I know of some open fora that I don't control that I would trust for a discussion, the USENET newsgroup talk.origins being the most prominent. I have tried to treat discussions where I am moderator with care; you may have noticed that any post that I edit automatically is labeled as having been edited by me. So far, my changes to content of comments has been limited to fixing up broken URLs and the like. Spam gets deleted on sight, and banned people's comments are likewise deleted as they are recognized.

Sal Cordova himself has previously used the fora here to criticize things I've written, and his posts, filled with falsehoods as they are, remain unmolested here.

Cordova:

     
Quote

His posts violated forum rules and thus were free game for mutilation and humiliation and pranking. It was marginally entertaining.


I have found that Sal's comments require no further changes to be humiliating. Of course, humiliation requires a capacity to experience shame, and it appears that many antievolutionists have a conscience-ectomy at the same time they get their moral compass degaussed, depriving them of a range of human experience that would be good for them.

We all limit where we will participate.  What Sal has done is egregious on many, many levels, as I am pointing out:

Quote
scordova"
Quote
reciprocal opportunity is Tiggy setting up his own website and seeing who wants to listen to him and engage his arguments

Invitation to the public to participate is dropped.  People interested in sophistry rather than science are shown the door.  You can set up your forum the way you want.

I have prominently posted critical objections to my ideas by qualified scientists like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison in this forum.  Tiggy couldn't even solve a simple algebra problem yet claimed years of grad level math.  Heck,the problem was hardly arithmetic!

His posts violated forum rules and thus were free game for mutilation and humiliation and pranking.  It was marginally entertaining.


Not really.

Show me one respectable board where the moderator plays by your rules (mutilating posts and only acknowledging such mutilation when caught).  It's unethical behavior, pure and simple.  Besides, Tiggy's posts were not ad hominem. They questioned your behavior, not your person.  If anything was off-topic, your algebra problem was.  Why should Tiggy be your performing monkey when you won't even answer his on-topic questions and when you ask him questions in a thread to which you will not admit him entry?


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:05   

Please join my thread The Rhetoric of Moderation over at Young Cosmos.  I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission, unless he violates his own stated rules.  (Well, I mean violates them worse than he usually does.)

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:17   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 03 2007,11:53)
Oh well.  Someone here once had as an avatar a picture (now that I think of it, it might have been either Penn or Teller) pointing angrily and saying 'shut the feck up'.  and i loved it.  and now it is gone.  probably one of those darwinist dirty tricks davetard is wanting to chronicle.

That was Louis' previous avatar, which conveyed that he not only didn't suffer fools gladly, but gladly made fools to suffer. Flat Feynman seems a tad less hostile, with a bit more twinkle.

--------------
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

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:26   

Sal responds to my challenge.  Kind of.

I wrote:
 
Quote
Addendum: I started this thread and so I decide who gets invited. And I say everybody should come here (Sal included), discuss the rhetoric of moderation, and nobody on this thread should be moved to the Recycle Bin. Those are my rules.

Sal responds:
 
Quote
I will do my best to honor them.


WTF?  How hard is it to honor?  Just don't kick anybody off.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:41   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:05)
I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission,

Oh, to be young and naive again...

:p

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:44   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,11:41)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:05)
I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission,

Oh, to be young and naive again...

:p

he he.  

Meanwhile, Sal responds:

 
Quote
Regarding moderation and rhetoric.

One rhetorical move is:

1. Heckle and troll an otherwise sound argument

2. The Heckler gets himself tossed

3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures

Tiggy's rhetorical maneuvers were excellent tactics for shutting down debate. It is known as "the nuclear option".

Contrast the treatment I gave Tiggy versus the critiques of my ideas prominently posted and highlighted in this forum

My critics like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison have forced several reversals and retractions of ideas I and other YECs have held. I and Barry have publicly acknowledge them.

I removed Tiggy because Heckler's can destroy a good rhetorical exchange. The ARN Rule 9 was to allow one-on-one or limited debate to take place and drive Hecklers from the fray.

I allowed some Heckling by Tiggy, but when a concerted spam attack was mounted on the forum last night, I decided enough was enough.

Sooooo, the bottom line. Good rhetorical exchanges need to allow order and exclusion.

Not hecklers shouting at each other. Heckling and shouting matches destroy interest level by the readers.

Finally, my absolute disdain for Tiggy's stupidity was showing, and that did not reflect well on me. When some loser like Tiggy claims to have grad level math and can't solve a high school algebra problem, I flip my lid. It's ok not to be able to solve a math problem. But for Tiggy to be claiming intellectual superiority when it's so obvious the guy is clueless, I quickly lose patience.

I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight


To which I respond:

 
Quote
I did not think Tiggy's questions were either stupid or answered. He asked about multiple confirming lines of evidence with respect to C14 data. In response, you quoted a 30 year old paper which has gotten almost no attention in the scholarly literature and asked him to prove his bona fides by solving an algebra problem. Further, you accused him of engaging in circular reasoning when he clearly was not.

You say he could not solve the problem. I say he did not, and that it was irrelevant.

Finally, you're right that your disdain "did not reflect well on [you]." Nor does this post. What kind of person talks of other people as "scum"?


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:47   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,11:44)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,11:41)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:05)
I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission,

Oh, to be young and naive again...

:p

he he.  

Meanwhile, Sal responds:

 
Quote
Regarding moderation and rhetoric.

One rhetorical move is:

1. Heckle and troll an otherwise sound argument

2. The Heckler gets himself tossed

3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures

Tiggy's rhetorical maneuvers were excellent tactics for shutting down debate. It is known as "the nuclear option".

Contrast the treatment I gave Tiggy versus the critiques of my ideas prominently posted and highlighted in this forum

My critics like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison have forced several reversals and retractions of ideas I and other YECs have held. I and Barry have publicly acknowledge them.

I removed Tiggy because Heckler's can destroy a good rhetorical exchange. The ARN Rule 9 was to allow one-on-one or limited debate to take place and drive Hecklers from the fray.

I allowed some Heckling by Tiggy, but when a concerted spam attack was mounted on the forum last night, I decided enough was enough.

Sooooo, the bottom line. Good rhetorical exchanges need to allow order and exclusion.

Not hecklers shouting at each other. Heckling and shouting matches destroy interest level by the readers.

Finally, my absolute disdain for Tiggy's stupidity was showing, and that did not reflect well on me. When some loser like Tiggy claims to have grad level math and can't solve a high school algebra problem, I flip my lid. It's ok not to be able to solve a math problem. But for Tiggy to be claiming intellectual superiority when it's so obvious the guy is clueless, I quickly lose patience.

I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight


To which I respond:

 
Quote
I did not think Tiggy's questions were either stupid or answered. He asked about multiple confirming lines of evidence with respect to C14 data. In response, you quoted a 30 year old paper which has gotten almost no attention in the scholarly literature and asked him to prove his bona fides by solving an algebra problem. Further, you accused him of engaging in circular reasoning when he clearly was not.

You say he could not solve the problem. I say he did not, and that it was irrelevant.

Finally, you're right that your disdain "did not reflect well on [you]." Nor does this post. What kind of person talks of other people as "scum"?

Things are not going well for Sal.


*Reaches for popcorn*

--------------
"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: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:50   

You're not going to win a debate on a forum Salvador controls. You're going to make him look stupid, and then get banned and whitewashed.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:50   



SAL IS TEH CULTURE WARRIOR!!

--------------
"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

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:50   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 03 2007,11:47)
Things are not going well for Sal.

No indeed.  I refrained from commenting on his final sentence:

 
Quote
It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight.


I think anybody who's openly worried about his sanity should stay off the Intertubes.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:51   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,11:50)
You're not going to win a debate on a forum Salvador controls. You're going to make him look stupid, and then get banned and whitewashed.

Natch.

Edit: That's why I'm copying my posts over here.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:09   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,22:38)
Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.

In general those kinds of words would get you moved to the Bathroom Wall, but this time I'm regarding them as a kind of involuntary yelp produced by running into the astonishingly dishonest Salvador Cordova. There is absolutely nothing I would put past that guy. I wouldn't feel a twinge of surprise If he just started writing approving comments under our names on his site.

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:10   

The latest:

Hermagoras:      
Quote
I did not think Tiggy's questions were either stupid or answered.

Sal:      
Quote
I'm quite sure it appeared that way to you.

I'm well aware from a rhetorical perspective the advantage the other side has in preying upon the lack of familiarity by the audience with the subject matter.

Then chunk complains I haven't convinced him. I ask if he even understands rate constants or read the papers. Attributing his lack of understanding to my inability to explain is infuriating. It does not reflect well on me when this button is pushed.

It would be like me spending two hours giving a mathematicl proof for something, and then someone casually saying, "I don't see your point." I then realize they didn't even understand the basics and are uwilling to even learn the basics before they offer reasoned critiques. I honestly thought to myself, "YOU RETARD, you complain I didn't explain myself well, when in fact it's your inability to understand the science."

I'm willing to help and teach, I'm uwilling to spoon feed. When I get objections from people demanding to be spoon fed, I'll happily shove the spoon down their throat. When I get that mad, it does not reflect well on me or this forum.

In contrast, someone willing to learn, who does not know anything, I'm willing to teach.

Let me just pause for a moment to say, what an a*****e.

Whew.  I feel better.  

Ok, now I, Hermagoras, respond:
     
Quote
Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:11   

Wow!  Look at this guy:
Quote
Quote
scordova wrote:
3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures

Or perhaps the Hecklers arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with that the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures. Tiggy raised some very interesting points that I was eager to see discussed. Your response was to edit, move/hide, and avoid questions. Very disappointing.
Quote

I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight.

Sal, you put yourself out there in the public eye in the Evolution vs creation controversy. You speak in public, you blog in public, you even wade into public forums like Scienceblogs and the Sci Phi Show. You positively gush when someone acknowledges seeing you on C-SPAN. Now, all of a sudden, we are supposed to believe you are some sensitive flower that withers under heat? I don't buy it. The only difference as far as I can tell between this forum and others that you participate is that this is your forum where you can't walk away when the questions get too tough, but you can wield the tools of moderation to ensure that someone who disagrees with you doesn't get a fair hearing.


--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:25   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:10)
Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.

That was simply awesome.  When Sal starts swearing, you know you're doing something right.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:49   

Quote (Rob @ Aug. 03 2007,12:25)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:10)
Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.

That was simply awesome.  When Sal starts swearing, you know you're doing something right.

Ah but Sal's responded.  He says it's all in Bender's 1974 letter to Nature (quote-mined by creationist RH Brown).  So Sal
responds:
Quote
The answer was given by Bender:

Quote:
"The differences [re 14C age] can be reconciled if it is assumed that the 14C age is wrong, but such an assertion would undermine other conclusions."

They would reject it because it does not conform to what they believe to be true. Darwinian evolution takes precedence over physical evidence.

The scientific community had people who were fully cognizant of these problems.

I have far less at stake than they do if I'm wrong. For me, a little embarassment. For them, it means everything they lived for was false.


Fortunately, I can read the original.  So I respond:
Quote
Again with the Bender. You're taking one sentence out of a 33 year old letter to Nature that has had virtually no impact. Google Scholar has it cited 5 times, and 2 of those cites are by creationists: Brown and Gish. So I'd say its impact is virtually nil.

Why? Perhaps because Bada, who is the target of Bender's critique, gave a devastating reply in the same issue. (This is not cited by Brown. I wonder why?) Bada's response begins:

Quote:

Bender's review of my work is both inaccurate and incomplete. He has not cited two of my publications dealing with aspartic acid racemisation dating. (Although one paper was only recently published. I sent Bender a preprint the first or this year when he informed me he was writing a review.) In those articles I show that after ‘calibrating' the amino acid racemisation reactions using a radiocarbon dated bone, it is then possible to date other bones from the same site, which are either too old or too small for radiocarbon dating. The only assumption in this approach is that the average temperature experienced by the calibration sample is representative of the average temperature experienced by the other sample. Ages thus deduced are in good agreement with radiocarbon ages determined on the same samples.

No wonder nobody took Bender's critique seriously since then. Meanwhile Brown quotes one sentence as though it proves something and you quote indirectly (via Brown) rather than from the original paper. If you'd read the original, as I have, you'd see that it was dispatched immediately.


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,13:04   

Because I can't resist:
Quote
About Bender (now at Princeton).  He seems like a fine scientist.  Note that he's not published any rebuttal of Bada since 1974.  So if his 1974 critique was so great, why hasn't he picked up on it?  He provides the answer in his final paragraph:
Quote
Their findings, and the fact that reasonable ages and temperatures are sometimes obtained, indicates that the method has potential. It clearly faces many basic problems, however, and in my opinion no palaeoclinatic or geochronological inferences should be drawn from racemisation data until the basic geochemistry is thoroughly understood and the bases or the method firmly established.

Since then, of course, the geochemistry has advanced considerably.  Bender, as a major geochemist, has apparently not seen fit to attack the dating method since 1974.  Which suggests that quoting that 1974 paper (indirectly, via Brown) as support of anything today is not really going to solve anything.  

Are you saying he's some sort of a coward or co-conspirator?  Or perhaps a "retard"? Or, maybe, you know, "scum"?


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,13:05   

OK, it's my turn to point this out.

Sal whines      
Quote
I have far less at stake than they do if I'm wrong. For me, a little embarassment. For them, it means everything they lived for was false.

Can these guys spell PROJECTION? Here's Bill, Denyse and Sal, relaxing at home with an example of the designer's handiwork.


--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,13:22   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 03 2007,13:05)
OK, it's my turn to point this out.

Sal whines        
Quote
I have far less at stake than they do if I'm wrong. For me, a little embarassment. For them, it means everything they lived for was false.

Can these guys spell PROJECTION? Here's Bill, Denyse and Sal, relaxing at home with an example of the designer's handiwork.

From left to right, Denyse, Bill, Sal, right?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,13:45   

And finally:

Quote
scordova wrote:
I'm suggesting the racemization data as it stands shows serious systematic errors in C-14 dating.


I've probably missed it, but I haven't seen you quote from any contemporary scientific literature on the issue, so it's hard to see any contact with the literature "as it stands." Rather, you quote (via a secondary source) a sentence from a 33 year old rebutted letter.

I have recently learned of the competing terms "quote mining" and "literature bluffing" to refer to various tactics allegedly used by opponents in this debate.

This example isn't literature bluffing, since it shows no contact with the recent literature. But it's sure quote mining.

I think this is a common rhetorical tactic of creationists: take a sentence, quote it out of context, and then circulate it -- it's a game of "telephone" or what the British sometimes call "Chinese whispers." What it is not is a responsible use of sources.

Again, I'm pointing out something very specific about the rhetoric of this debate.


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,14:10   

OK, Sal has now officially gone round the tardy twist.

Just read it.  I can't bear to quote any more of this crap.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,14:21   

I love this thread. :D

--------------
Evolander in training

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,14:34   

As one who makes his living in the arts, I have no idea what sal's response had to do with anything, let alone your comment.

Sal strikes me as that undergrad, who immediately after listening to some lecture, sits in the cafeteria discussing how the State of Missouri can easily secede from the union and become an independent country.

Except, he's 40ish, isn't he?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,16:35   

Song for Sal and the IDCists

Louis

P.S. The audio quality is less than great, but dammit I LOVE this song.

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,17:09   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,08:21)
Let's see how long I last over  there:

Longer than me.  My comments were deleted within four minutes of posting.  Literally.

Within the space of ten minutes, I signed up with five different login accounts (including "salisaliar" and "salisacoward").  They all disappeared, one right after the other.

The last time I tried, I got a message saying that the moderator had to approve all new membership requests.

So if you tried to sign in and got that same message, that'd be MY fault.


(snicker)


Sal is a coward.  A gonadless coward.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4902
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,22:46   

Cordova:

Quote

If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.


Speaking of not being able to understand or do math, one can check out Sal blithering on about the TSPGRID example and "omega". Here's my response to Sal's rant...

Quote

Sal,

Yes, that is amusing. Wrong again, but amusing.

As to definitions, I have repeatedly made the point that what CSI is depends upon how it is recognized, which is a property (allegedly) of the math Dembski has given. The “physical/conceptual” text is a descriptive interpretation of what the math defines. It is not, itself, the definition. We addressed the math. We didn’t address every handwaving description Dembski wrote.

As to “omega”, Sal is utterly confused. There are two different uses of “omega” in Dembski’s stuff. In The Design Inference, “omega” refers to “probabilistic resources”, a mapping function that yields “saturated” probabilities and events. TSPGRID doesn’t change “omega”_TDI, contrary to Sal’s claim. In No Free Lunch, “omega” is the “reference class of possible events”. TSPGRID is incapable of “increasing omega” by its operation.

Dembski discusses calculation of “omega” on p.52 of NFL. There, he gives the example of a six-sided die rolled 6,000,000 times. His “omega” for this “event” is “all 6-tuples of nonnegative integers that sum to 6,000,000”. In other words, “omega” includes every possible way that one could roll a die 6,000,000 times. In other equations, if one rolls an n-sided die k time, “omega” is k*n. (This is for the case in which only the distribution of rolls matters, which is the context of Dembski’s example, and not the sequence of rolls. For a sequence of die rolls, “omega” becomes n^k.)

As for the Sal’s claim that TSPGRID “increases omega as it outputs data”, that’s just silly. One does have to take into account the number of runs of TSPGRID, just as Sal takes into account the number of coins in his idee fixe. Sal’s objection to TSPGRID is exactly the same as objecting to coin-stacking on the grounds that he “increases omega as he adds coins”.

Sal says that we didn’t give “omega” for TSPGRID. This is literally true, but we do expect some minimal competence from our readers. The “omega”_NFL for TSPGRID with 4n^2 nodes run k times stated in the same way as Dembski’s dice example is “all (4n^2)!-tuples of nonnegative integers that sum to k”, or, more simply, k*(4n^2)! as anyone with a clue should be able to work out from the information that we gave. If you change n or k, you get a different “omega”, just as you get a different “omega” if you stack dice instead of coins, or stack a different number of dice or coins. Once n and k are fixed, as in some specific instance of one or more runs of TSPGRID to be analyzed as an “event” in Dembski’s parlance, “omega” is fixed as well.

So Sal’s random charge of “error” here is just as amusingly inept as his previous outings. It seems that Sal is not well acquainted with Dembski’s work, as “omega” is not all that mysterious. I suspect that Sal “knows” that the TSPGRID example just “has” to be wrong, therefore, any scattershot objection made will do. But if TSPGRID were actually wrong, and Sal were actually capable of analyzing it, he would have come up with a valid objection in the first place, and not have had to resort to flinging any odd objection at hand and hoping something sticks. So far there has been the “a deterministic version of TSPGRID doesn’t output CSI!” objection (which is why TSPGRID is non-deterministic), the “TSPGRID doesn’t provide PHYSICAL information!” objection (though several of Dembski’s own examples share this “error” and a run of TSPGRID or any other algorithm certainly is physical), and now the “you didn’t say what Omega was!” objection (where “omega” is easily calculated given the information we provided).

But I guess I will have to make do with amusement at further instances of random objections.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,00:54   

Quote
Asshat Cordova:  If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.

I wonder if that idiot Cordova thinks he's fooling anybody with his BS?  I wasn't trying to refute the math, I was pointing out his improper use of the math based on ridiculous unsupported assumptions, and the resultant asinine conclusions.  I explained why it was GIGO (a term that Sal deleted immediately) in all its blazing glory. I told the idiot that I refused to be sidetracked with his disingenuous demands that I plug some totally irrelevant numbers into a calculator, and that I had wasn't going to let him evade discussion that way.  I kept hitting him with questions about the Brown articles (both of them) and his assumptions.  He kept cowardly ignored the questions so I kept asking them, finally getting to the ugly episode of him changing the words in my post.  :angry:

His charge that I was 'spamming' was when I twice went in and changed my words back (before he locked me out of the thread and banned me that is).  Nice that he still keeps taking shots at me when I can't speak to defend myself.

Sal now ranks up there with the most repugnant spineless cowards I have ever had the displeasure to deal with.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,01:53   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 04 2007,00:54)
 
Quote
Asshat Cordova:  If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.

I wonder if that idiot Cordova thinks he's fooling anybody with his BS?  I wasn't trying to refute the math, I was pointing out his improper use of the math based on ridiculous unsupported assumptions, and the resultant asinine conclusions.  I explained why it was GIGO (a term that Sal deleted immediately) in all its blazing glory. I told the idiot that I refused to be sidetracked with his disingenuous demands that I plug some totally irrelevant numbers into a calculator, and that I had wasn't going to let him evade discussion that way.  I kept hitting him with questions about the Brown articles (both of them) and his assumptions.  He kept cowardly ignored the questions so I kept asking them, finally getting to the ugly episode of him changing the words in my post.  :angry:

His charge that I was 'spamming' was when I twice went in and changed my words back (before he locked me out of the thread and banned me that is).  Nice that he still keeps taking shots at me when I can't speak to defend myself.

Sal now ranks up there with the most repugnant spineless cowards I have ever had the displeasure to deal with.

It isn't new dude. Sal has been that way for quite some time. Why post on a site where he has control? You gotta know that he would "modify" your posts.

That guy is the sorta prick that would use ten sentences containing the longest words he can google to say something simple.

example:
Quote
If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct.

tit

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,05:10   

his one man moderation band is feeling the strain I think, at least he seems to be getting more and more ill-tempered. His tactic of ignoring critical questions fails to work when nobody else is replying. They are just left hanging (when not deleted).

Pass the popcorn Lenny.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,08:37   

Somewhere in the AtBC archives is a thread between me and Sal.  After I pestered him for months at PT with a few simple questions (which he never answered), he finally got all ballsy on me and "challenged" me to "debate" him here (which led me to question whether it was even really him).

He lasted less than two days before he tucked tail and ran like a little girl.

He is a ball-less coward.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,09:38   

Give me some love, peoples:
scordova:    
Quote
I was trying to point out the focus on rhetoric can compromise the focus on facts. The racemization data are facts. Opinions, even by scientists are secondary. Even less relevant to truthfulness are the rhetorical forms used to debate the issue.

When engineers build spaceships they'll either fly or not. The rhetoric they use to claim their invention will work is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the claim.

If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.

Hermagoras (using Tiggy/OC's fine post here as inspiration):
   
Quote
This is rich, considering that the vast majority of ID and creationist writing amounts to rhetorical critique.

You didn't actually provide any facts or data.

Let me point out again that Tiggy didn't try to refute the math because that wasn't his point. His point was rather about the use of the math. I believe the term you engineers use is "GIGO."

The fact that nobody who actually works in the field would accept your critique suggests that something's at issue besides the blindness or stupidity of everybody but you. Unless you're really the smartest guy ever (but that position has already been claimed by autodidact DaveScot at UD).


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,14:15   

Sal appears to have found the Ban button and used it wholesale.

I suspect we've got another roaring success just like overwhelmingevicence on our hands!

There are plenty of reasonable unanswered questions left on your forum Sal. Why not spend the time while you are waiting for people to comment answering them?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,14:20   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 04 2007,08:37)
Somewhere in the AtBC archives is a thread between me and Sal.  After I pestered him for months at PT with a few simple questions (which he never answered), he finally got all ballsy on me and "challenged" me to "debate" him here (which led me to question whether it was even really him).

He lasted less than two days before he tucked tail and ran like a little girl.

He is a ball-less coward.

I remember your Sal questions over at PT. I also remember him not ever answering. Sal is probably the most anoying (to me) UD poster. Quite an acomplishment considering the company he is in.

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,17:31   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 03 2007,22:46)
Speaking of not being able to understand or do math, one can check out Sal blithering on about the TSPGRID example and "omega".

Sal has a major brain cramp that prevents him from grokking issues having to do with the conservation of CSI.

One of his typical examples of CSI is 500 coins on the floor all heads up, which he says constitutes 500 bits of CSI.  Even if the coins were turned heads up by a deterministic process, say a robot, Sal insists that the all-heads-up pattern has 500 bits of CSI.  He's been claiming this for over three years now, even though I've pointed out to him repeatedly that we can always increase the number of coins to exceed the CSI in the robot.  (This is exactly the point of TSPGRID, except that TSPGRID is a better example since it's nondeterministic.)

When I tried to pin him down on this a year ago, the conversation went nowhere, with Sal claiming that he needed Dembski to explain the following parenthetical statement from NFL:  
Quote
(if A is defined in relation to \Omega_1 and B in relation to \Omega_2, we can let \Omega be the Cartesian product of \Omega_1 and \Omega_2, and then embed A and B canonically in \Omega)

Dembski's statement is perfectly clear, and I explained it in detail to Sal, but Sal said he needed to hear it from Dembski.

Amazingly, as of a few weeks ago, Sal still didn't understand the problem with the robot and the coins:
Quote
Sal:   For example, it is improbable that 500 coins in a room on the floor will be heads.  It is theoretically possible that there exists a robot governed by deterministic laws which can take the coins in a room and ensure any initial condition of coins in the room will eventually result in 500 coins being heads by the operation of the robot.  However, the a priori probability of such a machine existing in the first place (via a stochastic process) is on average more remote than the chance of 500 coins being heads.  A bit value can then be assigned to the a priori probability of the robot being the source of a new probability distribution.


--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,19:38   

My favorite post to Sal ever.  Do you think he'll get the double meaning of the last paragraph?  

 
Quote
Following up on some comments earlier:
 
Quote
I was trying to point out the focus on rhetoric can compromise the focus on facts.The racemization data are facts.

A couple of points:
1. You continue to have a really strange view of rhetoric, one that is best described as outdated.  In this statement, for example, you hold to a notion of "rhetoric vs. facts," as though facts can be known outside of their articulation.  Rhetoric is nowadays best understood as "a way of knowing," that is, as epistemic.  

2. Which data are facts?  The ones you posted that were admittedly made up?  

 
Quote
Opinions, even by scientists are secondary. Even less relevant to truthfulness are the rhetorical forms used to debate the issue.


I won't comment on the even cruder distinction between "fact" and "opinion," which is one that I complicate in the first day of the composition classes I teach.  Suffice it to say that you set up this forum by declaring your stated interest in the importance of rhetoric.  For you to dismiss it now as not "relevant to truthfulness" (in a creationist forum, I want to say "truthiness") is a bit strange.  But that is the way of your flock.  A great many of your compatriots spend the bulk of their time doing nothing but rhetorical criticism.  That's where I would put Jonathan Wells's Icons and pretty much the entire output of Philip Johnson.  Dembski is more than rhetoric in philosophical drag: his work also includes pseudo-mathematics and theology ("explanations of the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing," as Mencken put it).  But "rhetoric" suddenly becomes unimportant when you think you've got a fact in your hand -- when in fact, you don't even have one in the bush.  

 
Quote
When engineers build spaceships they'll either fly or not. The rhetoric they use to claim their invention will work is irrelevant to the truthfulness the claim.


That's interesting but wrong.  Didn't you take technical writing?  The rhetoric of documentation in engineering is crucial to whether it will fly or not.  For example, one of the most important thinkers in visual rhetoric of science, Edward Tufte of Yale, has blamed the rhetorical structure of PowerPoint for the Columbia disaster.  See his Beautiful Evidence (Graphics Press)  for details.
 
Quote
If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

I'm actually judging based on your failure to provide actual evidence.  Like your man Dembski, you are overrating the importance of philosophy in science (hence words like "invalid," "illogical," and "first principles").  

Look, I don't know you.  But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works.  You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience.  Am I wrong?


Seriously, I'm really proud of that last paragraph.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,19:46   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 04 2007,19:38)
Look, I don't know you.  But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works.  You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience.  Am I wrong?

Seriously, I'm really proud of that last paragraph.

Hermagoras

You SHOULD be proud of that last paragraph.

But I can't imagine that Sal will ever get it.

Which, of course, makes it even more delicious!

Well done.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,19:54   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 04 2007,19:46)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 04 2007,19:38)
Look, I don't know you.  But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works.  You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience.  Am I wrong?

Seriously, I'm really proud of that last paragraph.

Hermagoras

You SHOULD be proud of that last paragraph.

But I can't imagine that Sal will ever get it.

Which, of course, makes it even more delicious!

Well done.

Thanks!  

Disclaimer: as a major free speech advocate, I'm not against learning from "the literature" (wink wink).  In fact, I spent most of my teen years deeply immersed in "the literature."  But what I learned was unrealistic, and real-world experience tempered my views.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,20:45   

A look into the Recycle Bin over at Young Cosmos offers some interesting, if disturbing, insights into the machinations taking place inside Sal's noggin.  He apparently commandeers people's login, and post the most juvenile of rants under their name, then may even follow up using other pseudonyms.  

I guess I understand why he doesn't have moderator duties over at UD.  He could actually make UD even more of a farce.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,20:54   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 04 2007,20:45)
A look into the Recycle Bin over at Young Cosmos offers some interesting, if disturbing, insights into the machinations taking place inside Sal's noggin.  He apparently commandeers people's login, and post the most juvenile of rants under their name, then may even follow up using other pseudonyms.  

I guess I understand why he doesn't have moderator duties over at UD.  He could actually make UD even more of a farce.

Holy thread convergence, Batman!  My post on this very practice of moving and erasure used Stalin's picture editing as an example, and has itself been removed to the recycle bin, thus perfectly illustrating  my point.  :angry:  

And then . . . wait for it . . . someone at Uncommonly Dense mentions the Stalin editing in the comments following that strange Dembski rant about the (non) editing of some comments by Wolpert.  

Naturally, the commenter gets it wrong on the specifics as well, adding Lenin to what was really Stalin's practice of removing Trotsky and other former friends from pictures.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,21:20   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 04 2007,19:38)
Look, I don't know you.  But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works.  You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience.  Am I wrong

Oooouuuucccchhhh !!!!!!!!!!!


Sal, of course, will remain utterly oblivious and entirely untouched.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,23:08   

Sal - serial rhetorical dater.

Even better than the fundamentalist bible reader who confuses the menu with the meal.

You can't eat rhetoric Sal (you can't **** it either)

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,00:11   

One more before I turn in:

Quote
Here's an interesting thing, Sal.  You write:

Quote
With no training in 2004 I deduced Reiner von Protch's [sic] numbers (which by the way are represented by some dots in that graph), were fabricated, bogus, and useless. He got away with fraud for 30 years. I'd say, even with no training, I can smell a rat. But you don't have to believe one iota of what I say.


I found where you made this claim on Uncommon Descent, but only after von Protsch's fraud was discovered.  Should I believe that you found this out months earlier?  Should I ask you to prove that you knew von Protsch was fraudulent  before anybody else?  That's an extraordinary claim to make, and yet you've provided no evidence for it.  

Why is this relevant?  Because you say that Tiggy could not do the math you asked him to do.  But if your asking was a red herring (as I think it was), and not relevant, then he has no reason to prove his bona fides to you.  The thing is, I think that Tiggy could do the math, but chose not to because he recognized that it was not relevant to his original, unanswered question.  

As to your ability to concede some points: Congratulations.  I agree that your conversation with Jellison, for example, was unproblematic because, as you put it:

Quote
1. He knows what he is talking about
2. He doesn't willfullly [sic] misrepresent others
3. He is cordial and civil
4. He takes time to understand the opposing position, spending hours analyizing [sic] it and carefully considering it, going to great pains to represent it accurately.


These are all behaviors characteristic of Dr. Jellison in that exchange.  I am not sure they represent your behavior in, for example, your exchange with Tiggy.


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,08:40   

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Sal is getting tired of being publicly humiliated on his own forum, so he's making YC invitation only

 
Quote
Asshat Cordova: Finally, things could get awfully boring at YoungComsos from now on. We're closing the gates and making it an invitation only forum. I will aim for dialogue like I had with the qualified scientists here.


If you can't stand the heat, run screaming from the kitchen. :D  :D  :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,10:48   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 05 2007,08:40)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Sal is getting tired of being publicly humiliated on his own forum, so he's making YC invitation only

   
Quote
Asshat Cordova: Finally, things could get awfully boring at YoungComsos from now on. We're closing the gates and making it an invitation only forum. I will aim for dialogue like I had with the qualified scientists here.


If you can't stand the heat, run screaming from the kitchen. :D  :D  :D

I've responded to Sal's latest rant with selections from OA/Tiggy's message to me.  Thanks for permitting me to do that.  Let's see if he bans me for bringing you back in by proxy.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,12:06   

And again:

 
Quote
scordova wrote  
Quote

There is a different interaction when trying to persuade than when trying to solicit corrective review and feedback.


Hey, what do you know?  We agree.  I'm sorry, however, that you're getting this impression:

 
Quote
I'm getting the impression you're trying to put a one size fits all evaluation of what I write. What the rhetoric applied in one venue (like UD) is inappropriate for another (the discussion forum).


The problem, IMO, is that although there are important differences between the kinds of rhetorical moments you identify, they are really points on a continuum and the boundaries are very, very fuzzy.

Consider what happens when a scholar submits a work for publication.  Now, there is a crucial sense in which the work is persuasive: in the first instance, the contributing author is trying to convince two anonymous peers that the work is worth publishing.  Later, should the work be published, one goal is to convince readers that the work is correct.  (Note that I'm using "convince" for your "persuade"; these have subtly distinct meanings in rhetoric.  One form of the distinction is that people are convinced of a view but persuaded to action.  We might say, for example, that some author(s) are trying to persuade others to perform follow-up experiments.)  

OK, so in all of these ways the work attempts to persuade (or convince).  The act of seeking publication is even kind of aggressive, in that the author(s) think the work should be out there and that it demands attention (at least of the tenure committee!;).  

But there are other ways that the act of seeking publication is profoundly submissive.  We say that works are "submitted" for publication, and the word is meaningful.  The authors will (generally) submit to the judgment of the peer reviewers.  The authors will (generally) submit later to the scientific reception of the work.  Publication is an attempt an convincing and/or persuading, yes, but it is also and at the same time a submission to the judgment of the scientific community.  

The problem I'm seeing is that it's not clear where this forum lies, or what the boundaries are.  For example, you've been persuaded to drop some of your arguments.  Good: that shows something, including that the forum may be persuasive from the perspective of the other (if not from your perspective).  But in a dialogic forum, persuasion and convincing go on all the time.  Perhaps your recent decision to close the forum to all but the invited is an acknowledgment of the ambiguous status of forums like this.  But as I've suggested earlier, it's easy to use doctrines like "civility" to avoid uncomfortable questions.  

Aristotle famously defined rhetoric as "the counterpart of dialectic."  The precise meaning of this phrase has been debated ever since, but the general view now is that rhetoric and dialectic are not easily separated -- no more than "fact" and "theory," to go back to my old debate (cut off at UD) with Gil Dodgen.


Visible here, at least for the moment.  ???

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,12:29   

LOL!  Thanks Hermagoras for today's laugh.

I notice that Sal still does not address AT ALL the huge holes in his reasoning and his invalid assumptions, but is still whining about "Waaa!!  He won't plug numbers into the calculator!!"

NO mention of why he thinks the racemization constant should be unchanging, in light of the tons of physical evidence that shows it does change considerably.

NO mention of the empirically measured D/L ratios

NO mention that if even if you assume a non-changing constant and use the kinetic equation with the measured D/L values, you still get dates that are way older than the YEC 6000 year old model.

The only way to get the YEC dates to fit are to assume the measured D/L ratios are wrong , the kinetic equation is wrong, or both.

Ask Sal which one he thinks is wrong.  :p

Oh, and I just loved the fact that Asshat Sal now accuses me of being a criminal low-life, and that he has disdain for my criminal behavior against scientific inquiry

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,13:19   

Occam's Aftershave: Thanks.  I do what I can.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:12   

Again with Sal.

 
Quote
Hermagoras sez:  
Quote
Sal, you're going to have to help me out on this, because I'm no expert.  You write:
 
Quote
Tiggy has misrepresented my views. The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging. It does not mean I believe or I assume they do not change, because we know they do. Tiggy employed a strawman rhetorical form and attributed arguments and ideas to me which I did not make, nor intended to make.


But earlier you wrote:

 
Quote
The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.


If "The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging," and "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," then doesn't it follow that good data (for you) correspond with unchanging rates?


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:53   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 05 2007,14:12)
Again with Sal.

 
Quote
Hermagoras sez:  
Quote
Sal, you're going to have to help me out on this, because I'm no expert.  You write:
 
Quote
Tiggy has misrepresented my views. The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging. It does not mean I believe or I assume they do not change, because we know they do. Tiggy employed a strawman rhetorical form and attributed arguments and ideas to me which I did not make, nor intended to make.


But earlier you wrote:

 
Quote
The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.


If "The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging," and "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," then doesn't it follow that good data (for you) correspond with unchanging rates?

LOL.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,17:05   

So Sal has responded:

 
Quote
Good data correspond to changing rates that are changes within reasonable physical and chemical limits. The green line represents the ideal, and some amount of variation from the ideal is permissible. Too much variation from the ideal ought to raise suspicion!

Some of the dots are well beyond reasonable physical and chemical limits, so much so that some scientists are arguing that yet-to-be-discovered chemical laws must be at work since C-14 is "God's truth". But this is like Bill Clinton trying to explain the DNA evidence with Lewinski by some yet-to-be-discovered chemical law. Something doesn't ring valid with such a promisory note.

The difficulty is using the English language to express mathematical concepts. Thus it is easy to mis-interpret the intended meaning. It is also easy for me to express my idea in a way that confuses the issue rather than clarifies it. I could express it mathematically, but making it more rigorous does not make it more clear (like a legal document is more rigorous, but not necessarily more clear). This is perhaps THE greatest challenge in scientific rhetoric...

But anyway, consider this illustration. Let's say college students did an exothermic chemistry experiment and the ideal result would be their thermometers would read 78.0000 degrees. The good data will tend to congregate around 78.0000 degrees. Now, we may have slight erors and variations in each student's test tube, and that results in differences from the ideal. We can define the range of results about 78.000 that would be deemed "good", i.e. say numbers from 68 to 88 degrees.


In similar manner, the green line demarcates the ideal result. When I said "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," it is in the sense of the temperature experiment I described. Some dots ought to be above the green and some below. But in actuality, most if not all are below the green line, some way below.

Further, the actual distirbution of dots is clearly non-Random, but systematically down. Hence, this is not suggestive of random error but a systematic error (exactly the point of my thread). It would be like us expecting to see students get lab results from 68 to 88 degrees, but instead they ALL report results from 48-58 degrees. Something would be really wrong in that case.

If your issue is my wording, I accept the editorial objection.

Another way of saying it is that we would expect lots of dots above the green line. The plot suggests systematic errors because all the dots are below the green line, and some VERY far below it.

Now, how far above or below the green is tolerable? The graph itself suggests what are tolerable variations, namely the width defined between the purple lines. But this variation is centered about the red line, not the green line. This is suggestive of a systematic error (meanin an error resulting from the way we make measurements).


This seems like obvious BS (ideal?  what the hell? -- and also, there's that whole decay thing which is evaded), but I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond beyond the obvious, and he's kicked off all the people who know anything. Could somebody help me in responding?  On the board or in a private message -- either is fine.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,18:39   

Double LOL!  What a big smelly pile of tard from Sol!  He's caught, he knows he's caught, so he's doing his best word-salad tossing to try and confuse the issue.

 
Quote
Asshat Cordova:Good data correspond to changing rates that are changes within reasonable physical and chemical limits.

Ask him what the 'reasonable physical and chemical limits' are, and how he determined them.

   
Quote
Asshat Cordova:The green line represents the ideal, and some amount of variation from the ideal is permissible. Too much variation from the ideal ought to raise suspicion!

Ask him why the green line (= zero change in the rate constant) should be considered ideal, when it is just a placeholder for actual empirical results?  Ask him what 'too much variation' is, and how he determined it is not permissible.  Permissible by whom?

Ask him why both M Brown and  RH Brown agree and accept that the rate constant diminishes with sample age?  

Ask him why, even if we force fit to the empirical D/L data to his his "ideal" line (as RH Brown did in his Table 2) that the equation still produces ages well older than the claimed YEC 6000 YBP?

Ask him if he accepts the empirically measured D/L ratios as accurate (which he must, as he's been basing his whole claims on them)

Ask him if he accepts the kinetic equation to be correct (which he must, as he's been using it constantly)

As I mentioned before, the only way to get the YEC dates to fit are to assume the measured D/L ratios are wrong , the kinetic equation is wrong, or both.  Point this out to him, than get him to explain it.

Oh, and ask him why he's completely avoiding ThoughtProvoker's questions on the actual AAR/C14 thread.

Give the asshat plenty of rope... ;)

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,18:55   

Ooh, I missed one!  Ask him why he claims this  

   
Quote
Asshat Cordova:  C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.


When in the very second post of the AAR/C14 thread he presents Walt Brown's "excellent explanation of Radio-Carbon Dating flaws" that states

   
Quote
Radiocarbon dating is becoming increasingly important in interpreting the past. However, one must understand how it works and especially how a flood affected radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years are probably accurate.


:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

M Brown, RH Brown, Walt Brown....is there some cosmic wingnut connection here I should know about?   ;)

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,19:10   

I liked the "It is also easy for me to express my idea in a way that confuses the issue rather than clarifies it" line.

Henry

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:43   

Thanks for the help OA.  Here's my response (posted over there):

Quote
Salvador,
Quote
It is . . . easy for me to express my idea in a way that confuses the issue rather than clarifies it.

You ain't kidding, buster.  But I object to a lot more than your wording.  You write,

Quote
The difficulty is using the English language to express mathematical concepts. Thus it is easy to mis-interpret the intended meaning.


True enough.  But the problem is not the English: what you said would be contradictory in any language.  It's practically a syllogism.  I'll call it

Cordova's Rule
Premise A: The green line represents an unchanging rate constant.
Premise B: Points far away from the green line represent fraudulent data.
Conclusion: Non-fraudulent data must show a rate constant that is or is very close to unchanging.

If you hold the first two premises, the conclusion follows.  If you think the rate constant changes, then  either Premise A or Premise B must be wrong.  

But the rate constant diminishes, it does not go up, with age.  Hey, even RH Brown accepts that, and Michael Brown.  So why would we expect any of the dots to go above the green line?

A few more questions:
Quote
Good data correspond to changing rates that are changes within reasonable physical and chemical limits

What are those limits, and how did you determine them?
Quote
The green line represents the ideal, and some amount of variation from the ideal is permissible.

I don't see why it's the ideal, or how you've determined what's a permissible variation. It certainly doesn't seem like an ideal that anyone in the scientific community buys.  And please don't quote that 1974 letter again -- as I mentioned, that was refuted at the time of publication, in the very next pages.  
Quote
But anyway, consider this illustration. Let's say college students did an exothermic chemistry experiment and the ideal result would be their thermometers would read 78.0000 degrees. The good data will tend to congregate around 78.0000 degrees. Now, we may have slight erors and variations in each student's test tube, and that results in differences from the ideal. We can define the range of results about 78.000 that would be deemed "good", i.e. say numbers from 68 to 88 degrees.

Argument by analogy: a nice rhetorical form.  It's a bit simplistic, though, and it assumes a lot.  It's only appropriate if the unchanging "ideal" rate in your premises is correct, which requires (I believe) rejecting either the kinetic equation and the accuracy of empirically measured D/L ratios.

A more appropriate analogy would be if you gave everybody a thermometer in a room at 72.0 degrees F and then sent them out in different directions in the dead of winter.  Each person was told to check the thermometer at a different time: the first at 1 minute, the second at 2 minutes, etc.  Probably there'd be some variation depending on where they walked, the different conditions, etc., but the measurements taken later go lower and lower.  

H


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,23:08   

Looks good H, let's see how Sal wiggles and squirms to avoid the questions

On a side note, I see Sal finally responded to ThoughtProvoker's excellent questions on the AAR/C14 thread.  What did brave Mr. Cordova do?  He completely ignored TP's questions, and instead launched into a simple minded explanation for how exponential decay works. Never mind that TP has an EE degree, has known about exponential decay since freshman calculus, and asked Sal specific intelligent questions about the exponential equation Sal used in the graph.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

(shake head and chuckles out loud)

Sal, don't ever change, EVAR! :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,02:58   

Quote
C-14 under current conditions is sometimes accurate to within 2 years! But there are conditions when something as weakly accurate as amino acid racemization can surpass C-14 dating, namely, if the atmospheric concentration of C-14 in the past was less than it is now. Other lines of data show this rather convincingly.

Quote
if there is a technical flaw in our (Walt, RH, Michael Brown, myself, others), this would be a good time to get feedback.

http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngc....tart=45

ANybody that can still post needs to ask about atmospheric concentrations of C-14 and the "lines of evidence" that show it was less then it is now.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,08:53   

Quote
ANybody that can still post needs to ask about atmospheric concentrations of C-14 and the "lines of evidence" that show it was less then it is now.


You mean like the multiple independent C14 cal curves I posted and explained to Sal in my very first message there?

The ones that clearly show the historical C14/C12 ratio was actually slightly higher in the past 20,000 years than it is now?

The ones that mean without a correction factor, items dated with C14 are really slightly older than the uncorrected C14 measured date?

The ones that Sal hand waved away by claiming "circular reasoning", then summarily deleted?

BTW, all that data is still available in the YC recycle bin under "Tiggy's remains".  I'd be tickled pink in someone would repost it.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,09:11   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 06 2007,08:53)
Quote
ANybody that can still post needs to ask about atmospheric concentrations of C-14 and the "lines of evidence" that show it was less then it is now.


You mean like the multiple independent C14 cal curves I posted and explained to Sal in my very first message there?

The ones that clearly show the historical C14/C12 ratio was actually slightly higher in the past 20,000 years than it is now?

The ones that mean without a correction factor, items dated with C14 are really slightly older than the uncorrected C14 measured date?

The ones that Sal hand waved away by claiming "circular reasoning", then summarily deleted?

BTW, all that data is still available in the YC recycle bin under "Tiggy's remains".  I'd be tickled pink in someone would repost it.

them's the ones :)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,11:29   

Well Hermagoras, Cordova's respone to your last post is up.  To absolutely no one 's surprise, spineless Sal once again completely ignored the tough  technical questions.  He did manage to accuse me of quote mining though :p , and now claims that anyone who gives the YEC articles a "fair and charitable reading" MUST agree with his position.


:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,00:55   

I can't seem to reply on Young Cosmos.  I can log in, and preview a message, but I when I try to submit a post it kicks me back to the editing board.  I've been able to post a message to that effect here.  I wonder what will happen next . . . .

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,01:04   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 07 2007,00:55)
I can't seem to reply on Young Cosmos.  I can log in, and preview a message, but I when I try to submit a post it kicks me back to the editing board.  I've been able to post a message to that effect here.  I wonder what will happen next . . . .

If it was anyone else besides Slimy Sal, I'd say "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity".  However, considering what he's done to the account of virtually every single dissenter though...

Let us know if you get an explanation and can post again.

In the mean time, Asshat's got a boner on because he was introduced to a new YEC website full of sciency-sounding gobbledygook.

Different day, same circus, same clown.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:29   

Quote
Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!!
Comments (7)
Posted in Advanced Creation Science, Speed of Light by Salvador @ Jul 25, 2007

[Advanced Creation Science]


LOL Advanced Creation Science.

http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/blog/

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:36   

Looks like the YEC short bus just got a little shorter.  :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:37   

"For example, the degree of time dilation predicted when we start to look at objects at say about 30,000 light years is about 59, their physical motions will appear to be slowed down by factors of 59!"


http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/wad_factors_59.html


Design?

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:47   

Note on the YoungCosmos site        
Quote
YoungCosmos has been overhauled and upgraded into 3 websites, and has also moved.

YoungCosmos is now split into 3 websites;

1. www.YoungCosmos.com (main website, and portal to everything else)

2. www.YoungCosmosBlog.com
(a place for fellowship, encouragement, and inspiration)

3. www.YoungCosmosDiscussion.com (professional level YEC science forum)

One wonders what a "professional level YEC science forum" might look like. Here's a guess.



BTW, the comments on that announcement, featuring Hermagoras and Sal, are pretty rich as well.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,13:29   

Is this the art of banning without banning?

http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngc....tart=30

--------------
"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

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,09:56   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2007,13:29)
Is this the art of banning without banning?

http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngc....tart=30

OK, I'm now able to post as Hermagoras2.  Nothing substantive yet -- I'll respond soon with more substance and aggression.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,10:06   

Why is it that Biologists run servers better than Engineers?

--------------
"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

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,10:22   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 09 2007,10:06)
Why is it that Biologists run servers better than Engineers?

It is strange.  YouCantpost is almost as bad as UsuallyDown in that respect.  

Elsewhere at Young Comos, Thought Provoker is quietly kicking ass.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,10:40   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 09 2007,10:22)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 09 2007,10:06)
Why is it that Biologists run servers better than Engineers?

It is strange.  YouCantpost is almost as bad as UsuallyDown in that respect.  

Elsewhere at Young Comos, Thought Provoker is quietly kicking ass.

Hermagoras - That's funny!  Thanks for the link!  Thought provoker list 56 diffrent ways to date things for Sal.  

Sal responds:  "That's too many".

What else is YEC gonna say?  It must totally suck to be Sal!

--------------
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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,10:52   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 09 2007,10:22)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 09 2007,10:06)
Why is it that Biologists run servers better than Engineers?

It is strange.  YouCantpost is almost as bad as UsuallyDown in that respect.  

Elsewhere at Young Comos, Thought Provoker is quietly kicking ass.

Yeah, I've been following that too - it's hilarious!  Sal invited TP over because TP is a EE like Sal.    Now TP's not playing the straight man flunky that Sal expected.  Oops! :D

How long before TP's account starts having 'posting issues'?    :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2007,07:11   

Sal's now mostly talking to himself on his boards. I wonder why that would be :)

Almost all the threads have Salvador as the person who added the last comment, and if they don't it's because Sal is afraid to address the issues in the thread.

E.G in the " Creation Science" section, the last non-Sal comment is from Wed Aug 08.

I guess Sal should see that it's only him who's interested in his garbage. Him and us  :p

If we hop over to the intelligent design section the last post was by Sal on Mon Aug 06.

There is a thread there by a chap called "chunk"  ;) and he asks
 
Quote
Anybody got any hard figures for the "information" in flagellum etc? Not the probability of them coming into existence fully formed , but an actual number that goes up and down (well, only down I suppose if genetic entropy theory is true!;) depending on the mutation.

So, for example, a petri dish of bacteria will have each bacteria with an average CSI of X, but some can go so high as Y or low as Q.


what an interesting question. And more interesting that Sal has left that thead alone. You'd think he'd jump in with an answer to such a simple question, but nothing at all from Sal on that.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2007,08:13   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2007,15:11)
Sal's now mostly talking to himself on his boards. I wonder why that would be :)

Almost all the threads have Salvador as the person who added the last comment, and if they don't it's because Sal is afraid to address the issues in the thread.

E.G in the " Creation Science" section, the last non-Sal comment is from Wed Aug 08.

I guess Sal should see that it's only him who's interested in his garbage. Him and us  :p

If we hop over to the intelligent design section the last post was by Sal on Mon Aug 06.

There is a thread there by a chap called "chunk"  ;) and he asks
     
Quote
Anybody got any hard figures for the "information" in flagellum etc? Not the probability of them coming into existence fully formed , but an actual number that goes up and down (well, only down I suppose if genetic entropy theory is true!) depending on the mutation.

So, for example, a petri dish of bacteria will have each bacteria with an average CSI of X, but some can go so high as Y or low as Q.


what an interesting question. And more interesting that Sal has left that thead alone. You'd think he'd jump in with an answer to such a simple question, but nothing at all from Sal on that.

HEATHEN!! BACTERIAL ENTROPY ALWAYS GOES DOWN , EXCEPT WHEN IT GOES UP. IT NEVER GOES SIDEWAYS EXCEPT WHEN FATHER O'DON JUAN  GETS THE KEYS TO THE CELLAR. HOMO!!!

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2007,16:30   

Up and down? Nonsense - flagella go in circles, just like any outboard motor propeller! :p

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2007,16:55   

Sal sounds like a precocious 10 yr old muttering to himself
Quote
It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post. This would also mean the sun began generating more gamma-rays, x-rays, and UV light over time. There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent.

Aww
Quote
There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent
link

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2007,16:57   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2007,16:55)
Sal sounds like a precocious 10 yr old muttering to himself
 
Quote
It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post. This would also mean the sun began generating more gamma-rays, x-rays, and UV light over time. There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent.

Aww
 
Quote
There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent
link

Darn that evil sun!!11!!1

(What the hell?)

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2007,17:11   

The thing that amuses me most about ole Sal is he can say this with a straight face
Quote
uncertain effect on warming of Earth if sun radiating in lower wavelength, there needs to be a compensating mechanism, although photo synthesis and color vision could remain unaffected.

After all god is standing right there doing it in the first place, what better compensating mechanism could you ask for? Why appeal to any other force, or try to rationalize it. I mean, at what point is Sal going to start investigating the mechanism  the universe was created with in the first place? Or how the bush could burn? Or how exactly water turned to wine?

At what point does Sal draw the line? I suspect it's at the point the line kinda blurs into a load of blah equations, just complex enough to be fuzzy to non scientists. just like the entire fan base of ID/DS/UD in fact.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2007,22:17   

Quote
It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post.


What does the author of that think he's saying? Sounds like he's mixing up red shift from expansion with red or blue shift due to relative motion - none of which applies to the sun since its distance from the Earth is relatively constant, and far too small for universe expansion to be relevant.

Henry

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,12:44   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 13 2007,22:17)
   
Quote
It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post.


What does the author of that think he's saying? Sounds like he's mixing up red shift from expansion with red or blue shift due to relative motion - none of which applies to the sun since its distance from the Earth is relatively constant, and far too small for universe expansion to be relevant.

Henry

What Sal thinks he is doing is providing explanations for observations that fit (mangle) the data but which also support his conclusion of a young universe.

If we adjust the speed of light like so then the universe is only 6000 years old

I mean, one of his aims is to make the figures for accelerated nuclear decay work out so that Adam and Eve don't get fried!

So, after getting (from what I can tell) roundly slated by SCheeseman who says    
Quote
So you have two factors that would fundamentally alter the whole dynamics of a supernova: the ratio of the rates of expansion to radioactive decay is completely different, and the ratio of the energy released by thermal means and by radioactive means is altered as well. Despite this, we observe the same decay curves, even in galaxies 200 million light years away as we do in those 10 milion light years away.

The same arguments can be applied to Cepheid variables; at least some component of the variation is gravitational, and the ratio of the graviatational to CDK-dependent components is so vastly different in the CDK model that we should see fundamentally different behaviour even as close as the Globular clusters, let alone the Andromeda galaxy.


Sal then says says    
Quote
I thank you for pointing out difficulties in our ideas, but I'm at the point I will probably split time to gather research on the thawing effect and the distance dilation issue. We have prima facie evidence this could be the case. Tifft argued there is strong evidence of time-varying redshifts. There is no reason the experiment can't be repeated.


Yeah, no reason at all except I think it would be the first ever actual ID/YEC/IDC experiment carried out to my knowledge.
 
Quote
If the thawing tests succeed, well, then there will be a lot of hard work ahead to find a viable theory.


http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=132

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,13:02   

Sal also mentioned something called the "Evolutionary hypothesis of radioactivity". I'm guessing he really means the idea that standard radioactivity axioms support an old earth, so they must be wrong.

When asked to expand upon it he says




     
Quote
There are several ideas for the presence of radioactivity:

1. stellar-planetary evolution (the evolutionary hypothesis) [not the same as biological evolution]

2. created radioactivity with missing isotopes [Sarfati Rolling Eyes ]

3. created radioactivity with accelerated decay that makes missing isotopes (Setterfield)

4. little or no created radioactivity, a late phenomena due to a rare mechanical, chemical, electrical reaction or a cosmogenic source or sources of things like neutrons(Brown unpublished, undeveloped speculation), followed up with accelerated decay


The problem with the stellar-planetary evolution model is uranium, being dense, should have sunk to the depths of the Earth and stayed there, not risen to the surface. Yet we find it in relative abundance at the surface. This would be true in any sort of "liquid" model of solid rock which geologist use. They say solid rock can be modeled like a liquid over great time scales and even the Earth was molten perhaps at one time. The "crustal recycling" ideas also fails to explain the presence of uranium at the surface because of the density issue. The same would be true of most other dense substances! Of course perhaps some chemical compound of uranium that is not so dense can help, but then we're still stuck with the issue of figuring out the mix of whatever exists on the surface in light of the density problem. Something doesn't add up either way.


And the best line
     
Quote
Something doesn't add up either way.


And anyway, how does Sal propose to tell if the "earth was molten at some time"

And has Sal not completely oversimplified things? In his model, the atmospheric gases would settle into layers for the same reason that the      
Quote
"crustal recycling" ideas also fails to explain the presence of uranium at the surface because of the density issue


Something does not add up? It appears that thing is Sal's inability to use a search engine

The Cosmic Origins of Uranium

   
Quote
We might further ask how long ago this synthesis of uranium occurred. Given

   * the present day abundances of U-235 and U-238 in the various 'shells' forming our planet,
   * a knowledge of the half-lives of these isotopes, and
   * the age of the Earth (c 4.55 billion years) - known from various radiometric 'clocks', including those of the uranium-to-lead decay chains.

we can calculate the abundances of U-235 and U-238 at the time the Earth was formed. Knowing further that the production ratio of U-235 to U-238 in a supernova is about 1.65, we can calculate that if all of the uranium now in the solar system were made in a single supernova, this event must have occurred some 6.5 billion years ago.
This 'single stage' is, however, an oversimplification. In fact, multiple supernovae from over 6 billion to about 200 million years ago were involved. Additionally, studies of the isotopic abundances of elements, such as silicon and carbon in meteorites, have shown that more than ten separate stellar sources were involved in the genesis of solar system material.


Ten separate sources huh Sal? Can you model even begin to  explain the formation of uranium? Never mind where we find it in the crust...

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,13:21   

It's not Uranium Sal is concerned about it's Radium!

The Evil Evolutionist Conspriracy, has forced Timex to corner the market, to keep IDists and YECers from doing the vital experiments that will PROVE  their talking points, I mean theory.   And just like Sal, they take a licking and keep on ticking.

Unfortuantely.

--------------
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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,14:06   

Quote
even the Earth was molten perhaps at one time

You mean in the last 6000 years, right Sal?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,14:47   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Aug. 14 2007,14:06)
 
Quote
even the Earth was molten perhaps at one time

You mean in the last 6000 years, right Sal?

Lord Kelvin, hero of YECs comes to our rescue!  :p

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi144.htm

Quote
By now, Joseph Fourier had developed a theory of heat conduction. It was based on avant-garde mathematics that a lot of people couldn't accept. Then, in 1862, a British scientist, Lord Kelvin, used Fourier's theory to calculate the age of the earth. He knew the earth's temperature increased one degree Fahrenheit for each 50 feet you went into the ground. He guessed that the earth began as molten rock at 7000° F. By solving Fourier's equation, Kelvin found that it must have taken a hundred million years for the earth's temperature to level out to one degree every 50 feet.
 Emphasis by TPH.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,07:30   

<chortle> Sal thinks he's going to redefine cosmology
Quote
If one thinks CDK is outrageous, consider the alternative. The Big Bang. Everything began from a region smaller than the point of pin. Further it requires Dark Matter to make it work.

This is what Dark Matter is Dark Matter: Hidden Mass Confounds Science, Inspires Revolutionary Theories.
http://www.space.com/science....-2.html

And so there is the missing link question of how a star is formed of real matter and dark matter. If Dark matter is gravitational, why does it not accrete (attract to each other and coagulate)? One has to one wonder how stars and planets form in the presence of Dark matter. Something about this seems incredibly unwholsome. Dark matter can assemble galaxies and keep them intact, yet somehow it did not accrete into planets and stars. One could argue that Dark Matter is diffuse, to which I would say "Why?". Why would it coagulate enough to form galaxies, yet not coagulate to help form stars and planets.

So the missing link here is not just the population III star, but a formation mechanism involving Dark Matter.


yeah, whatever Sal, whatever.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,09:00   

Quote
Something about this seems incredibly unwholsome

Oh no, it's the incontrovertible argument from misspelled unwholesomeness! We should just admit goddidit to prevent further embarassment.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
khan



Posts: 1528
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,14:27   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Aug. 16 2007,09:00)
Quote
Something about this seems incredibly unwholsome

Oh no, it's the incontrovertible argument from misspelled unwholesomeness! We should just admit goddidit to prevent further embarassment.

Whatever the spelling, that's an odd choice of a word.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,14:46   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 16 2007,05:30)
<chortle> Sal thinks he's going to redefine cosmology
 
Quote
If one thinks CDK is outrageous, consider the alternative. The Big Bang. Everything began from a region smaller than the point of pin. Further it requires Dark Matter to make it work.

This is what Dark Matter is Dark Matter: Hidden Mass Confounds Science, Inspires Revolutionary Theories.
http://www.space.com/science....-2.html

And so there is the missing link question of how a star is formed of real matter and dark matter. If Dark matter is gravitational, why does it not accrete (attract to each other and coagulate)? One has to one wonder how stars and planets form in the presence of Dark matter. Something about this seems incredibly unwholsome. Dark matter can assemble galaxies and keep them intact, yet somehow it did not accrete into planets and stars. One could argue that Dark Matter is diffuse, to which I would say "Why?". Why would it coagulate enough to form galaxies, yet not coagulate to help form stars and planets.

So the missing link here is not just the population III star, but a formation mechanism involving Dark Matter.


yeah, whatever Sal, whatever.

Meanwhile, in the real world, actual science is getting done on the subject.

There are things we don't know about dark matter.  The only logical conclusion is that it's all a load of nonsense and everything's 6,000 years old.  Isn't that right, Sal?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,15:02   

JohnW, if dark matter is real, why isn't in mentioned in the bible?*



*Please note when its experimentally verified, we'll reinterpret the bible to include it.

--------------
"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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,15:29   

Before light was created, all matter was dark matter... ;)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,08:43   

A link on YoungCosmos will take you to this biography of Walt Brown, which is apparently a chapter in a book about "Christian Men of Science". Some of the other chapters are devoted to Faraday, Maxwell, and that true champion of science, Henry Morris. No women, of course; maybe that is a separate book with a chapter on FtK.

Who knew that you could be a famous scientist while refusing to publish in the peer-reviewed literature?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,09:11   

yeah wes, especially when science journals "seldom publish a paper longer than six pages"

roflmao

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,03:05   

Mira Pzones Salvador!
   
Quote
Thus I suppose one can provisionally accept the universe must be at least 30,000 years old. That is reasonable, and should be kept in mind.


He never gives, up, he tries to "explain" the tail away

 
Quote
The local interstellar medium didn't have a powerful gust (for lack of better word, I will use wind analogies) which drove the tail backward. Even a stationary object moving at 0 km/s can have along trail if a medium is moving moving fast relative to the object, such as:



If you read the thread G. P. Jellison is educating Sal on some basic facts. I bet Sal is wondering how he can ban G. P. Jellison and save face, especially as G. P. Jellison is practically the only person posting on hte board now that Sal's banned everybody else!
Linky

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,09:30   

Sal Cordova: Provisionally Intermediate Earth Creationist.

:p

--------------
"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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,11:34   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2007,17:30)
Sal Cordova: Provisionally Intermediate Earth Creationist.

:p

So Young Cosmos should be re-named

Provisionally Adolescent Cosmos

(...with 40 year old's pimples).

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,11:40   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 16 2007,23:29)
Before light was created, all matter was dark matter... ;)

Dark Matter may in fact be light matter, as in weight.

Near massless low energy neutrinos or something very similar just a f*ck of a lot of them.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,13:22   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 22 2007,03:05)
Mira Pzones Salvador!
? ? ?  
Quote
Thus I suppose one can provisionally accept the universe must be at least 30,000 years old. That is reasonable, and should be kept in mind.


He never gives, up, he tries to "explain" the tail away

? ?  
Quote
The local interstellar medium didn't have a powerful gust (for lack of better word, I will use wind analogies) which drove the tail backward. Even a stationary object moving at 0 km/s can have along trail if a medium is moving moving fast relative to the object, such as:



If you read the thread G. P. Jellison is educating Sal on some basic facts. I bet Sal is wondering how he can ban G. P. Jellison and save face, especially as G. P. Jellison is practically the only person posting on hte board now that Sal's banned everybody else!
Linky

Do you think that Sal realizes that once he provisionally accepts 30,000 years, that this fact alone shows that Setterfield's idea is bunk, and hence the universe is 13 billion years old?

Of course not.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,02:59   

Just Say God Sal!
Quote
It is possible the Miras were formed with a tail as well which had translational velocity to give it a glow (all though that would seem rather mischievous of the Designer to do so).

But that is all speculation at this point.


You'll feel better!

mischievous = Loki?

http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=152

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:52   

Pretending to be Sal:

Found trapped in zircon crystals in the Jack Hills region, the small gems are the oldest identified fragments of the Earth's crust and their existence suggests the Earth may have cooled faster than previously thought, experts said on Wednesday.

--------------
"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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:05   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2007,10:52)
Pretending to be Sal:

Found trapped in zircon crystals in the Jack Hills region, the small gems are the oldest identified fragments of the Earth's crust and their existence suggests the Earth may have cooled faster than previously thought, experts said on Wednesday.

Looks like diamonds are NOT Sal's best friend.

--------------
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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,20:05   

Re "Looks like diamonds are NOT Sal's best friend. "

Why should they be - they're unstable in this environment. :p

Henry

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,23:08   

The designer created those diamonds on a Monday ( in the dark) and by Teusday the place was cool enough to ride around on dinosaurs.

Really I just wish those guys would run those silly ideas past Sal before rushing off to print, it would save so much time. Sal could just say "Nah, I'm going to moderate your ass" and that would be end of it.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,23:27   

DT and Sal talking intelligently

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,04:21   

Sal's young cosmos is getting decidedly middle aged
Quote
And in fact, a universe of a few hundred million years would adequately refute Darwinian evolution and favor some form of special creation. It just might not be what the YEC community really wants, but it would be a victory for both the OEC and YEC camp.


As we all know, the age of the universe directly correlates to the truthiness of "darwinism".

And Sal's pride is growing, could there be a fall! :)

 
Quote
I apologize for my absence as I was tied up. If you haven't heard, there is a chance that I will be in the cast of Ben Stein's "Expelled", the pro-ID movie. I was busy tracking down leads on that story lately.


So on the one hand Sal gets excited about a propaganda piece and on the other admits there is no evidence for his position!
Quote
As I have said, I'm only about 85% convinced YEC is true, and on empirical grounds I could not say I find the evidence anywhere it needs to be to be viable.


So even Sal admits there is no actual evidence, but he's happy to promote views that rely on such evidence to kids (if this film is aimed at college kids anyway).

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,04:36   

Quote

Quote

Sal:
As I have said, I'm only about 85% convinced YEC is true, and on empirical grounds I could not say I find the evidence anywhere it needs to be to be viable.


So even Sal admits there is no actual evidence, but he's happy to promote views that rely on such evidence to kids (if this film is aimed at college kids anyway).


BWHAhhahahahahahahaha

That means he's 15% atheist and probably Catholic.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,05:16   

Sal obviously finds it useful to keep up the pretense of "I only go where the evidence leads" even if his starting point is somewhat absurd.

If he keeps this up, he'll be believing in an old universe and the power of RM+NS in no time :)

I mean, if unimpeachable evidence was presented on his forum that he had to accept that the universe is much older then his current target of a couple a hundred million years, and if he adjusts his viewpoint accordingly then what's left of his "young cosmos" claims?

Of course, we know it's just a pretense so he can appeal to "the kids" and be seen to be "open minded" about where the evidence leads. No different from AFDave in that regard, except at least AFDave was honest about it from the beginning whereas Sal is hiding behind the skirts of the scientific method.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2007,15:20   

WOW. Salvador says Creation Science was another name for ID.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2007,15:22   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2007,15:20)
WOW. Salvador says Creation Science was another name for ID.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more

I'm a little ticked at Ed.  It was me, after all, who first noted Sal's admission.  Yet do I get any credit?  Nope.  See here.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2007,15:27   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,15:22)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2007,15:20)
WOW. Salvador says Creation Science was another name for ID.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more

I'm a little ticked at Ed. ?It was me, after all, who first noted Sal's admission. ?Yet do I get any credit? ?Nope. ?See here.

I'm sure you will..  ;)

--------------
"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

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,13:20   

Latest post at Young Cosmos: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:23 pm.

Between Overwhelming Evidence and Young Cosmos, who will win for the least activity?  

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,14:56   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 31 2007,13:20)
Latest post at Young Cosmos: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:23 pm.

Between Overwhelming Evidence and Young Cosmos, who will win for the least activity? ?

Overwhelmingly Dense is perfectly designed to be just as tardariffic as Jung Homos, I mean Young Cosmos.



I would suspect that most of Sal's posters would be a lot like Cosmo Kramer...

--------------
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: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,15:48   

This post:

Quote
Much appreciated, Dr. Cheesman. No problem.

As I have said, I'm only about 85% convinced YEC is true, and on empirical grounds I could not say I find the evidence anywhere it needs to be to be viable.

It would be unethical not to make the YEC community aware of the difficulties you raise. This new phenomena is potentially fatal to the 6,000 version of YEC.

There is of course, for the sake of argument, a version of YEC which might not be in line with Genesis, but would put limits of say a few hundred million years. That may be empirically defensible even without, especally if the small universe hypothesis succeeds. I've been in touch with Robert Fritzius over the matter of futher inquiry into the small universe.

As I have stated I have far less indigestion over an alternate reading of Genesis than others here. And in fact, a universe of a few hundred million years would adequately refute Darwinian evolution and favor some form of special creation. It just might not be what the YEC community really wants, but it would be a victory for both the OEC and YEC camp.

There is plenty that troubles me over the mainstream models, not the least of whcih is the Big Bang. The YECs are not the only ones to object, but there is dissent from non-creationist quarters that is growing. The Big Bang theory could be overturned.

I apologize for my absence as I was tied up. If you haven't heard, there is a chance that I will be in the cast of Ben Stein's "Expelled", the pro-ID movie. I was busy tracking down leads on that story lately.


http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngc....b0f#762

It is painfully evident that Sal wants a 6 day creation not only to confirm the biblical account but also do disprove "Darwinism". His new stance seems to be picked simply so that the time-frame for evolution would be too short rather than for any scientific reason.


Can't.....let......evolution...be....true.


He's a deluded nutter. The end.

--------------
"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

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,19:09   

I love that 85% number.  My oldest son, when he was in second grade, loved to pull numbers out of his ass.  It's what kids do. He's going into fifth grade now, and he's gotten over that practice. Same cannot be said for Sal.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,19:20   

Quote
And in fact, a universe of a few hundred million years would adequately refute Darwinian evolution and favor some form of special creation.


How does he figure that? The only reason we think evolution took 4+ billion years is because geological dating indicates that, not because the theory implied it.

Henry

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,19:30   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2007,19:20)
Quote
And in fact, a universe of a few hundred million years would adequately refute Darwinian evolution and favor some form of special creation.


How does he figure that? The only reason we think evolution took 4+ billion years is because geological dating indicates that, not because the theory implied it.

Henry

Sal is also apparently too pig-ignorant to understand that the young earth was, uh, given up by geologists before Darwin was even born.  

By geologists who believed in the fixity of species.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,16:36   

Given the recent discussions of Sal and his notions on the FtK thread, I thought it was worthwhile to bump this thing back to the top just so that you can read Sal's opinions on the Guillermo Gonzalez affair. I won't link to the site, because only FtK can comment there, and because the post is pure Cordrivel as only Sal can excrete it, but one sentence is worth pointing out (my emphasis).  
Quote
Let the reader judge for himself if the content of this video is deserving of the punishments received by Gonzalez.

Earth (old) to Sal - A tenure denial is not punishment. It is one of two possible outcomes when you take a tenure-track job. Just like failing is one of two possible outcomes when you take a course on the pass/fail system. And, in both cases, the person being tested has a lot of control over what happens, if they are well-prepared and if they pay reasonable attention to the rules of the game.

Good luck in grad school, dude. You've got a lot to learn.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,22:25   

I still have posting privileges at Young Cosmos.  I never alienated Sal enough to get booted.  Anyway, I commented on his "I'm smarter than Darwin because I know more math" post, and he has responded with some sense that he's gone overboard.  See here.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,08:43   

Sal got an "A" in his introductory physics course [edit - survey of the foundations of 20th century physics]. Yay Sal! He also continues his comparison of Darwin vs Maxwell, and likes the word "dolt." In fact, Darwin is a "feeble brained dolt" compared to Maxwell and Riemann.

Keep that word "dolt" at hand as you read the following:
           
Quote
We went through the major experiments which led to the development of modern physics.

I’m pleased to say, not one ounce of useless Darwinism was needed to comprehend the course material...

I was delighted that my first homework assignment was to show how the creationist Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics leads to various concepts in special realtivity: Lorentz Covariance and the Creationist Maxwell’s Equations. Note that I did not need one ounce of Darwinism to make the derivation. That’s because Darwinism isn’t science.

Not only that, not one ounce of chemistry was needed to make that derivation. That's because chemistry isn't a science. Nor one ounce of geology, biology, paleontology, meteorology, ecology, astronomy, or cosmology. Those must not be sciences either. Nor information theory, metallurgy, minerology, psychology, cognitive science, sociology, political science, or anthropology...Jesus, Sal, you're a fucking genius.
       
Quote
My experience in class only reinforces the fact that the claim that “Darwin’s theory is the central theory of science” is a falsehood promoted by Darwin’s followers. It has no basis in truth. I’d say Schrodinger’s and Maxwell’s equations are far more essential to the progress of science than any of Darwin’s unfounded speculations…

Who has ever claimed that "Darwin's theory is the central theory of science?" [reference to orifice deleted]
         
Quote
I can accept old-earth ideas as a working hypothesis. However, if Einstien’s theory and Maxwell’s equations can be amended to allow temporal-spatial variations of the speed of light, then various YEC cosmologies can succeed without being inconsistent with present operational physics. I look forward to exploring the possibility of variable speed of light (VSL) and will blog on developments in VSL periodically…

You gotta stand back and take this in to really appreciate Sal's idiotic grandiosity. Sal is saying, "The only real science is physics. And now that I have taken an introductory college course [edit - survey of the foundations of 20th century physics] I just might overturn the entire edifice of physics, which I so revere. Watch this space."

What was that word again? Right.

--------------
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

  
celdd



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,09:10   

To be fair, this is not an introductory course.  

from the John Hopkins website:  
 
Quote

This course covers a broad spectrum of topics related to the development of quantum and relativity theories. The understanding of modern physics and its applications is essential to the pursuit of advanced work in materials, optics, and other applied sciences. Topics include the special theory of relativity, particle-like properties of light, wavelike properties of particles, wave mechanics, atomic and nuclear phenomena, elementary particles, statistical physics, solid state, astrophysics and general relativity

Prerequisites & Notes
Prerequisite: Undergraduate degree in physics or engineering.



Still, this course has nothing to do with biology or evolution.  That Sal implies that his physics course has any direct relevance to evolutionary theory is absurd.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,09:10   

YEA, SAL!!!!  Congrats on the "A"!!!!

Keep up the good work...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,09:12   

A thing of beauty:

Quote
"It is an awful and disgusting lie.  It speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen. I am incensed and infuriated to have to respond to such ludicrous misinterpretation." - Will Smith after being quotemined in the tabloids.


Should come in handy in this thread, I think.

--------------
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

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,10:15   

Quote (celdd @ Dec. 25 2007,10:10)
To be fair, this is not an introductory course.  

from the John Hopkins website:  
   
Quote

This course covers a broad spectrum of topics related to the development of quantum and relativity theories. The understanding of modern physics and its applications is essential to the pursuit of advanced work in materials, optics, and other applied sciences. Topics include the special theory of relativity, particle-like properties of light, wavelike properties of particles, wave mechanics, atomic and nuclear phenomena, elementary particles, statistical physics, solid state, astrophysics and general relativity

Prerequisites & Notes
Prerequisite: Undergraduate degree in physics or engineering.



Still, this course has nothing to do with biology or evolution.  That Sal implies that his physics course has any direct relevance to evolutionary theory is absurd.

You're right.  

"We studied introductory material pertaining to special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics."

A distinction without a difference relative to Sal's argument.

--------------
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: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,11:13   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 25 2007,09:43)
Quote
I can accept old-earth ideas as a working hypothesis. However, if Einstien’s theory and Maxwell’s equations can be amended to allow temporal-spatial variations of the speed of light, then various YEC cosmologies can succeed without being inconsistent with present operational physics. I look forward to exploring the possibility of variable speed of light (VSL) and will blog on developments in VSL periodically…

You gotta stand back and take this in to really appreciate Sal's idiotic grandiosity. Sal is saying, "The only real science is physics. And now that I have taken an introductory college course I just might overturn the entire edifice of physics, which I so revere. Watch this space."

What was that word again? Right.

Well, at least he recognizes that Young Earth Creationism is incompatible with the past 100+ years of physics.

That he thinks the physics must therefore be wrong is just kind of sad.

   
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,12:12   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 25 2007,09:12)
A thing of beauty:

Quote
"It is an awful and disgusting lie.  It speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen. I am incensed and infuriated to have to respond to such ludicrous misinterpretation." - Will Smith after being quotemined in the tabloids.


Should come in handy in this thread, I think.

Quote
Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good.

"Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'let me do the most evil thing I can do today'," said Will. "I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good'. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming.

"I wake up every day full of hope, positive that every day is going to be better than yesterday. And I'm looking to infect people with my positivity. I think I can start an epidemic."


You can clearly tell the man loves his Hitler.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,12:16   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 25 2007,09:43)
Sal said:

I was delighted that my first homework assignment was to show how the creationist Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics leads to various concepts in special realtivity: Lorentz Covariance and the Creationist Maxwell’s Equations.

Maxwell's Equations led to Maxwell's Equations?

Quote
Note that I did not need one ounce of Darwinism to make the derivation. That’s because Darwinism isn’t science.


I expect better logic from people who've just smoked weed.

Edited by stevestory on Dec. 25 2007,13:17

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,12:56   

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 25 2007,09:10)
YEA, SAL!!!!  Congrats on the "A"!!!!

Keep up the good work...

Will he be overturning evilution or turning over burgers?

Stay Tuned!

--------------
"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

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,13:49   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 25 2007,12:16)
Quote
Note that I did not need one ounce of Darwinism to make the derivation. That’s because Darwinism isn’t science.


I expect better logic from people who've just smoked weed.

You rang, m'lord?

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,13:58   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 25 2007,12:56)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 25 2007,09:10)
YEA, SAL!!!!  Congrats on the "A"!!!!

Keep up the good work...

Will he be overturning evilution or turning over burgers?

Stay Tuned!

Well, it is possible that the DI will want to sign Sal up for a cushy job bashing Darwinists once he has a degree. He certainly has a nose brown enough for that job application, if he wants it. He can be Luskin's apprentice.

Of course, it is also possible that the DI will have their funding decline to a trickle by the time Sal gets his degree. I can't imagine that the sponsors have been too happy with them lately. The DI fellows might have to get real jobs, give lectures at $10K per appearance, or sell books to keep the family fed. I don't think Sal has much talent in any of those areas, so it will be interesting to see where he ends up when the DI crashes. The stable of folks on the payroll seems pretty large, and pink slips might be on the way for some if the predicted Darwinist Waterloo doesn't happen pretty soon...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,14:04   

Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 25 2007,14:49)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 25 2007,12:16)
 
Quote
Note that I did not need one ounce of Darwinism to make the derivation. That’s because Darwinism isn’t science.


I expect better logic from people who've just smoked weed.

You rang, m'lord?

Lol.

Here you go.


   
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,14:07   

I just finished a bag of Doritos, actually. I'll have to save those for a rainy day.

Merry Christmas.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2007,14:57   

Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 25 2007,15:07)
I just finished a bag of Doritos, actually.


   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,18:53   

Madeline Murry O'Hair deserved to be murdered, says Sal:

Quote
These bad apples have caused the general public to form a stereotype in their mind that atheists are mean-spiritied amoral people like Madeline Murry O’Hair. O’Hair regularly courted criminals as her cronies and was punished by God through cruel death.


http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/151

(Linked from Pharyngula)

Edit: Madalyn Murray O'Hair, not Madeline Murry O'Hair. Should have known better than to trust Sal's English, long known to be poor.

Edited by stevestory on Dec. 26 2007,21:11

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,20:28   

Dembski and Behe have many followers, but I've only ever seen FtK commend Salvador. Can you guys think of anyone else who's consistently defended him? I can't think of any other supporters he has.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,20:38   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2007,20:28)
Dembski and Behe have many followers, but I've only ever seen FtK commend Salvador. Can you guys think of anyone else who's consistently defended him? I can't think of any other supporters he has.

It's okay, because he does it for Jesus. Plus, he lets a housewife contribute to his physics proving-god website.

They've clearly given up at the pretense of science now.

Edit? Yes!

--------------
"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

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,21:28   

Apparently the "A" Sal got in physics means he's a rectum.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,21:36   

Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 26 2007,22:28)
Apparently the "A" Sal got in physics means he's a rectum.

Thank you.

--------------
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: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2007,22:39   

Another of Salvador's pustules has erupted:
       
Quote
There is much trouble in the world. For example, I mentioned this horrible crime committed against my family: Memorial to murder and rape victim, Connie Reyes. Why would such things happen? Why did Sean Taylor have to die? Or why would Darwin have to have deformed children after he inbred with his cousin?

The birth of Darwin’s deformed child caused him to have much resentment toward the idea of special creation. But the irony is that in the Darwinian world, deformed kids are only part of the evolutionary process of random mutation...That’s the cruel irony of Darwin’s theory.

As the father of a daughter (now adult) born with a physical handicap, I'm here to say that it is the rectal prolapse that is Salvador Cordova's cerebral cortex that is "deformed."

But I'll also reproduce the following, which I wrote to a close friend following the birth of my daughter 21 years ago. To protect her privacy, and to honor Darwin's suffering, I'll change her name in what follows to "Mary Eleanor":

"I have always felt, deep in me, that there is no a-priori meaning for events like Mary Eleanor's prenatal injury. This event has required of me deep grieving and new loving, though has not altered, or even challenged, my universe-view, Einstein not withstanding. When friends gather around and say things like "everything happens for a reason, so God must have something in mind" I accept the consolation intended, though feel clearly, intuitively, unequivocally that this is comforting human fantasy. It is denial, in the same way that "grandpa is in heaven now and we'll be with him one day" denies the frightful mystery of life and death. If one really wishes to live intimately with the reality of human existence, than one must relinquish this kind of fantasy and accept the essentially random byplay that is a partner in all reality. Randomness is real. Mary Eleanor is wonderful. Grandpa isn't in a heaven. I am not bitter."

--------------
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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,08:15   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 26 2007,22:39)
Another of Salvador's pustules has erupted:

I actually had convinced myself that Sal had hit bottom with his previous posts. Clearly I was wrong.

Stay tuned, indeed. How low can he go?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,09:57   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 27 2007,08:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 26 2007,22:39)
Another of Salvador's pustules has erupted:

I actually had convinced myself that Sal had hit bottom with his previous posts. Clearly I was wrong.

Stay tuned, indeed. How low can he go?

Hey, FtK, come on, stick up for Sal!

--------------
"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

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,10:10   

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 25 2007,09:10)
YEA, SAL!!!!  Congrats on the "A"!!!!

Keep up the good work...

Do I notice a bit of sarcasme in that? Or is it just my mind playing tricks on me?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2007,10:32   

Quote
There was a time when, not having taken part in long arguments at ARN and other forums, I did not understand why so many of my friends in the anti-creationist community held Sal Cordova in such low esteem.


http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....cor.php

   
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006