Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: From "LUCA" thread started by C.J.O'Brien


Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Aug. 31 2005,16:31

Okay, don't usually do this, but Prof. Syvanen expressly requested that troll-baiting not occur in the comments to his article about lateral gene transfer and LUCA on the Thumb. And I have been called a "fool" by a troll there named Paley's Ghost, who, if he should desire can use this space to put his money where his big mouth is.

Here was PG's theory <snicker> of gene transfer:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionists have always used the existence of the same genes in a variety of organisms as proof of their amoral ontology, but once again they have been disproved by real evidence. The genetic similarities that they use to build their anti-God “Tree of Life” represent nothing more than the fact organisms occasionally eat each other. If you eat steak and then some cow genes are in you, evolutionists think that proves you came from cows—what a bunch of stupid, amoral left-wing ideologues!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My reply was a dashed off suggestion that the effectiveness of parsimony analysis in constructing congruent phylogenies using different genes pretty much lays to rest the idea of "common design" or any such rejection of common descent as good evidence for evolution. (I also called his idea the "meat'n'potatoes" theory, and implied it was "stupid," so I asked for it)
And here is what I got:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unlike fools like you who can barely comprehend high school algebra, you assume the only way for a creature to have a certain gene is for that creature to be related to another creature who has this gene. You’re committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You assume becuse there are puddles of water in the streets, it rained last night when what really happened was a bunch of commie hippies from the ACLU had an all night vigil in protest of their evolutionary lies challenged in public schools and peed on everything. Even techniques of mathematical analysis occasionally used by evolutionists show this not to be the case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Charges of the fallacy of affirming the consequent are all the rage these days. It sure sounds impressive, but most often it's just waved around like it's a ticket to unassailability, as in "You're affirming the consequent. now you have to be quiet."

In this case, it's nonsense. I'm affirming that IF we assume that most instances of organisms sharing genes means the organisms also share ancestors, there are testable consequences, and that, further, parsimony analysis, used as a test, bears out the assumption.

There it is, for the record. So, Paley's Ghost, in the unlikely circumstance that you would have the slightest interest in backing up your lunatic ideas or your insults, here is a space in which you can do so.
Posted by: Russell on Aug. 31 2005,18:28

"Paley's Ghost" strikes me as a way-over-the-top fake creationist. My bet is he [and the gender is almost certainly he] is a regular, evolution-accepting guy poking fun at creationists and/or evo-defenders he sees as taking it too seriously. That would be my bet.
Posted by: Hyperion on Aug. 31 2005,20:15

I'd say the handle was a pretty good tip off.  I can't imagine that many creationist trolls are even aware of Paley or his philosophy, or that those who do would wish to purposefully link their cause to a two century old, thoroughly debunked philosophy.
Posted by: Russell on Sep. 01 2005,02:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by Dave Cerutti on August 31, 2005 11:44 PM (e) (s)

Umm, you guys did realize from the name on my post that I was joking, right? Or shall I pull another admonitus and impersonate a creationist of some bizarre strain for many days before letting the cat out of the bag?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HA! Just as I suspected. Interesting, though. "Admonitus", if I recall correctly, threw in the spelling and grammar slips typical of creationists. Did "Paley's Ghost" consciously omit that, or did he just hastily fail to "reverse proofread"?
Posted by: Russell on Sep. 01 2005,03:46

Also -
"Paley's Ghost" didn't fool me for a moment. "Admonitus" took me a while. But "Salvador Cordova"! Brilliant! I bought that hook, line and sinker.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Sep. 01 2005,06:40

More proof that you can't tell a creationist from a parody, I guess. I thought "Anti-God tree of life" was pretty over the top...

But I've seen some pretty over the top creationist nonsense, and being called a "fool" just made me want to provide some more rope for the auto-hanging.

#### good parody *tips hat*
Posted by: Hyperion on Sep. 01 2005,06:53

Someone should do a study comparing the reading-difficulty scores, like Flesch-Kincaid, of actual creationist nonsense and the parodies.  I'd be curious to know if we're right that the parodies tend to use bigger words, better spelling, etc.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 06 2005,12:57

Quote (Hyperion @ Sep. 01 2005,01:15)
I'd say the handle was a pretty good tip off.  I can't imagine that many creationist trolls are even aware of Paley or his philosophy, or that those who do would wish to purposefully link their cause to a two century old, thoroughly debunked philosophy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You claim Paley's philosphy is discredited? How? He merely stated the obvious. Living things are designed. This is as obvious as Aristotle's observation that gravity makes earth and water fall. Granted, Aristotle did not come up with the mathematics behind this process; Newton did. Likewise, Paley did not have a precise mathematcal formation of his ideas; this is what Dembski has provided. Stupid, immoral evolutionists like you deny the obvious. It is like attacking Newton's law of universal gravitation by saying things really don't fall, they only "Move how the random forces of natural selection push them," or some other such Darwinian rot.

Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment!
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 07 2005,03:18

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 06 2005,17:57)
Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw, c'mon, she is much nicer than that.  :D
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 10 2005,13:48

C.J. O'Brien wrote



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this case, it's nonsense. I'm affirming that IF we assume that most instances of organisms sharing genes means the organisms also share ancestors, there are testable consequences, and that, further, parsimony analysis, used as a test, bears out the assumption.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's just it, you merely assume that organisms sharing genes proves they share ancestors. That is precisely what Christians are challenging. It's just an assumption of stiff necked evolutionists--and your own words agree.

In a paper published in Trends in Plant Science1, several authors do an analysis of whole mitochondria genome-based phylogenies and get a tree that completly contardicts the tadiational evolution tree. As dogmatic evolutionists, they assume their new tree is wrong because it is inconcsistent with established Darwinian catechism. However, why should it not be. Any evolutionist can just do any test and come up with any kind of ancestry tree they feel like. All of the gene distributions are random from a point of view of common ancestry. However, the subtle and sophistaicated analysis of intellegent design theory shows each gene was put in for a specific purpose, and hence, demonstrates its design.

C.J. O'Brien likes to think I am a troll because he senses my intellgence is so vastly superior to his own.


Soltis, Douglas E., Albert, Victor A., Savolained, Vincent, Hilu, Khinder,Qiu, Yin-Long, Chase, Mark W., Farris, James S., Stephanovic, Sasa, Rice, Danny W., Palmer, Jeffry D., and Soltis, Pamela S. October 2004. Genome-scale data, angiospem relationships, and 'ending incongrunce': a cautionary tale in phylogenics. Trends in Plant Science Vol. 9 No. 10
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 10 2005,20:34

Superior intelligence, who can say without more evidence? Spelling's a bit weak though.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 11 2005,14:54

Please check figure 1 from this paper:< Paley's Revenge >

   Does this look familiar? It should, since this is from the evolution-smiting Naylor/Brown paper. Sorry Charlie, but the Chickens have come home to "sleep with the fishes"! And this from whole-genome mitochondrial DNA, so don't complain about small sample sizes... tap-dance all you want, but only a Dembski/Berlinski joint paper can begin to explain this curious incongruence, with a generous slice of my mathematical model (forthcoming). And while you're at it, please pity the poor urchins stranded among the chordates.
  Until Darwin-science can begin to address its failed predictions, Americans have every right to laugh this Lysenkoist pseudoscience out of the classroom.
Posted by: American Saddlebred on Oct. 11 2005,15:20

Attn: Paley your link is broken, so yes it does look familiar just like Intelligent Design Creationism, there is nothing there.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley did not have a precise mathematcal formation of his ideas; this is what Dembski has provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is PT still having a quote of the day?

Yep all of Dembski's predictions will come true.  Perhaps even, evolution's "Waterloo in Dover."  What projects are being undertaken by the Intelligent Design Creationist movement in regards to "junk DNA has a purpose."  Yep evolution is sure going to "lose."  Ya'll need to put up or shut up (and sidestepping peer-review doesn't cut it.)  Are you aware of the numerous times that junk science known as IDC has stepped into the legal arena to defeat the "darwinists?"  Are you aware that their record is worse than that of the Washington Generals?  When the time came for IDC to lay their cards down on the table, they were bluffing everytime.  Dover hasn't been any different, no matter how much your idol wished it otherwise and proclaimed it to be so.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds great so long as you bring the german potato salad (Hitler, Lenin and Lysenko love it.)  I wonder if they have muskie in the Lake of Fire, or perhaps--lungfish.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 11 2005,15:44

Sorry, the data say otherwise. The appelate courts can't overturn the results of the papers I've cited, no matter how badly they may want to. Darwinism is a bloated corpse floating in the aether, another failed "enlightenment" idea destined to be parroted in Feminist Studies workshops, and ignored by those who matter. I've been playing by your rules: can you?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 11 2005,15:50

No thanks. German potato salad leaves me bloated and flatulent, not unlike your attempts at a rebuttal.....................
Posted by: American Saddlebred on Oct. 11 2005,16:02

Was there a point to that post two above this?  Please elaborate, as I fail to see your point.  What is wrong with feminism, isn't it the Bible that makes all people equal and evolution that causes all the evil in the world such as racism and sexism?

Additionally, are you aware that WAD has ceased posting at PT to defend his ideas?  Could this be because they lambast his ummm...snicker..."precise mathematcal formation" to the extent that he only lurks and has ceased posting?  He much prefers to post on his own blog, deleting any comment that slightly dissents from his point of view.  Yep his "precise mathematcal formation" is so correct that he doesn't even have to defend it anywhere that he doesn't possess the ability to censor any dissent.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,03:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Attn: Paley your link is broken, so yes it does look familiar just like Intelligent Design Creationism, there is nothing there.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry, try this time.< Paley's Revenge >

In addition, this is not an intellegent design paper. It is from a paper peer reviewed by the commie evolutionist community!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,04:19

To clarify a previous post, I was just trying to reply to Saddlebred without using the quote feature. The point stands, however: Naylor, Brown, and Baptest have posed intractable problems for the Darwinian paradigm. The phylogenetic tree is rotten from the trunk to the tiniest stem. I could quote dozens of papers to show this, but if you refuse to see what's in front of your eyes, what good does it do? And are you really suggesting Figure 1 poses no problems for evolution? It might be time to take this horse to the glue factory...........
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 12 2005,07:00

Ghost of Paley

You're John A Davison and I claim my five pounds
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,09:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're John A Davison and I claim my five pounds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not he, but merely a humble servant of God.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please elaborate, as I fail to see your point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I empathise. I, too, spent many a year in the American public school system. ;)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya'll need to put up or shut up
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  I have. Do you have anything to offer in return?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Additionally, are you aware that WAD has ceased posting at PT to defend his ideas?  Could this be because they lambast his ummm...snicker..."precise mathematcal formation" to the extent that he only lurks and has ceased posting?  He much prefers to post on his own blog, deleting any comment that slightly dissents from his point of view.  Yep his "precise mathematcal formation" is so correct that he doesn't even have to defend it anywhere that he doesn't possess the ability to censor any dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 If this thread represents the typical argumentation proffered on this site, I REALLY empathize. Poor man.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is wrong with feminism, isn't it the Bible that makes all people equal and evolution that causes all the evil in the world such as racism and sexism?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Now you're getting it. If only the feminists could get it, instead of engaging in witchcraft, lesbianism, and Dungeons & Dragons. But I've come here to provide an education in science, not social studies. One subject at a time, Sea Biscuit.
 Focus, gentlemen.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 12 2005,10:32

Not JAD, I see that now. No mention of semi-meiosis.

I read the paper you linked to. Does not seem to be earth shattering, just suggesting a better approach to constructing the Tree of Life when using genomic analysis. Unless I'm missing something.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,11:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I read the paper you linked to. Does not seem to be earth shattering, just suggesting a better approach to constructing the Tree of Life when using genomic analysis. Unless I'm missing something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have cited other papers as well; I could cite dozens more. What constitutes a "good" approach to constructing your godless < tree of life >? Evolutionists merely take any data that conforms to their Darwinian catechism and reject the rest as being somehow inadequate. The "Tree of Life" is an evolutionistic fantasy construct. Intellegent Design theory explains the real reason life is as it is, and my orginal thesis that some genes wind up in other organisms because they eat each other is absolutely solid.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 12 2005,12:43

Paley:

Would you care to elaborate on your hypothesis that DNA ingested, and subsequently digested, by one organism somehow ends up in the germ cells of that organism?

I know I'm wasting my time engaging in discussions with someone so obviously ignorant of the simplest principles of biology, but hey -- it's a slow day at work.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 12 2005,12:57

Paley:

Wow. I just read the paper you linked to, and I'm trying to remember the last time I saw someone so completely misrepresent the content of a paper (I work for a law firm and read a lot of legal briefs, so it's not something I'm unfamiliar with).

I'd like to see your "dozens of papers" that show how the consensus phylogenetic tree is completely wrong. I wonder if you have any understanding at all of how phylogenetic trees are constructed by reference to independent evidence from multiple lines of research. I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that the concept is entirely foreign to you.

It's fascinating to watch these ID apologists flail around with their wild-ass critiques of evolution.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,14:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd like to see your "dozens of papers" that show how the consensus phylogenetic tree is completely wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's stick to the cited papers, please.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow. I just read the paper you linked to, and I'm trying to remember the last time I saw someone so completely misrepresent the content of a paper (I work for a law firm and read a lot of legal briefs, so it's not something I'm unfamiliar with).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 Ahhh, the scientists at Panda's Thumb have asked for scientific guidance from a lawyer. Why am I not surprised?  :p
 First, care to elaborate on my misrepresentations?  Since they are so abundant, the only hard part should be picking the most egregious one! Is Figure 1 not as I have described it in previous posts? And if it is, how is that ridiculous phylogeny acceptable under Darwinian assumptions? Talk about a big tent!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's fascinating to watch these ID apologists flail around with their wild-ass critiques of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 So far the only flailing I've seen has been by my "critics". But I'm willing to hear you out. How are post-hoc adjustments (discarding third-codon positions from analyses, removing "problematic" taxa such as lamprey or lancelets since they lead to bad trees, etc) considered acceptable science?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 12 2005,14:19

As a followup:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you care to elaborate on your hypothesis that DNA ingested, and subsequently digested, by one organism somehow ends up in the germ cells of that organism?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  Lynn Margulis (wife of Satan.....err....Sagan) has proposed the endosymbiotic theory to account for new genes/functions. This a just one germ digesting another. My theory, which proposes RNA transfer from digestive enzymes to germ cells via RAG recombination, is merely an extention of Margulis's concept. Granted, there are some minor details to be worked out, but that's why ID research is so crucial for the progress of science.
 My application of her concept to multicellular organisms reveals my willingness to seek truth wherever it might be - even from the wife of a Marxist.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 12 2005,15:53

Paley:

Where did I say I was a lawyer?

You take a paper that points out some problems with relying on whole-genome comparisons of a small number of taxa in developing a phylogenetic tree, and try to stretch that to support the contention that the whole idea of a phylogenetic tree is fraudulent. That's what we in the business call "misrepresentation." Maybe even "fraudulent misrepesentation," if it can be shown that you knew your argument was wrong when you made it. So that you can get a clue as to how wrong you are, try following this < link >. If you weren't so wedded to your thesis that evolution is bunk, it would probably give you something to think about.

So your idea is that the simplest eukaryotes evolved to, e.g., primates based on horizontal gene transfer? Sounds like there are more than a few minor details to be worked out.

The funny thing, Paley, is that I have absolutely no training in the biological sciences at all, and yet even I can see where your arguments have gone completely off the tracks. It gives me some idea of how well your arguments would go over with real scientists.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 14 2005,07:15

Sorry for the delay, but I was wrapped up in my bible study groups. The stories I could tell of the horrors Evilution has wrought on people's lives! Well, on to the subject at hand.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where did I say I was a lawyer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Where did you say you weren't? In the off chance you aren't, I apologize for the slander. :p
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You take a paper that points out some problems with relying on whole-genome comparisons of a small number of taxa in developing a phylogenetic tree, and try to stretch that to support the contention that the whole idea of a phylogenetic tree is fraudulent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 It ain't just one paper, hoss. It's the cumulative weight of many that leads to my eminently sane conclusion. But following my own advice, I'll stick to the current paper.
 It's true that the authors hypothesize that more taxa will solve the problem, but in the case of _animalia_, they don't support that raw speculation with any data, so I didn't mention it. Remember, I'm interested in data, not the tap-dancing of evolutionists. In addition, the author's conclusions conflict with others who assert that the number of characters is the most important component in any analysis.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So that you can get a clue as to how wrong you are, try following this link.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Believe it or not, this source is nothing new to me. In fact, I've managed to come up with with some cogent criticisms in between my bible-thumping, synagogue-torching and all. Hint: Count how many proteins are used to support his consensus tree, and then contrast this with Wu 1991. More to come later......
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 14 2005,07:43

Paley:

I wasn't aware that it was necessary for me to state that I'm not a lawyer. I thought that if I didn't claim to be a lawyer, it would be assumed that I'm not. You don't claim to be a scientist, so I don't assume you are one.

The cumulative weight of evidence is that the consensus phylogenetic tree is by and large accurate. Given the immense number of possible phylogenetic trees (for 30 taxa the number is on the order of ten to the thirty-eighth power), the fact that there's any consistency whatsoever in the trees derived from independent sources of evidence has to be seen as one of the crowning achievements of the human intellect. Your conclusion isn't sane; it's completely wacky.

Evidence from multiple confirming lines of research isn't "speculation," it's confirmation. If one line of evidence is in conflict with converging conclusions for the other ten or so lines of evidence, we can be reasonably certain that there's an error in the methodology. If you're using Cepheid variables to work out the hubble constant, and one Cepheid variable tells you that an obviously distant galaxy is located within the milky way, there's obviously something wrong with the distance value for that one star. This is elementary scientific methodology.

So I'm afraid one paper ain't gonna do it. One study that comes up with erroneous conclusions shows an error in the methodology, not an error in the theory. You're going to have to show me how the multiple lines of inquiry do not converge on one phylogentic tree, and I already know you can't do that.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 14 2005,07:50

Paley:

A couple more points. Pointing to numbers of proteins isn't going to get you far, because gene/protein analysis is only one of dozens of converging lines of evidence for the consensus phylogenetic tree. Citing protein-sequencing data from 1991 will get you even less far.

The exact configuration of the phylogenetic tree will probably never be established for every single organism (we don't even know how many species currently exist, let alone the immensely larger number that have ever existed), given the astronomical numbers of possible trees. Pointing to this or that controversy as to where exactly a given organism gets slotted into the organizational structure will get you exactly nowhere. When you can find a bat that is more closely related to birds using more than just protein analysis than it is to other mammals, then you'll be getting somewhere.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 14 2005,09:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pointing to numbers of proteins isn't going to get you far, because gene/protein analysis is only one of dozens of converging lines of evidence for the consensus phylogenetic tree. Citing protein-sequencing data from 1991 will get you even less far.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 This would be a relevant criticism except for the fact that the citation demonstrated the need for at least _5_ genes to support an analysis (some suggest 20 or even more!;), instead of relying on a single protein, however informative. While Theobald may have indeed utilized multiple lines of evidence to buttress his conclusions, the facts are that:
1) he chose a _single_ protein to demonstrate his hypothesis (see the reference for the consensus tree in point 17), and
2) the protein he chose has its own problems (see Ayala's Cytochrome C analysis, which postdates McLaughlin and Dayhoff's 1973 study and has humans diverging from mammals before kangaroos, in addition to a multitude of other "mistakes").
  Why base a consensus tree on a single (flawed) protein, especially when your own sources counsel agin it? And if there _are_ multiple-gene studies that draw the same conclusions, why not quote them instead? I think this represents good prima facie evidence, but collapses under close scrutiny. The kind of scrutiny that's honed with diligent study of Dembski's monographs.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When you can find a bat that is more closely related to birds using more than just protein analysis than it is to other mammals, then you'll be getting somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 As opposed to chickens and fish? :D
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 14 2005,11:24

Paley:

You've entirely missed the point. The phylogenetic tree isn't only mapped out by genetic and protein analysis. Those two are only two of dozens of different techniques for deriving the same tree. Other, independent lines of evidence have nothing to do with analysis of one gene, or many genes. That's why they're called "independent." And guess what? They all converge on the same tree.

I think you need to read Theobald a little more closely.

How does Cytochrome c show humans diverging from mammals before kangaroos, when humans and chimps share exactly the same cytochrome c? And why are you citing studies from 1973? And you talk about the difference between five genes and 20 genes as  if it were significant. How many genes do humans possess? 20,000?

You can't cite a single study (or even a handful of studies) that are out of step with literally thousands of other studies to show that an entire body of knowledge is incorrect. Do we have zoologists out there contending that starfish are more closely related to humans than they are to sea urchins? Or monkeys that are more closely related to  birds than they are to goats?

If you think that, all by yourself, you're going to convince the scientific community that the consensus phylogenetic tree is a hoax, you're hallucinating.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2005,05:32

First, I want to thank Mr. Murphy and Mr. Fox for quoting two relevant papers as rebuttals, even if they end up supporting Uncle Paley's point of view. It's nice to know that some scientists are using their grant money on serious research rather than the usual allotment of beer, crank, and hookers.
  Mr. Murphy:
  If you follow point 17 as I suggested, you will see that the 1973 paper was cited by Dr. Theobald, not me. So you should address this puzzler:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[W]hy are you citing studies from 1973?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


to him.
 The Cytochrome C paper showing the erroneous relationships is Margoliash Finch 1967 I think, but it's cited by (Ayala 1977). There are some other strange results, such as the viper clustering with man (how biblical!;)), but I need to look it up.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can't cite a single study (or even a handful of studies) that are out of step with literally thousands of other studies to show that an entire body of knowledge is incorrect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Perhaps not. But what _is_ the consensus tree, and what are the studies that rigorously support it? The zoologists seem just as clueless as the molecular biologists.....


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you think that, all by yourself, you're going to convince the scientific community that the consensus phylogenetic tree is a hoax, you're hallucinating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Well, isn't this reversing the burden of proof? Shouldn't the scientists give a convincing tree in the first place? Instead of one cobbled together from a single protein.....
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 17 2005,05:46

Mr The Ghost of Paley

Are you referring to < this link >, that I posted on another thread? Perhaps you can point out where there is any support for your "theory"?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2005,07:11

No, Mr. Fox. I was planning on responding to your (most excellent) paper on the correct thread.  My previous post was trying to clear up Mr. Murphy's misunderstanding of my Friday post.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 17 2005,07:44

I look forward to it.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2005,12:37

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2005,10:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can't cite a single study (or even a handful of studies) that are out of step with literally thousands of other studies to show that an entire body of knowledge is incorrect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Perhaps not. But what _is_ the consensus tree, and what are the studies that rigorously support it? The zoologists seem just as clueless as the molecular biologists.....


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you think that, all by yourself, you're going to convince the scientific community that the consensus phylogenetic tree is a hoax, you're hallucinating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Well, isn't this reversing the burden of proof? Shouldn't the scientists give a convincing tree in the first place? Instead of one cobbled together from a single protein.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill, Bill, Bill,

You're still failing to divine my meaning. You cannot construct an entire phylogenetic tree from the analysis of any one protein, and you probably can't do it from any group of a dozen proteins, either. Which actually argues for evolution more than ID, because the reason you run into problems with protein analysis all by itself is because of the random nature of genetic mutations. Humans, chimps, and guinea pigs all lack a functional gene for ascorbic acid. Does this means that humans are most closely related to chimps and guinea pigs? No. It means that by chance, guinea pigs have the same busted gene. I assure you, the guinea pig genotype differs from the human one by more than 1%.

You really need to read Dr. Theobald a little more closely. It's not hard to see why given a single protein, vipers might cluster with humans. But how closely do vipers cluster with humans when one looks at the fossil record? And by reference to morphology? Not very close, is how close. You need confirmatory evidence from many, many sources to work out a phylogenetic tree. Also, genes cluster differently from organisms, which adds further complications.

Now, you say you've read Theobald, and normally I would have no reason to doubt you. But since you're still asking me what the consensus phylogenetic tree is, when Theobald's article has a huge, giant < picture > of it right on the second page of his article, I can only assume you haven't read it all that closely. Now, I suppose you could be asking me for the astronomically huge, complete phylogenetic tree that maps out the relationship of every last taxon out there. But if that's the case, I'd still have to say you don't know your Theobald, because he makes it pretty clear why there isn't any such tree, and there likely never will be one. Perhaps you'd like to give that particular page a re-read to see if you've missed anything else.

And why are you asking scientists for a phylogenentic tree that wasn't "cobbled together from a single protein"? I believe they've already been so kind as to provide you with one, if only you'd the eyes to see.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2005,14:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, you say you've read Theobald, and normally I would have no reason to doubt you. But since you're still asking me what the consensus phylogenetic tree is, when Theobald's article has a huge, giant picture of it right on the second page of his article, I can only assume you haven't read it all that closely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I have read him closely, which is part of the problem. In fact, I had to read Theobald _very_ closely to see where he derives that huge, giant picture (otherwise known as Figure 1). Go to Part 4 (Protein Functional Redundancy) and look under "Criticisms". You should see a single citation. Click on it. What do you see? Hint: That slapping sound you just heard is your palm striking your forehead.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And why are you asking scientists for a phylogenentic tree that wasn't "cobbled together from a single protein"? I believe they've already been so kind as to provide you with one, if only you'd the eyes to see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Yep, Figure 1, cobbled together from - buckle the #### up!- a single protein. A _bad_ protein.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, I suppose you could be asking me for the astronomically huge, complete phylogenetic tree that maps out the relationship of every last taxon out there. But if that's the case, I'd still have to say you don't know your Theobald, because he makes it pretty clear why there isn't any such tree, and there likely never will be one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're both righter than you'll ever know. But for now, I'd settle for a tree that knows more than I do. Like, for example, that Chicken of the Sea is a brand name, not a suggestion for a phylogenetic tree.
  Remember, folks, the molecules are for testing the consensus tree, not for deriving it. That is why it is called independent evidence. And the molecules can't even come up with a giggle-proof phylogeny.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2005,18:09

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2005,19:29)
 I have read him closely, which is part of the problem. In fact, I had to read Theobald very closely to see where he derives that huge, giant picture (otherwise known as Figure 1). Go to Part 4 (Protein Functional Redundancy) and look under "Criticisms". You should see a single citation. Click on it. What do you see? Hint: That slapping sound you just heard is your palm striking your forehead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmm...I'm reading Part 4, "Criticisms," and you know, I just don't hear any slapping sound. As he states in the article, the chances that any two organisms have any similarity at all in their cytochrome c is mildly surprising, given that almost any ordering of amino acids at all would work. And yet, "the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data (McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973)." (emph. mine) If you ask me, that statement pretty much sums up exactly why you're wrong.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep, Figure 1, cobbled together from - buckle the #### up!- a single protein. A _bad_ protein.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What gives you the impression that Figure 1 is cobbled together from one single protein? Nowhere on that page does he indicate that the consensus tree pictured is based on any single protein, or indeed from protein analysis alone (or at all, for that matter). (Actually, if it were possible to construct Figure 1 by reference to a single protein, that would be nothing short of astounding, and a massive triumph for the field of comparative protein analysis.)

Theobald specifically states that the tree is derived from independent lines of research. This is exactly why there is very high confidence that the consensus tree is accurate.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But for now, I'd settle for a tree that knows more than I do. Like, for example, that Chicken of the Sea is a brand name, not a suggestion for a phylogenetic tree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So it's your understanding that the tree depicted in Figure 1 is totally wrong? I think I know enough of taxonomy, based on my high school education (along with a lot of extracurricular reading), to know that tree is a reasonably accurate depiction of the interrelationships among the taxa included. Where do you think it's wrong? Do you think that humans are more closely related to, say, ferns than they are to other primates? Or that starfish are more closely related to mushrooms than they are to cows?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember, folks, the molecules are for testing the consensus tree, not for deriving it. That is why it is called independent evidence. And the molecules can't even come up with a giggle-proof phylogeny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the meantime, did you trouble to read Theobald's < explanation > of just how unlikely it is that any two independently-derived trees would bear any resemblance to each other? Theobald specifically states that the tree is derived from independent lines of research. So even if it were true that protein analysis couldn't come up with even a close resemblance to trees derived from other evidence (which isn't even remotely true), the consensus tree is derived from enough other independent lines of research to indicate that, if anything, the problem is with the protein analysis methodology, not the tree itself.

After all, Bill, protein analysis is a relatively new science. Major portions of the consensus tree haven't changed in a hundred years. If protein analysis has difficulties building an accurate tree, why do you assume that means the tree is completely bogus?

Just out of curiosity, William...do you deny evolution in its entirety? Are you a believer in special creation?
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 18 2005,09:51

If ever there was a misbegotten Intraweb flame-war thingie, well, here it is.
It's not actually D*mbski, can't be.

And if it's not the original spoofer (Cerutti, ya in there?), then the inheritor of the Paley-themed moniker certainly is playing up to the original, down to half-a$$-ed defense of the original "meat n' potatoes" theory which occasioned my (misplaced) ridicule.

So, really, people, I think we need to be aware that somebody's probably spoofing us again, cut n' pasting off of ARN or some such.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,10:07

Wow, you guys really like to poison the well, dontcha? I assure you that my ideas are mine alone. No cribbing off ARN, kibitzing at I.D. conferences, or piloting black helicopters. Just a David armed with the slingshot of Truth, with a smattering of Dembski's sublime maths. As for my beliefs, I pretty much see it as the Bible calls it: geocentric special creation. None of that cheap Hollywood special effects for me - man on the moon my arse!
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 18 2005,10:20

Now the sun orbits the earth, and the Apollo landings were faked?
Been to Loch Ness lately? Got any ammo for that slingshot to shoot at the Satanic Holocaust Believers?

Sublime maths!!!

Thanks for the entertainment withered husk.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,10:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yet, "the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data (McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973)." (emph. mine) If you ask me, that statement pretty much sums up exactly why you're wrong.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Not interested in what the man says as much as what he demonstrates. Which ain't much, apparently.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it's your understanding that the tree depicted in Figure 1 is totally wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Why yes, now that you mention it. Just one question: what makes some morphological characters assume greater importance than others? Not merely their tendency to fall into nested groupings. How circular would that be, after all....


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all, Bill, protein analysis is a relatively new science. Major portions of the consensus tree haven't changed in a hundred years. If protein analysis has difficulties building an accurate tree, why do you assume that means the tree is completely bogus?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 It's totally bogus, dude, because the molecules were meant to provide objective characters for better tree-building. There is a reason, after all, for the palpable embarrassment that real scientists have felt for Darwinism historically. Genes were supposed to elevate just-so storytelling to the heights of a solid, if pedestrian, discipline. Now genes trees are just a "new, untested" method that everyone ignores unless it gets the correct results.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2005,10:38

Payley,

I generally try not to debate creationists, but what the ####; I'm bored.

Far as I can tell, you don't believe that the phylogenetic tree exists at all. In other words, since every organism was specially created by His Majesty, everything is equally closely related. In other words, humans are just as closely related to chimps as they are to bacteria.

And you said you were working on theory of horizontal gene transfer? Whatever for? Evolution don't happen anyway, right?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,11:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you said you were working on theory of horizontal gene transfer? Whatever for? Evolution don't happen anyway, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 It seems that Mr. Murphy's ability to quote retroactively embarrassing papers is only matched by his imaginative, zen-like readings of my posts. When did I say that HGT had any function other than making scientists gnash teeth over their worthless papers? HGT gives false positives, is all. But with a theory on how this transpires, godly men can better guide the trembing Darwinian finger over the contours of its error. The true giants (Berlinski and the other guy) are otherwise occupied, so it falls to me. But I'll take a side order of falsification while the engine's running.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2005,11:34

Let's play Rock Around the Clock with Bill Paley and the Creationists!

Anyway, if you're going to use Dave Berlinksi and WMD to instruct evolutionists in the error of their ways, you're mostly going to get dismissals, which is about what those guys are worth. It's so easy to poke holes in their mathematics and/or logic that even I can do it.

A quick example: Kolmogorov complexity is synonymous with probability, t or f.

Bill managed to get that one < wrong. > And he's supposedly the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory"?

Here's one of my favorite Dave-related quotes. It's from an article by Professor Nilsson, of Nilsson-Pelger fame, on Berlinksi's bumbling attempt to rebut their 1994 paper on the evolution of the vertebrate eye:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contrary to Berlinski's claim, we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye evolution sequence. The functions in Figure 1 display the results. These plots are computer generated, using small increments. Values and units are given on the axes of the plots, and procedures are explained in the legend. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important Equation 1 and a reference to Warrant and McIntyre (1993) where this theory is derived. Yet, Berlinski insists that "Nilsson and Pelger do not calculate the visual acuity of any structure". It would be much simpler for Berlinski if he went just a tiny step further and denied the existence of our paper altogether.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Way to go, Dave!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,12:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's one of my favorite Dave-related quotes. It's from an article by Professor Nilsson, of Nilsson-Pelger fame, on Berlinksi's bumbling attempt to rebut their 1994 paper on the evolution of the vertebrate eye:

Quote  
Contrary to Berlinski's claim, we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye evolution sequence. The functions in Figure 1 display the results. These plots are computer generated, using small increments. Values and units are given on the axes of the plots, and procedures are explained in the legend. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important Equation 1 and a reference to Warrant and McIntyre (1993) where this theory is derived. Yet, Berlinski insists that "Nilsson and Pelger do not calculate the visual acuity of any structure". It would be much simpler for Berlinski if he went just a tiny step further and denied the existence of our paper altogether.


Way to go, Dave!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Well, you finally did it, old chap. You made Uncle Paley out to be a liar. For the first time, I must defer to the Discovery Institute:
< The Master Replies >
 Nick Matzke, have you found that expert in optical theory yet? If you need an information theorist, there's this guy I know......
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2005,13:09

Bill,

Is that really supposed to be Berlinski's "response" to his critics? It seems his critics have replied to his "response" before he even wrote it. Assuming time travel is impossible, I can only assume Dave has a hard time processing criticisms of his own work.

And referring to your hero Berlinski as "The Master" leaves one to ponder what your definition of an "amateur" is.

I'm glad you didn't refer to Dembski as an Information Theory "expert," since that clearly would have been stretching the term beyond the breaking point...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,13:56

:(   How many times must I wait while you scramble after your foil?

 From memory:
 1) The Master graces the denizens of Commentary with one of his usual masterworks. Topic: The usual inanity of evos, with a special focus on the hijinks of Dawkins, Nilsson, and Pelger
 2) The authors of < Dawkin's Folly > managed to publish a shrill screed as a pathetic attempt at a reply
 3) Darwinists ooze out of various sewers, orifices, and dungeons in order to gang up on our hero
 4) The Master administers a sound thrashing to said minions, with a side portion of optical theory for the lurkers, and apparently, the preening experts who had extensive need for both
 5) Nick Matske pines for his departed heroes. The rest slime their way back to their familiar bogs, sadder but none the wiser, to continue their collective paean to moonstuck , taxpayer-wasting scribblings


  I hope this helps.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 18 2005,14:03

I still think you're a fraud, husk, so I am loath to make any substantial reply.

But a query perhaps: What is the fundamental difference between a "mathematical model" and a "computer simulation"?

Now, don't say "one uses a computer" you cute little guy, 'cause that's not your style anyhow. No, what I mean is, what can one do that the other can't, in principle?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,14:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I still think you're a fraud, husk, so I am loath to make any substantial reply.

But a query perhaps: What is the fundamental difference between a "mathematical model" and a "computer simulation"?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



  Amazing. Simply Amazing. Mr. Murphy's < ink > has the power to cloud all minds, friend and foe alike. Does anyone have the ability to decipher a simple argument? The Master's argument went to the heart of the model itself, and was not a semantic quibble. Read the link.  Of course, just as a podiatrist finds the solution to all illness in the humble foot, so does the Darwinist in word play.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 18 2005,14:29

Since you argue exclusively by insinuation, you project the behavior onto those around you.

It's a simple query. It's not intended, of itself, to substantially deal with any of Berlinski's attacks on the model. Just one of his more outrageous assertions.
And I read the link.

So, answer the question, lifeless wisp.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,14:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's a simple query. It's not intended, of itself, to substantially deal with any of Berlinski's attacks on the model. Just one of his more outrageous assertions.
And I read the link.

So, answer the question, lifeless wisp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is the fundamental difference between a "mathematical model" and a "computer simulation"?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



  Answer: Nothing substantial at all. If that was the extent of the Master's charges, I would agree with your argument (assuming we ever hear it, that is). But since you've read the link, will you please address the rest of his? As a great man once opined, he who does will be the first.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 18 2005,15:28

For those interested in the Master's argument, here is a slice:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Staking their all on Snyder’s model, Nilsson and Pelger must live with its consequences. “Having considered the physical limitations to resolving power,” Snyder wrote, “in addition to the absolute sensitivity of eyes, we now apply our concepts to real compound eyes.” This is something that Nilsson and Pelger never do. And no wonder. For Snyder then added the rather important caveat that bringing theory to bear on life “requires precise knowledge [of various optical parameters] in the various regions of the eye” (Snyder, p. 276, emphasis in the original).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When tested, Snyder’s model turns out to be false across a wide range of arthropods. As Warrant & McIntyre note glumly, “The model, on the whole, works best for those eyes for which it was originally formulated—apposition compound eyes functioning according to geometrical optics—but recent careful and sensitive measurements of angular sensitivity reveal that even in these types of eye, the model often performs poorly.” Readers may consult figure 34 (p. 441) of Warrant & McIntyre’s paper to see how poorly the Snyder model does. In studies of the locust Locustia, real and predicted angular-sensitivity functions do not even share the same qualitative shape.

Responding to my observation that no quantitative argument supports their quantitative conclusions—no argument at all, in fact—Mr. Nilsson has thus (1) offered a mathematically incoherent appeal to his only equation; (2) cited references that make no mention of any morphological or evolutionary process; (3) defended a theory intended to describe the evolution of vertebrate camera eyes by referring to a theory describing the theoretical optics of compound invertebrate eyes; (4) failed to explain why his own work has neglected to specify any relevant biological parameter precisely; and (5) championed his results by means of assumptions that his own sources indicate are false across a wide range of organisms.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 And here is the Darwinian rebuttal:

:0  :0  :0  :0  :0
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2005,19:30

Bill,

I'm just a humble legal assistant, who has spent entirely too much time arguing with the likes of you, arguing over things like if you exclude natural causes, and supernatural causes, what's left? (I couldn't get an answer to that question.) It's left me a little too tired to wade through Berlinski's screed. And I wonder why I should, since the article has been around for almost 12 years and is still considered sound science by basically 100% of the people with the training and expertise to actually hold a supportable opinion about it.

When Einstein was at the IAS, he would get letters every week from various cranks showing in minute detail why general relativity was wrong. I don't think he lost too much sleep over it.

Anyway, I wonder what your theory is for why the entire scientific community is satisfied that neodarwinian evolution is a settled matter, while dilettantes like yourself are sure they're all wrong. Is it a matter of mass delusion?

Since you seem to think the earth is only a few thousand years old, let's just say I'm a little skeptical of your opinion on matters biological.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 19 2005,06:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm just a humble legal assistant, who has spent entirely too much time arguing with the likes of you, arguing over things like if you exclude natural causes, and supernatural causes, what's left? (I couldn't get an answer to that question.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I don't remember that question being raised before, but I'll take your word for it. My answer would be: keep natural causes if you want. Just make sure they can parse the heavens. If they can't, open your mind to other explanations.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's left me a little too tired to wade through Berlinski's screed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Then why bring the matter up? Well, I won't tease you for not responding to the big B. But shouldn't somebody here have the requisite knowledge? After all, the man did his legwork. Don't play the Lestrade to his Holmes when Moriarty is more fun...
 As the Peach would say: tick, tock, tick, tock..........Mr. O' Brien? Mr. Fox?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2005,07:37

Bill,

I don't feel the need to respond to Dave because it's clear the scientific community has amply demonstrated where he's wrong. Let me ask you this: any educated layman who's spent any time studying evolution knows the names Dawkins, Gould, Margoulis, Watson, Miller. What educated layman outside of the ID community has heard of Berlinksi, or really cares what a mathematician's opinions on evolutionary biology are?

Of course, the same criticism holds for Dembski, except with Dembski, his conversance with his own field (information theory) seems pretty shaky.

The exclusion of all possible explanations (natural and supernatural) for the existence of life didn't happen here, and of course the guy who has effectively done so denies that he has, but I bet you can guess just from that the subject even arose that we're not talking about an evolutionist.

A supernatural explanation has never actually "explained" anything. Indeed, how could it? How is appeal to something that's physically impossible (isn't that pretty much what a supernatural phenomenon is?) going to explain anything?

There are plenty of things for which there is currently no known explanation. Half of biology probably fits into that category. But are you sure you want to appeal to supernatural explanations to fill those "gaps"? There's a term for that kind of argument, you know.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 19 2005,08:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't feel the need to respond to Dave because it's clear the scientific community has amply demonstrated where he's wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where are these scientists? Communing in the Himalayas with the yeti?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The exclusion of all possible explanations (natural and supernatural) for the existence of life didn't happen here, and of course the guy who has effectively done so denies that he has, but I bet you can guess just from that the subject even arose that we're not talking about an evolutionist.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I know I'm accused of being absent-minded at times, but I don't remember this at all. Could you cite this?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are plenty of things for which there is currently no known explanation. Half of biology probably fits into that category. But are you sure you want to appeal to supernatural explanations to fill those "gaps"? There's a term for that kind of argument, you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Yes. But that doesn't absolve a hypothesis from its own responsibilities. So it is encumbent upon scientists to prove their case first. Yes, I know: the Nilsson - Pelger paper was a but a crumb in Mt. Improbable's buffet of evidence. So why did you guys drive us sick with it? Unless it's the best you have? Platonic truth is finally shining in your little grotto, and you can only make shadow puppets on the wall. Conspiracies only take you so far, you know......
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 19 2005,13:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What educated layman outside of the ID community has heard of Berlinksi, or really cares what a mathematician's opinions on evolutionary biology are?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Just one more thing: Berlinski is a maths guy, so his opinion on Nilsson - Pelger is highly relevant. And I'm starting to add more detail to my model in another thread.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 19 2005,21:31

Ghost of Paley

I'm sorry to say you have become boring. I will wait until your forthcoming paper is universally acclaimed and read it. Until evidence demonstrates otherwise, I will file you under "cranks".

Best of luck
Alan.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 20 2005,03:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now the sun orbits the earth, and the Apollo landings were faked?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fact the Apollo missions were faked is obvious. Remember the waving American flag in the photograph. If evolutionists are correct in saying there is no air on the moon, how does a flag wave? Which is it--is there air on the moon and the evolutuionists movement has been exposed so utterly they will never be able to get their pants on again, or is the Apollo mission a fake?

As far as the Sun going around the earth, Scripture makes this crystal clear. (Note that Joshua made the Sun stand still, this is because the Sun is going around the earth.)
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 20 2005,07:58

Are you running for king of the cranks or something?
Really, ghastly, this is over the top, even for you.

I was going to disabuse you of your reverence for "The Master," but, like Mr. Fox, I am afraid that your credibility has been utterly exposed as non-existent.

If you are (as I believe) joking, well, it's gone about as far as it can at geocentrism.
Good fun, but all things come to an end.
Even ghosts.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 20 2005,10:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you running for king of the cranks or something?
Really, ghastly, this is over the top, even for you.

I was going to disabuse you of your reverence for "The Master," but, like Mr. Fox, I am afraid that your credibility has been utterly exposed as non-existent.

If you are (as I believe) joking, well, it's gone about as far as it can at geocentrism.
Good fun, but all things come to an end.
Even ghosts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 Oh, don't let my beliefs keep you from your duty. I'm willing to listen to any/all criticisms of the Master's position. Remember to address his real arguments, and not what Eugenie Scott may have told you they were. If you can, that is. I promise my response will be point on (I hope this doesn't scare you away again). And by the way, if you're reading this Nicky, just one question: Have you found your expert yet? :D
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 20 2005,12:25

I don't recall being "scared away." Not everybody has the luxury of being undead, and having 22.5 hours a day to troll the internet. Besides, I'm not scared of geocentrist ghosts.
Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 21 2005,06:50

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 20 2005,08:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now the sun orbits the earth, and the Apollo landings were faked?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fact the Apollo missions were faked is obvious. Remember the waving American flag in the photograph. If evolutionists are correct in saying there is no air on the moon, how does a flag wave? Which is it--is there air on the moon and the evolutuionists movement has been exposed so utterly they will never be able to get their pants on again, or is the Apollo mission a fake?

As far as the Sun going around the earth, Scripture makes this crystal clear. (Note that Joshua made the Sun stand still, this is because the Sun is going around the earth.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you really that dilluted?

Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!

Next time you have lunch with Elvis, tell him I said hello.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 21 2005,07:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you really that dilluted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No rino, I'm 100% Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian man! I have not been "diluted" with the moral poison of evolutionism as you have!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Speaking of which, were you aware evolutionists assumed there would be 125 feet of moon dust on the moon based on the assumption that such dust had been accumulating for however many billion years they assume its age is. In actuality, there is only three inches. However, every item allegedly taken on the alleged Apollo mission was equipped with a flat base like a sled so it would not sink in this dust. The flagpole did not have to be jammed anywhere, it merely had to be set down. Your story is all bull$^^%, or, excuse me, rhino&%&^.

Unlike you, I know how to spell "rhino" nad use words like "diluted."
Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 21 2005,09:54

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2005,12:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you really that dilluted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No rino, I'm 100% Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian man! I have not been "diluted" with the moral poison of evolutionism as you have!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Speaking of which, were you aware evolutionists assumed there would be 125 feet of moon dust on the moon based on the assumption that such dust had been accumulating for however many billion years they assume its age is. In actuality, there is only three inches. However, every item allegedly taken on the alleged Apollo mission was equipped with a flat base like a sled so it would not sink in this dust. The flagpole did not have to be jammed anywhere, it merely had to be set down. Your story is all bull$^^%, or, excuse me, rhino&%&^.

Unlike you, I know how to spell "rhino" nad use words like "diluted."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fact that you think the moon landings were faked shows the depth of how much you really don't know or understand.

The entire "Moon Landing Hoax" has been debunked by many noted scientists and agencies.

Tell me; are you a Kent Hovind follower?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 21 2005,10:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The entire "Moon Landing Hoax" has been debunked by many noted scientists and agencies.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Yeah, that's a common theme around here. Was this debunking any better than the attempt to "debunk" Berlinski?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me; are you a Kent Hovind follower?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Oh no, I ain't going for that again. O'Cryin', Foxy, and the brief stalker are already using my geocentrism as an excuse to run away from my arguments. You'll have to figure it out yourself.
Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 21 2005,14:56

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2005,15:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The entire "Moon Landing Hoax" has been debunked by many noted scientists and agencies.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Yeah, that's a common theme around here. Was this debunking any better than the attempt to "debunk" Berlinski?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me; are you a Kent Hovind follower?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Oh no, I ain't going for that again. O'Cryin', Foxy, and the brief stalker are already using my geocentrism as an excuse to run away from my arguments. You'll have to figure it out yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, now we all know you are flat out incorrect regarding Moon Landing being faked.  It's been documented by numerous sources.  So, you got that one wrong.

What Berlinski fairytale are you speaking of?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 21 2005,15:54

What on Earth (so to speak) does the amount of dust on the moon have to do with evolution of life on Earth? And why on Earth would opinions about that have anything to do with one's opinion about evolution?

Henry
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 22 2005,09:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What on Earth (so to speak) does the amount of dust on the moon have to do with evolution of life on Earth? And why on Earth would opinions about that have anything to do with one's opinion about evolution?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Nothing much, directly. But if the earth proves as young as I suspect, this would deal a crippling blow to evolution. Plus, some are using my geocentrism as an excuse to evade my arguments (after asking me my personal beliefs!;)). Hopefully people aren't being taken in by this tactic.
Posted by: cogzoid on Oct. 22 2005,09:16

< Here you go Paley. >

Clearly you can believe whatever you want to believe.  As long as you are willing to disregard any facts that disagree with you.

I thought this was a funny quote from the website:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 23 2005,09:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clearly you can believe whatever you want to believe.  As long as you are willing to disregard any facts that disagree with you.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Well, on that subject, here are some more sites that fill out the picture:
< Pro Hoax >
< More Pro Hoax >
< Anti Hoax >
< Forum >
 Two problems with antihoax sites:
 1)The Problem of Consilience of Inductions
   In deciding between two hypotheses, one should usually choose the one that unifies more observations and relies less on post hoc rationales to explain phenomena. In other words, the hypothesis should do most of the explanatory work, and incorporate as little into its predictive bundle as possible. This is not met with the antihoax community, as their rationalizations range from short camera exposures, unique lunar soil characteristics, the vacuum, pranking astro-naughts, miscommunication, and hairs on lenses to account for anomalities. The prohoax community can unify all "problems" under one rubric: a manufactured moonwalk.

 2) Changing, mutually-contradictory explanations. For example, the author claims that the reason that no flame was seen from the departing lander was due to the lack of air in the lunar environment. Then he says, whoops, that's a minor effect. It's really the fuel. In each case, he shows supreme confidence in his answer. But since he rarely quantifies anything (e.g. how much torque would one need to create the flag ripples we see?), one can only shrug one's shoulders and comment that his whole treatise is written in jello.

 There is are cathedrals of doubt hidden behind Phil Plait's quaint, complacent Potemkin Village.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 23 2005,09:58

Sorry. "There are cathedrals of doubt....."
Posted by: sir_toejam on Oct. 23 2005,11:08

GP-

I have only one, simple question:

Do you want to believe there were no moon landings?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 23 2005,11:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you want to believe there were no moon landings?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 And here we have it. Post-modernism at its worst: I feel, therefore it is........well, if it gets you an academic post in lieu of someone qualified, good luck with that.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Oct. 23 2005,15:51

but.... you didn't answer the question, either, regardless of you dismissing the importance of it to the actual substantive position one would take wrt the data surrounding the moon landings.

I hate to sound patronizing (meh, no I don't..), but do you understand why i asked?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 24 2005,14:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have only one, simple question:

Do you want to believe there were no moon landings?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Sure. But what does that have to do with anything?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but.... you didn't answer the question, either, regardless of you dismissing the importance of it to the actual substantive position one would take wrt the data surrounding the moon landings.

I hate to sound patronizing (meh, no I don't..), but do you understand why i asked?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I assumed it was a rhetorical question, but I guess you're still probing me. For what it's worth, I assure you I am not a member of the Panda's Bum. As for whether I'm sincere, the only way I could "regain" credibility in this area is by losing it. Think about it. Now answer this: Ever dunk a witch?


 Wow, so many questions! Does this mean you'll give me a second chance? ???
Posted by: sir_toejam on Oct. 24 2005,14:38

nope, just further defining your position.

as i thought, if you "want" to believe that the moon landings never happened, and you want us to believe that you are being honest about that, then how can you claim to be objective about the data presented?

don't bother to answer, the answer is obvious.

You are just pulling our chains.

fun, isn't it?

for the record, i never implied you to be a "member of Pandas Bum" as er, PT doesn't have members.

If i believed you to be sincere about any of your positions, it would be worthwhile involving myself in debate, but i don't.

my only point in all this is to bring that point home for those who actually considered that you WERE serious about anything you wished to debate here.

you're just another troll.

so long as folks realize that, i encourage all to have fun debating you.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 24 2005,15:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If i believed you to be sincere about any of your positions, it would be worthwhile involving myself in debate, but i don't.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Oh please, it's obvious to anyone with a room temperature I.Q. that you're as yellow as they come. Heck, if you ever made any sense, I'd praise you for being Nicky's best prawn puppet. I'm sorry if the evo's brightest were pranked by a mediocre paper; I really am. But don't blame Berlinski for rubbing your collective noses in it - that's what you get for #####ing on the rug.
Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 25 2005,06:15

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 24 2005,20:52)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If i believed you to be sincere about any of your positions, it would be worthwhile involving myself in debate, but i don't.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Oh please, it's obvious to anyone with a room temperature I.Q. that you're as yellow as they come. Heck, if you ever made any sense, I'd praise you for being Nicky's best prawn puppet. I'm sorry if the evo's brightest were pranked by a mediocre paper; I really am. But don't blame Berlinski for rubbing your collective noses in it - that's what you get for #####ing on the rug.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I asked the question originally because it addresses the issue of what information your selectively choose to ignore you justify your beliefs.

You have stated, I believe, that one of the reasons evolution was a myth was because there were no witnesses to Big Bang, or Evolution... that it was not to be believed.

Well, using the same logic, your belief with regard to the moon landings has been invalidated.  There were witnesses to the moon landings, the astronauts themselves.

But, contrary to documented, verified evidence and eye witness validation, you still choose to believe that moon landings didn't take place.
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 25 2005,07:46

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 24 2005,20:52)
Oh please, it's obvious to anyone with a room temperature I.Q.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


K, F or C?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 25 2005,08:03

Re "K, F or C?"

Kentucky Fried Chicken? ;)  :p
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 25 2005,08:49

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 25 2005,13:03)
Re "K, F or C?"

Kentucky Fried Chicken? ;)  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, just a little test of scientific lieracy at the Elementary School level.   :)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 25 2005,09:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Re "K, F or C?"

Kentucky Fried Chicken?    

Nah, just a little test of scientific lieracy at the Elementary School level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I guess it's not enough to watch me topple Sir Wiggle's mental house of cards - you have to play Socratic master as well, eh.
 Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level is more C-oriented. What prize did I win?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 25 2005,09:14

By the way, while you guys are wallowing in your C-level IQ's, try to appreciate your correspondence with a member of the K community (the Master, the Master^2, and I'll let you take a stab at the third member).
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 25 2005,09:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level is more C-oriented. What prize did I win?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Obviously, this should read:

Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level here is more C-oriented. What prize did I win?

 As if I don't italicize enough already.
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 25 2005,10:05

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 25 2005,14:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level is more C-oriented. What prize did I win?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Obviously, this should read:

Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level here is more C-oriented. What prize did I win?

 As if I don't italicize enough already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You seem to be getting your Cs and Ks confused.  Evolutionists are obviously Ks, whereas ID proponents and their ilk are presumably Cs, as they don’t have the capacity to understand reality or science  :D
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 26 2005,11:01

Since there seems to be so much speculation about my motives and identity, I thought I'd compile the reigning theories just for fun. I might have added one to fill the speculative sample space:

                         Paley the Insider
 A popular early hypothesis. Paley is a regular contributer who's decided to tease the other fellas. Possible culprit: Dave Cerutti.

 Evidence for:
  Cerutti's stated desire to assume another identity after his last visit (as Admonicus). Paley appears soon afterward. Also, Paley seems to possess some familiarity with past activity from other regulars. The continued ribbing of Nick Matzke.

 Evidence against:
  The time frame. Why wait a month between posts? Paley's interests mesh poorly with Dave's.

         
        The Documentary Hypothesis:Multiple Paleys

  This idea has been floated occasionally. Basically, Paley is a composite of several individuals.

   Evidence for:
  The syntax, grammar, and vocabulary shift from post to post. In fact, scholars from Panda's Thumb have postulated several distinct layers in Paley's manuscripts:

  P, or Protopaley, whose posts reflect the primitive, philosophically dense trollings frequently encountered on the Talk Origins forum. P-Paley often relies on quick, brutal attacks on his enemies, leavened with the occasional swipe at other posters' political tendencies. Advocates bold scientific positions. As the name implies, the earliest model.

  L-Paley. The trickster. Gentler than P-Paley, he still enjoys a good scrap, but relies on wit and dependent clauses to defang his adversary. Loves Phylogeny and Hoaxing, and has refined his trolling to fit the board's needs.

  B-Paley, to denote his desire to play nice and abide by the rules. Relatively courteous; is thought to be a bridge to useful partisanship of evo doctrine.

   Evidence against:
  At minimum, the conspirators must know each other, as Paley always uses the same email address and password when logging on. Posts often reflect similar ideas and imagery, as well as a dazzlingly intellect rarely encountered in life, much less Panda's Bum. These argue for a single author.


               Genuine Paley

  Evidence for:
 His protestations. In other words, none.

 Evidence against:
  See above. Also, it's convenient, which counts for more than it should.
 
    Comments?
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 26 2005,11:41

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,16:01)
Comments?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 26 2005,15:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,16: 01)
Comments?
None
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Hmmmmm......... >
Kirk finally shuts off M5 by pointing out that by killing humans it has violated its programming of saving men from dangerous activities such as space exploration. Since the penalty for murder is death, the M5 concludes that it must die, and shuts itself down.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2005,17:18

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,16<!--emo&:0)
    Comments?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, I think I'm funnier than GOP.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 28 2005,04:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, I think I'm funnier than GOP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



  Murphy, you're back! Hey, do you still have the barrel I lent you from our last encounter? You can keep the suspenders; after all, you'll probably need them next time.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 28 2005,08:43

To get this discussion back on track, let me repeat an earlier question:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
what makes some morphological characters assume greater importance than others? Not merely their tendency to fall into nested groupings. How circular would that be, after all....

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Murphy was apparently too stunned to reply, and yammered on about how he doesn't have time to respond to the likes of me (as opposed to reading my posts and insulting me, one presumes). So can anyone? Oh wait, let me add:
 F=mv.
Posted by: cogzoid on Oct. 28 2005,09:14

Alright, I'll bite.

One could argue (and I'm not speaking for evolutionists here, they may have a better answer, I'm pretty ignorant in phylogeny) that using certain morphological characteristics they are able to construct nested groups.  The fact of the matter is that they are able to do so.  As far as I know, (I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary) they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics.  Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?

It is not obvious from a creationism standpoint that any such tree of life should exist at all.  I'm sure you have a convoluted argument that you're going to share with us now.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 28 2005,09:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One could argue (and I'm not speaking for evolutionists here, they may have a better answer, I'm pretty ignorant in phylogeny) that using certain morphological characteristics they are able to construct nested groups.  The fact of the matter is that they are able to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   Just to make sure I understand your argument, you are saying that any choice of characters is suitable, because only evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. So there is no a priori reason for the choice; any characters that form a tree will do?
Posted by: cogzoid on Oct. 28 2005,10:44

Once again I am no expert on this stuff.  I'm not going to ignorantly paint the wrong picture of evolution so you could point out that it's wrong.  But, it seems you are implying that there are some characteristics that are being ignored when making a tree.  As I said, "As far as I know, they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics."  So, let's hear your complaint, man.  Show me the evidence.  You have my attention.

-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 28 2005,10:52

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 28 2005,13:43)
To get this discussion back on track, let me repeat an earlier question:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
what makes some morphological characters assume greater importance than others? Not merely their tendency to fall into nested groupings. How circular would that be, after all....

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Murphy was apparently too stunned to reply, and yammered on about how he doesn't have time to respond to the likes of me (as opposed to reading my posts and insulting me, one presumes). So can anyone? Oh wait, let me add:
 F=mv.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I was hardly too stunned to reply. I just realized that someone who subscribes to geocentrism is either joking, or a joke.

Which is it, Bill?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 28 2005,14:49

Re "any characters that form a tree will do?"

Eh? I thought the point was to construct it from as many sources of data as are available, so that the results can be cross checked against each other. (Keeping in mind that methods with more data are more reliable than those with less.)

Henry
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 31 2005,09:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, it seems you are implying that there are some characteristics that are being ignored when making a tree.  As I said, "As far as I know, they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics."  So, let's hear your complaint, man.  Show me the evidence.  You have my attention.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I thought the point was to construct it from as many sources of data as are available, so that the results can be cross checked against each other. (Keeping in mind that methods with more data are more reliable than those with less.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  Wow, you guys are pretty slippery! Here are my points:

 The present system, although modified by Hennig, is still essentially Linnean. Now, ole Carl was definitely a creo, so any evolutionary modification should improve and objectify his schema. This was to be accomplished by applying the concept of common descent. With common descent, the evos presumed, they could use the fossil record and embryology to decipher the homologies that define the clades, and thereby produce a robust tree. But the poor embryos wouldn't < cooperate: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most traditional views of homology rely on two unwarranted premises: the pervasively hierarchical nature of biology, inclusive of the levels of genes, development, and morphology and the linear mapping of genes onto developmental schedules and of developmental schedules onto phenotypes. These premises are only occasionally verified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 The author proceeds to point out incongruities during the development of the vertebrate alimentary canal as one example among many. Basically, embryology seems an unreliable way to test the homology of characters. As for the fossil record: well, let's just leave that weak sister alone for now. To summarize, there is no consistent way to test homologies.
 But can't we use common sense? Not really. Take mammals as an example. Mammals are defined as creatures that are:
 1) Endothermic
 2) Furry
 3) Possessors of a unique ear/jaw structure

  All of these characteristics are questionable. Birds and < other critters > share character 1), pterodactyls might share 2), and a recent    < fossil > revealed parallel "evolution" for 3), rendering that characteristic uninformative.
 To show you how labile these classifications can be, see < here > and compare to P.Z. Myer's simple phylogeny for winged insects.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2005,10:33

Bill,

Just a short reply for now (time to get back to work). You're completely missing the point (and I can only assume wilfully) about how phylogenetic trees are constructed. You keep trying to demonstrate how a particular line of evidence (e.g., homologies with a single protein, a particular morphological feature, etc.) cannot be relied upon to contruct a plausible phylogenetic tree.

So what? When you combine evidence from half a dozen or more independent lines of inquiry, and they all point towards the same phylogenetic tree, then you've got overwhelming evidence that that particular tree (out of an astronomical number of possible trees) is correct.

This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Nevertheless, you are determined not to grasp it.

On the other hand, you're determined not to grasp the concept that the earth is not the center of the cosmos. A quick question for you: how far away is the closest star?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2005,10:38

Re "how far away is the closest star?"

That was a question (er, answer?) on Jeopardy not long ago. I fell for it. :(

Henry
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2005,11:49

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2005,16:38)
Re "how far away is the closest star?"

That was a question (er, answer?) on Jeopardy not long ago. I fell for it. :(

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it's not a trick question, i.e., I'm talking about the closest star that isn't the sun (although even the sun would imply some pretty high velocities). I just wonder how thoroughly Mr. Bill has explored the implications of his own belief system (assuming, of course, that he even believes in geocentrism -- I'm assuming he's pretending to, just to get our goats).
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2005,12:31

I don't have any goats, so he'll have a hard time getting any from me. :)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 01 2005,07:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So what? When you combine evidence from half a dozen or more independent lines of inquiry, and they all point towards the same phylogenetic tree, then you've got overwhelming evidence that that particular tree (out of an astronomical number of possible trees) is correct.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Apparently you're of the mind that if one can weave a rope from strands of overcooked noodles. I prefer to work with stronger materials, myself.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm talking about the closest star that isn't the sun (although even the sun would imply some pretty high velocities). I just wonder how thoroughly Mr. Bill has explored the implications of his own belief system
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 But would the light from a star have to originate from the star itself?  There goes your parallax shift and relativity-calculated distances. Assuming, of course, they < were ever valid > < to begin with. > By the way, why are you so fascinated with my geocentrism?


Henry J wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't have any goats, so he'll have a hard time getting any from me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Just out of curiosity: what do you do for a living?
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 01 2005,08:09

Re "Just out of curiosity: what do you do for a living?"

Software engineer.

Henry
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2005,10:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apparently you're of the mind that if one can weave a rope from strands of overcooked noodles. I prefer to work with stronger materials, myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I'm talking about weaving rope from a few dozen strands of steel. You're pretending there's no rope at all.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
  But would the light from a star have to originate from the star itself?  There goes your parallax shift and relativity-calculated distances. Assuming, of course, they < were ever valid >
< to begin with. > By the way, why are you so fascinated with my geocentrism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gee, Bill, I don't know. Maybe the light originated from right in front of my eyes. Maybe the light is a figment of my imagination. Maybe there's no such thing as light. Where are you going with this?

My question about the distance to the nearest star is only weakly dependent on the speed of light. I'm curious to get your estimate of how far away the nearest star is for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the speed of light. So how far away is it? A couple of hundred miles? A few thousand miles? A light year or two?

I'm not particularly fascinated with your geocentrism. My point is, anyone who denies the evidence that the earth is not the center of the earth <bs><bs><bs><bs><bs> universe is going to be hopeless when it comes to the evidence for evolution. If even the simplest, most obvious contentions can't overcome your skepticism, nothing else is going to either. So why should I waste my time with you? Nothing I can say about anything will ever convince you of anything.

.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 01 2005,11:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So why should I waste my time with you? Nothing I can say about anything will ever convince you of anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The question of the ages...  Why do any of us waste our time here?  No one has changed a single postion about anything here.  Except maybe Evopeach realizing that Hydrogen came before Helium.  < Read the 4th comment. >  It seems our little Evopeach has really learned something!
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on Nov. 01 2005,11:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the earth is not the center of the earth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just to avoid any confusion over a typo, that phrase was obviously meant to be "the earth is not the center of the universe."  Please treat it as such.
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Nov. 01 2005,12:06

Quote (cogzoid @ Nov. 01 2005,17:18)
The question of the ages...  Why do any of us waste our time here?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because the more one knows about one's opponents the better.  :D
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2005,17:56

One thing I'm clearly hopeless about is checking my own work for typos. It took me forever to find the "earth is the center of the earth" typo.

It's been a long day. Our fileserver went down 10 hours ago and we're still trying to get it up (and now you know how tired I really am).
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 02 2005,12:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm curious to get your estimate of how far away the nearest star is for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the speed of light. So how far away is it? A couple of hundred miles? A few thousand miles? A light year or two?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Alpha Centauri is the closest, at 4.35 light years (assuming constant speed, of course).
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 02 2005,16:36

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 02 2005,18:49)
 Alpha Centauri is the closest, at 4.35 light years (assuming constant speed, of course).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, so in a geocentric universe, A. Centauri revolves around the earth once every 24 hours, right?
Posted by: MDPotter on Nov. 03 2005,05:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alpha Centauri is the closest, at 4.35 light years (assuming constant speed, of course).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrrroooongggg!!!
Sit down, go back to the end of the line.
You ID clowns have such a hard time keeping the basic facts straight, must be the rigor of simultaneously juggling so many lies.
The closest star to the earth (besides the sun) is proxima centauri.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 03 2005,06:14

Quote (MDPotter @ Nov. 03 2005,11:16)
Wrrroooongggg!!!
Sit down, go back to the end of the line.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good point, MD, but not really relevant to my question. So, Bill, assuming an orbital radius of 4.35ly, would you care to compute the velocity that would allow a complete orbit every 24 hours?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 03 2005,12:47

MD Potter slobbered:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wrrroooongggg!!!
Sit down, go back to the end of the line.
You ID clowns have such a hard time keeping the basic facts straight, must be the rigor of simultaneously juggling so many lies.
The closest star to the earth (besides the sun) is proxima centauri.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is part of the Alpha Centauri star system. If you want to pawn this little red wannabee off as a real star, be my guest. By the way, do you know any optics experts? The evo community seems a little short at the moment....


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Good point, MD, but not really relevant to my question. So, Bill, assuming an orbital radius of 4.35ly, would you care to compute the velocity that would allow a complete orbit every 24 hours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know my slow responses must be frustrating, "Matlock" Murphy, but no need to rush your cross. Remember F. Lee Bailey's advice: trappeth thine enemy before thou goest for the kill. But let's keep the orbit simple and circular, to better match your reasoning: 6.88E11 m/s would be the velocity.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 03 2005,12:49

Whoops, make that 2.99E12
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 03 2005,13:07

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 03 2005,18:49)
Whoops, make that 2.99E12
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which, of course, is several orders of magnitude beyond c.

But I'm assuming you think Einstein is completely wrong, so I'm not going to use that as part of my argument. Let's do it this way:

Using very rough approximations, all of which work in Bill's favor, so we can do the math in our heads as we're walking through that den of iniquity, downtown San Francisco. Let's assume:

   * That p. Centauri (or a. Centauri, doesn't matter which) is only 4ly away;
   * That a light-year is only 5 X 10^12 miles (if you like, Bill, you can probably use any figure for a ly larger than 10^9 miles and I'll still be okay with it)
   * That pi = 3 (can we walk like Egyptians?)

So 4 ly times 5 trillion miles times 2  = 40 trillion miles orbital diameter times pi (which we're estimating as ~3) = 120 trillion miles orbital circumference.

Let's make a day 30 hours long to make the arithmetic radically simple (and to make matters easier on Mr. Paley), and we get an orbital speed (let's not worry about vector quantities yet) of 4 trillion miles an hour, which is in reasonable accord with Bill's figure of 6.68 trillion miles an hour.

Let's further assume, again, that Einstein's wrong, and c is not a barrier to velocity, but assume that Newton's law of gravity (which, after all, has been around a bit longer) is more or less accurate.

So, Bill, here's your homework assignment. Given an orbital radius of 20 trillion miles and an orbital velocity (we couldn't avoid vector quantities forever) in the neighborhood of 4 trillion miles an hour, would you care to solve for the mass of the earth? (Since Bill says the heavens revolve around the earth, not that the earth and the heavens are orbiting a common center of mass, we can probably assume the mass of p. Centauri is much smaller than the mass of the earth, and hence can ignore it.)  I have the feeling you're going to come up with a value that's a little high to be believable. High enough to squash us all flat, I'm guessing.

I'm using English units under the assumption that Bill really doesn't like the metric system, since communists (and, worse, the French) use it (although I will note he used it himself, presumably to make the math easier). Even though it makes the formulae harder. But hey, Bill tells us he's a smart guy.

Sorry I did this all at once, but all the suspense was getting tedious.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 03 2005,13:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
would you care to solve for the mass of the earth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To simplify matters, I decided to use Kepler's third law under the assumption of a circular orbit, and I obtained an Earth mass approximately 9.255 E 26 times higher than the accepted figure. No surprise, given the initial assumptions. But there is more to the story here, although I'll let "Matlock" Murphy gloat for now.......
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 03 2005,14:04

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 03 2005,19:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
would you care to solve for the mass of the earth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To simplify matters, I decided to use Kepler's third law under the assumption of a circular orbit, and I obtained an Earth mass approximately 9.255 E 26 times higher than the accepted figure. No surprise, given the initial assumptions. But there is more to the story here, although I'll let "Matlock" Murphy gloat for now.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. Without even figuring out the right equation to use, my bone-stupid estimate (i.e., "wild-ass guess") was around 1 E 50 Kg. Does that get me within a couple of orders of magnitude? I think so.

But I'm going to assume that coming up with a figure that is probably heavy for a galactic supercluster doesn't change Bill's mind about his geocentrism. Am I right?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 03 2005,14:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow. Without even figuring out the right equation to use, my bone-stupid estimate (i.e., "wild-ass guess") was around 1 E 50 Kg. Does that get me within a couple of orders of magnitude? I think so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep. My calculated mass is 55 times higher. Pretty good agreement, I'd say.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I'm going to assume that coming up with a figure that is probably heavy for a galactic supercluster doesn't change Bill's mind about his geocentrism. Am I right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right again. More to come. Cue the narrator, please.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 03 2005,15:00

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 03 2005,20:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I'm going to assume that coming up with a figure that is probably heavy for a galactic supercluster doesn't change Bill's mind about his geocentrism. Am I right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right again. More to come. Cue the narrator, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, I admit it. You've piqued my interest. I await next week's episode with bated breath....
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 04 2005,13:00

I'm a little hung over right now, so I might not be thinking clearly. But it's occurred to me that Bill's figure for the mass of the earth, 5.5 E 51 Kg, might compare with the mass of the observable universe (at least the visible, non-"dark" part of it). I wonder if that's where he's going with this...

(Oops...am I giving the game away?)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 05 2005,05:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm a little hung over right now, so I might not be thinking clearly. But it's occurred to me that Bill's figure for the mass of the earth, 5.5 E 51 Kg, might compare with the mass of the observable universe (at least the visible, non-"dark" part of it). I wonder if that's where he's going with this...

(Oops...am I giving the game away?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Patience, my son. I will unveil the model when I get some free time: after all, one can't interweave art and science, unify and explain cosmological mysteries, and awe the human mind on demand. Slather on a little more Devon cream and order another latte in the meanwhile..........
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Nov. 05 2005,09:38

Who/What-ever the heck this guy is, he's something else isn't he?

Yes, GoP (hmmm...), I'm stll lurking about, and I haven't forgotten about The Master, either. But my optics is a little rusty, haha.

Awaiting the ummm, "unveilling."
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 05 2005,13:36

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 05 2005,11:50)
 Patience, my son. I will unveil the model when I get some free time: after all, one can't interweave art and science, unify and explain cosmological mysteries, and awe the human mind on demand. Slather on a little more Devon cream and order another latte in the meanwhile..........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, given the task I've set you (i.e., overturning 500 years of settled natural law, as it were), I'm not expecting an answer any time soon (unless you've already been working on this for a decade or two, in which case…).

But would you care to estimate a time frame? Another couple of years, maybe? Just so I don't have to keep checking back.

P.S. I'm actually not much of a latte lover.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 07 2005,06:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But would you care to estimate a time frame? Another couple of years, maybe? Just so I don't have to keep checking back.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Worst case scenario: A week from this upcoming Friday (Nov. 18, I believe)

 Best case: This Thursday (Nov. 10)

 I hope this helps.
Posted by: MDPotter on Nov. 07 2005,09:03

Ya right, you're arguing for geocentrism and I'M the one slobbering.
Hysterical.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 07 2005,09:04

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 07 2005,12:33)
Worst case scenario: A week from this upcoming Friday (Nov. 18, I believe)

 Best case: This Thursday (Nov. 10)

 I hope this helps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will you booking your hotel room in Stokholm, then? :-)
Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 07 2005,09:09

I'm sorry but, how can anyone who is still convinced that the Lunar Landings were a hoax, be taken seriously?

He chooses to ingore first hand account, eye witness...which is his/their major reason for not recognizing Evolution...."cause no one was there to witnes it.

It's hypocritical at best.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 07 2005,09:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, given the task I've set you (i.e., overturning 500 years of settled natural law, as it were), I'm not expecting an answer any time soon (unless you've already been working on this for a decade or two, in which case…).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 You have the time frame now. And I'll make this promise: if I don't deliver at least the rough draft of my geocentric model by November 18, I will personally fly to Clichy-sous-Bois, walk to the nearest mosque, and do a spirited Ait Bogar for the residents clad in a Crusader Rabbit diaper and a t-shirt emblazoned with the phrase " Paley a le beguin pour Sarkozy!"
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 07 2005,11:38

Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 07 2005,15<!--emo&:0)
I'm sorry but, how can anyone who is still convinced that the Lunar Landings were a hoax, be taken seriously?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't say I'm taking this guy seriously, but he has demonstrated some knowledge of orbital mechanics and Newtonian physics (more than mine, anyway), so he's not a complete half-wit.

But I'm interested to see how he wriggles out of this particular box.

(And when I say I'm not taking this guy seriously, I mean I don't think he really believes anything he says he believes.)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 07 2005,14:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He chooses to ingore first hand account, eye witness...which is his/their major reason for not recognizing Evolution...."cause no one was there to witnes it.

It's hypocritical at best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I don't know why people think that this argument is mine, when I've tried to make it clear all along that I'll accept circumstantial evidence so long as it converges on a single conclusion. If someone would present consistent, independent evidence for a particular lineage, I would buy the evo account, but what I receive are a plethora of crazy and flatly contradictory trees that reflect nothing so much as the insanity of the brainpans that generated them in the first place. I think people don't read what I write so much as what they think I would write if I was the slack-jaw that they assume I must be, given the certitude of their assumptions.
Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 08 2005,03:14

Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 07 2005,17:38)
[quote=Steverino,Nov. 07 2005,15<!--emo&:0]I'm sorry but, how can anyone who is still convinced that the Lunar Landings were a hoax, be taken seriously?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't say I'm taking this guy seriously, but he has demonstrated some knowledge of orbital mechanics and Newtonian physics (more than mine, anyway), so he's not a complete half-wit.

But I'm interested to see how he wriggles out of this particular box.

(And when I say I'm not taking this guy seriously, I mean I don't think he really believes anything he says he believes.)[/quote]
My point is that while he may be very intelligent, which I believe he is, he also finds it very easy and convenient to discard, ignore documented fact to form a belief.

I believe this practice makes his other arguments less credible.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 08 2005,05:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My point is that while he may be very intelligent, which I believe he is, he also finds it very easy and convenient to discard, ignore documented fact to form a belief.

I believe this practice makes his other arguments less credible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Let's assume that you've got my character nailed: I'm a hopelessly baffled person whose scientific judgement can't be trusted, and my arguments reflect this flaw. Or I'm an incorrigible troll. Great.
 Then why can't anyone refute my arguments? And what does this imply about your character? Or about your positions? In any case, I'm willing to focus strictly on the evidence; how about you?
 By the way, how does my stance on some issues detract from my advocacy of others? What kind of ontological voodoo are you proposing? Either I have good arguments or I don't; please focus on rebutting, rather than psychoanalysing, me. The fact that you rely on the latter makes me suspect you can't do the former.
 I don't see a bunch of free-thinkers here - merely religious apologists with their minds rusted shut. Prove me wrong, boys.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 08 2005,06:04

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 07 2005,20:24)
...I'll accept circumstantial evidence so long as it converges on a single conclusion. If someone would present consistent, independent evidence for a particular lineage, I would buy the evo account, but what I receive are a plethora of crazy and flatly contradictory trees that reflect nothing so much as the insanity of the brainpans that generated them in the first place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But Bill, the tree I've presented to you is supported by exactly the kind of evidence you say you want. Now, granted, certain groupings of certain organisms using certain types of evidence will result in different trees. But that's to be expected, if for no other reason than the truly astronomical number of possible trees. And there are a lot of organisms for which the phylogenetic relationships are controversial, as you'll note if you poke around on the < Tree of Life > site. But large portions of the tree are well-established using multiple, independent lines of evidence from very different areas of the life sciences (e.g., genalysis, the fossil record, stratigraphy, geology, morphological studies). The tree on Theobald's site is well-established, well-supported, and non-controversial, which is why it's called the "consensus tree."

Granted, the phylogenetic relationships of, say, lungfish and coelacanths can be hard to figure out, but I don't think anyone denies the phylogenetic relationships between tuna and chicken, or between starfish and spiders.

Details, controversial. General structure of the tree, not. But your position seems to be that the entire tree is wrong. That's not true. It just isn't.
Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 08 2005,09:35

Bingo!...My point is you filter out what you information goes against what you believe or want to believe.  Even though that information is proven.

The Lunar Landings are proven but, fact, they happened but, those you cannot choose not to recognize that.

So, what is the point in debating fact with you when you can just offer as a defense.."No thats wrong"?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 08 2005,13:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Bill, the tree I've presented to you is supported by exactly the kind of evidence you say you want. Now, granted, certain groupings of certain organisms using certain types of evidence will result in different trees. But that's to be expected, if for no other reason than the truly astronomical number of possible trees.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 You do realise that this "astronomical number of possible trees" business is derived solely from Hubert Yockey's cytochrome c analysis, which does not account for < alternative splicing? > And without Yockey's crutch, we're back to the puzzle of weirdly discordant molecular trees which don't match each other, let alone the phylogenies derived from morphology. Therefore, no consilience.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, what is the point in debating fact with you when you can just offer as a defense.."No thats wrong"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 And still you don't get it. I always back up my arguments with evidence. Which is why they get ignored, of course.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 08 2005,16:05

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 08 2005,19:18)
 You do realise that this "astronomical number of possible trees" business is derived solely from Hubert Yockey's cytochrome c analysis...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is wrong. The "astronomical number of possible trees" has nothing to do with cytochrome c analysis, or any analysis at all. It has to do with mathematics.

I know you said you've read Theobald closely, Bill, but you keep providing me evidence to the contrary. As Theobald points out, as the number of taxa (or, for that matter, any kind of object -- cars, asteroids, library books) that you're trying to relate to each other increases, the number of possible genealogical "trees" you can construct goes up geometrically. Theobald presents a handy little < chart > (Table 1.3.1). I'll excerpt a few entries so you can get the general flavor of what we're talking about:

2 taxa: 1 relationship
4: 15
7: 10,395
11: 34,459,425
20: 8,200,794,532,637,891,559,375
30: 4.95 E 38

This has nothing to do with how you analyze the objects you're trying to relate to each other. It's a matter of pure mathematics.


Which brings me way, way back to what I said in this thread about six or seven pages ago. The consensus phylogenetic tree that Theobald < depicts > is based on, not a few proteins, not a few genes, and not a lot of proteins or a lot of genes. It's based on genetics, protein analysis, the fossil record, morphological studies, developmental evolution, geology, and other lines of inquiry. All of these lines of evidence converge on the tree as Theobald shows it.

Now, you've pointed out that different individual lines of evidence can show discordant trees. You won't get an argument from me there. But you're talking about individual lines of evidence showing weird relationships between two different species. There are tons of organisms, as I stated a couple of messages ago, which are problematic in terms of what their exact phylogeny is. But for the 30 major taxa in Theobald's tree (note there are no species mentioned, or genera, or families, for that matter), there is an overwhelming consensus opinion that the phylogenetic tree as pictured is correct.

The tree shows that fungi are more closely related to animals than either are to plants. It shows that birds are more closely related to mammals than either are to insects. Surely you don't deny phylogenies at this level of detail, do you, Bill? When you get down either to the level of genera, or conversely to the base of the tree (are archae more closely related to eubacteria, or to eukaryotes?) things get murky. But the worst you can say about the consensus tree is that it's a solid beginning, supported by solid independent lines of evidence. And the fact that a dozen or more lines of evidence all converge on the same tree, out of ~5 E 38 possibilities, is pretty persuasive evidence for common descent, don't you think? Even if cladistic analysis could get the number of trees down to only a million different ones, isn't that an unbelievable level of precision? How many physical constants are known to 32 decimal places? The mass of the electron is known to seven places. G, the universal gravitation constant, is known to three places.

I think you greatly overestimate the problems with phylogeny, Mr. Paley.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 08 2005,17:45

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 08 2005,19:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, what is the point in debating fact with you when you can just offer as a defense.."No thats wrong"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 And still you don't get it. I always back up my arguments with evidence. Which is why they get ignored, of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well...not always. I once asked you why you thought the consensus phylogenetic tree is wrong. Your reply: "Why not?"

Don't mean to be persnickety, but I just couldn't resist...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2005,07:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you said you've read Theobald closely, Bill, but you keep providing me evidence to the contrary. As Theobald points out, as the number of taxa (or, for that matter, any kind of object -- cars, asteroids, library books) that you're trying to relate to each other increases, the number of possible genealogical "trees" you can construct goes up geometrically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Yes, I forgot about this aspect of his argument. Theobald's claim resembles an argument Sean Pitman once made about the relationship between the number of amino acids and the potential sequence space. He essentially stated that the ratio between useful sequence space and potential sequence space decreases at an exponential rate as you add more residues, and that this large target prohibits certain types of neutral evolution, thus rendering some types of evolution (those requiring fortuitous double and triple mutations, for example) impossible. Sean's math was sound, as was his conclusion. The problem, of course, was that Sean did not account for the existence of protein families that cluster together in sequence space, thus destroying his initial assumption of even distribution of potential function throughout the search area.
 This brings us to Theobald's argument. Theobald asserts that the potential number of branches in any tree increase at a factorial rate as the number of organisms increase, rendering an astronomically large "tree space". Therfore, we should embrace any theory that winnows this number down. But without biological facts to back it up, this argument suffers from the same defects as Pitman's: it assumes a uniform bodyplan distribution throughout morphological space. This is not true, as I'll demonstrate. (Hint: compare placental mammals to marsupials. Do you see any animals with similar features?). More later.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2005,07:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Will you booking your hotel room in Stokholm, then? :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 A zif. :angry:
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2005,08:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Here's the problem: morphological characters do not have to be, and in fact are not, uniformly distributed throughout the sample space of all potential body types. We see this in many cases of "< convergent evolution >" between marsupial and placental mammals. No matter how the similarities came to be, the fact remains that God- or nature - is not as adventurous as Theobald implies. This suggests that there is a natural grouping of "kinds" that can be investigated in different ways, none of them requiring the notion of common descent. In other words, I have no need for that hypothesis.  :)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well...not always. I once asked you why you thought the consensus phylogenetic tree is wrong. Your reply: "Why not?"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I hope this addresses your question.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 09 2005,08:40

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 09 2005,14:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Here's the problem: morphological characters do not have to be, and in fact are not, uniformly distributed throughout the sample space of all potential body types. We see this in many cases of "< convergent evolution >" between marsupial and placental mammals. No matter how the similarities came to be, the fact remains that God- or nature - is not as adventurous as Theobald implies. This suggests that there is a natural grouping of "kinds" that can be investigated in different ways, none of them requiring the notion of common descent. In other words, I have no need for that hypothesis.  :)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well...not always. I once asked you why you thought the consensus phylogenetic tree is wrong. Your reply: "Why not?"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I hope this addresses your question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still think you're misinterpreting Theobald's point. The number of potential trees has nothing to do with whether there's a uniform distribution of body plans, or protein conformations, or anything whatsoever. It's exclusively dependent on the number of taxa to be classified.

Someone gives you a group of 30 names of people. He tells you they're all related, but doesn't tell you how. The letters of the names have all been scrambled, so you can't use surnames as a clue. Now, he tells you to come up with all possible relationships between this group of 30 individuals. How many possible trees can you come up with? ~5 E 38. The same would be true of natural languages, or computer languages, or anything. The number of possible phylogenetic trees has nothing whatsoever to do with morphological characteristics, or indeed any characteristics. It is purely dependent on the number of taxa, and nothing else.

Now. Why do biologists think that the tree, as depicted, is accurate? For the reasons I've given you. You keep saying there's no biological evidence that the tree is correct, but I have to insist you're simply wrong there. And in any event, whether the tree is in fact correct (or could even be attempted) is only part of the argument for common descent. The other part of the equation is the nested hierarcies that all life forms fall into. There are no protostomes with feathers. There are no bacteria with mitochondira. There are no vertebrates with exoskeletons. The only known (and maybe the only possible) explanation for such nested hierarchies is common descent with modification. Therefore, whether you believe that neodarwinian evolution is the cause of common descent with modification, you simply cannot escape the fact of common descent with modification. It is simply a fact that needs explanation.

You asked me once how science knows which morphological features are the important ones. It comes down to which ones allow us to trace out a phylogenetic tree. Bats and birds both have wings, right? So they should be grouped together, right? Wrong. Because the wings don't fall into the other groupings or morphological features that birds and bats naturally fall into. Birds have feathers, avian lungs, hard-shelled eggs, etc., which group them all together. Bats have fur, placentas, mammalian inner ears, etc., which group them all together. This is why phylogenetic relationships need to be traced out using large numbers of characteristics from different independent lines of inquiry. It's the only way to develop well-supported phylogenies, and it's why it takes decades, if not centuries, to figure out the taxonomic relationships among organisms.

But again, common descent is a fact. Nested hierarchies are a fact. They are both facts wanting explanation. You simply cannot plausibly deny they exist. Now, whether God made it all happen, or unguided evolution, that's a separate matter. But you simply cannot get away with claiming there are no relationships among organisms.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2005,10:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I still think you're misinterpreting Theobald's point. The number of potential trees has nothing to do with whether there's a uniform distribution of body plans, or protein conformations, or anything whatsoever. It's exclusively dependent on the number of taxa to be classified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Certainly. But this is mathematically trivial; what makes the argument potentially relevant to biology is whether or not the classification process itself is truly arbitrary, absent common descent. And this depends on the distribution of morphological characters. Which is decidedly nonrandom in any working ecosystem.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nested hierarchies are a fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are if you use a tree-like scheme in the first place. But the methodology had better not force the conclusion.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 09 2005,12:37

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 09 2005,16:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nested hierarchies are a fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are if you use a tree-like scheme in the first place. But the methodology had better not force the conclusion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, this is what I should have said: "Nested hierarchies" is not a hypothesis; it's an observation. There are no known exceptions to the observation of nested hierarchies, when one looks at the totality of the evidence.

Common descent with modification was originally a hypothesis put forth to explain nested hierarchies. But common descent with modification is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that it has achieved the status of a fact in need of an explanation, rather than a hypothesis in need of verification.

One possible explantion for common descent with modification is directed evolution, i.e., evolution directed by some sort of supernatural intelligence. Another possible explanation is embodied by neodarwinian evolution. But in either event, it is long past the point where it is possible to deny either nested hierarchies or common descent with modification.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2005,13:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Common descent with modification was originally a hypothesis put forth to explain nested hierarchies. But common descent with modification is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that it has achieved the status of a fact in need of an explanation, rather than a hypothesis in need of verification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 And this is where we disagree. You seem to be saying that large groups of morphological characters can triangulate a tree, and thereby make it factual (at least on some branches). If so, then why do genetic phylogenies? Any discordant result must be tossed out, given the previously established tree. And if the genes do count, the morphological tree must still in some sense function as a hypothesis that needs testing. Remember, genetic testing wasn't established until the sixties. Are you saying common descent wasn't a fact until then? Or did the phenotypic characters make it factual?
 I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I'm really confused about this.
(Paley braces for the inevitable witticism......)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 09 2005,14:03

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 09 2005,19<!--emo&:0)
And this is where we disagree. You seem to be saying that large groups of morphological characters can triangulate a tree, and thereby make it factual (at least on some branches). If so, then why do genetic phylogenies? Any discordant result must be tossed out, given the previously established tree. And if the genes do count, the morphological tree must still in some sense function as a hypothesis that needs testing. Remember, genetic testing wasn't established until the sixties. Are you saying common descent wasn't a fact until then? Or did the phenotypic characters make it factual?
 I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I'm really confused about this.
(Paley braces for the inevitable witticism......)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, no witticisms (at least, none at your expense).

Well, you probably need an expert opinion on this question, but I think you need to look at it this way: for some phylogenetic questions, morphological analysis provides the answer. For others, genetics is the way to go. For still others, the fossil record gives brighter illumination.

It's like any large accumulation of data. Imagine you're trying to determine the weight of the electron. Most of your test results are going to converge on 500 keV. But an occasional result might give a ridiculous answer, like 3.5 geV. Another might give you 1,200 eV. You have to toss those anwers, even if, for the moment, you're not sure why they're wrong.

There are a lot of things about genetics and molecular biology that are only approximately understood. How accurate is the molecular clock when it comes to mutation rates? Well, one way you could calibrate the clock is by comparing the results to what you see in the fossil record. Or what about mutation loci and frequencies in protein analysis? You might need to confirm your results by comparison to morphological studies.

You used an example earlier of a particular protein analysis (might have been cytochrome c, I can't remember) that showed that kangaroos diverged from humans before they diverged from other mammals. Well, we know from lots of other evidence that this isn't true. So we need to find out why the protein evidence is discordant. But since we have, at this stage of the game, a really good idea of approximately when kangaroos and humans diverged, we can use evidence from other areas to try to figure out why the protein evidence gives unexpected answers.

The point is, you have to use huge datasets, coming from indpendent lines of research, to trace out lines of descent. You're looking for confirmation of evidence from as many different areas as possible. I pointed out earlier that guinea pigs and humans have the same mutation that makes the gene for producing ascorbic acid inoperative. Looking at just the genes, you might be forgiven for assuming that guinea pigs are more closely related to humans than, say, macaques are. But you'd be wrong, because it's certainly not impossible that humans and guinea pigs have the same mutation for reasons that have nothing to do with common descent; i.e., sheer bad luck.

Also, I should probably make what might seem like a fine distinction. That there is, in fact, "one true tree," at this point must be regarded as a fact in need of explanation. But a particular tree is still, necessarily, a hypothesis in need of verification. However, as I said, the large-scale structure of the tree is for the most part sufficiently supported to be considered well-settled. But again, as I said earlier, there are definitely regions of the < tree > that are still controversial. Given past successes, it's to be expected that the same lines of evidence, including genetic evidence, will eventually illuminate the true structure of the tree.

At any rate, Bill, people who actually do evolutionary biology are not concerned with the overall structure of the phylogenetic tree (although there are certainly spirited disagreements on the details). There's just too much evidence to support it. I'm wondering if the problems you have with accepting the accuracy of the tree aren't partly a matter of missing the forest for the trees. Or, maybe you're missing the "tree" for the "leaves." :-)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 11 2005,06:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, you probably need an expert opinion on this question, but I think you need to look at it this way: for some phylogenetic questions, morphological analysis provides the answer. For others, genetics is the way to go. For still others, the fossil record gives brighter illumination.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


.......


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, I should probably make what might seem like a fine distinction. That there is, in fact, "one true tree," at this point must be regarded as a fact in need of explanation. But a particular tree is still, necessarily, a hypothesis in need of verification. However, as I said, the large-scale structure of the tree is for the most part sufficiently supported to be considered well-settled. But again, as I said earlier, there are definitely regions of the tree that are still controversial. Given past successes, it's to be expected that the same lines of evidence, including genetic evidence, will eventually illuminate the true structure of the tree.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Fair enough. I think part of our problem is we have different definitions of consilience. My definition stresses the independence of differing lines of evidence, while yours emphasises the unity of knowledge. It's like the baseball Hall of Fame: much of the controversy revolves around differing ideas about what makes a man a hall of famer. Is it the excellence of his play, his notoriety, or his contribution to winning teams that should be given the most weight? Problem is, people don't attempt to define the basic issues; they project their presuppositions instead and wonder why others can't see things their way.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 11 2005,19:33

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 11 2005,12<!--emo&:0)
 Fair enough. I think part of our problem is we have different definitions of consilience. My definition stresses the independence of differing lines of evidence, while yours emphasises the unity of knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's how I picture things, if you could travel back in time (I don't know if many evolutionary biologists would agree with me here, but I think Dawkins would). The "one true phylogenetic tree," as it applies to me personally, is simply a genealogical tracing all the way back, until we reach the point where we're not talking about life anymore. Go back, say, 5,000 generations, and we're still talking humans. Go back further than that, and we're not talking exactly humans anymore. Go back 15 million years, and we're talking about lower primates. 150 million years, we're talking ancestors who are probably indistinguishable from tree shrews. A billion and a half years, we might be talking about bacteria, or maybe simple eukaryotes. And amazingly, against all odds, every single one of those ancestors, without exception, left descendants. Every one of them, in evolutionary terms, was a success.

The point, Bill, is that unless you believe in some sort of special creation, that has to be the way it happened (let me know if you can think of some alternative story). If you assume life evolved without direct intervention of a creator (or maybe even if you do assume a creator), there's an unbroken chain of living organisms extending backwards in time from me to the simplest forms of life.

And for me personally, I'm actually at one end of that chain (I'm not having children). All you have to do is assume that the world is as it appears to be (i.e., a few billion years old), and that there is no special creation. So you can trace my genes back from today, all the way back almost four billion years ago. That's a third of the lifetime of the universe! Isn't that kind of, well…cool?

I'll grant that none of this is very scientific. (But then, I'm not a scientist--or a lawyer, for that matter :) ) But for me, at least, it's an appealing concept. If you think of your own existence that way, extending backwards in time in some very real fashion almost four billion years ago, your genes coursing through uncounted generations of ancestors, I think it gives you a palpable sense of your place in the universe, and your connectedness to all life. How's that for unity?

Gives me kind of a warm feeling.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 13 2005,08:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point, Bill, is that unless you believe in some sort of special creation, that has to be the way it happened (let me know if you can think of some alternative story). If you assume life evolved without direct intervention of a creator (or maybe even if you do assume a creator), there's an unbroken chain of living organisms extending backwards in time from me to the simplest forms of life.

And for me personally, I'm actually at one end of that chain (I'm not having children).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 That is an interesting viewpoint, assuming an evolutionary process of course. But I find the last remark rather ominous, and illustrative of the end result of Darwinian philosophy. I'll explain more later tonight if I get a chance, although I may start a new thread. By the way, I think I'll get my rough draft in on time, but I've been surprisingly busy lately. May I ask for a one-week extension? Asbestos diapers don't grow on trees, you know......
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 13 2005,11:14

I don't know if I'll get the extension, so I'll assume its not in effect unless I hear from you.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2005,16:22

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 13 2005,14:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And for me personally, I'm actually at one end of that chain (I'm not having children).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is an interesting viewpoint, assuming an evolutionary process of course. But I find the last remark rather ominous, and illustrative of the end result of Darwinian philosophy. I'll explain more later tonight if I get a chance, although I may start a new thread. By the way, I think I'll get my rough draft in on time, but I've been surprisingly busy lately. May I ask for a one-week extension? Asbestos diapers don't grow on trees, you know......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why ominous? I just mean end, in the sense, more or less of a "bookend," not like the end of the world or anything. If you're the last of your line because everyone died without leaving any children, I guess that could be rather sad, but I've made a personal choice not to have children (don't ask for my reasons unless you want to wade through a 2,000 word essay).

Anyway, yes, you can have your extension. I can certainly wait another week...
Posted by: Hyperion on Nov. 13 2005,19:15

Asbestos diapers?

Is there some use for those other than flameproofing your hindparts?



By the way, I think I can see where GoP is going with the whole mass of the Earth thing.  Perhaps he's going to bring back Einstein and point out that in the mass quantities being discussed, time would be pretty much meaningless, as that much mass compacted to the size of the Earth would be a black hole.

He's not too far off, since the observable universe is certainly compatible with the hypothesis that it is a black hole of some sort, but that's not exactly a hypothesis that Paley wants.

Now, he could be trying to argue that the Earth and the Centauri system are both orbiting a very massive object, which is true, but that massive object appears to be the center of our galaxy.

Meh, geocentricism only makes sense in light of the idea that every observer appears to be at the center of the universe.  The problem with this conclusion from a religious standpoint is that it is the ultimate in moral relativism, being as no two observers will agree on anything, and both will be right.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 14 2005,12:14

Hyperion said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Asbestos diapers?

Is there some use for those other than flameproofing your hindparts?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Well, look who just caught up.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, I think I can see where GoP is going with the whole mass of the Earth thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not if your post is any indication.....

 Eric Murphy said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you're the last of your line because everyone died without leaving any children, I guess that could be rather sad, but I've made a personal choice not to have children (don't ask for my reasons unless you want to wade through a 2,000 word essay).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 You don't have to give your reasons unless you want. I'm more interested in the general spiritual malaise wrought by Darwinism - or whoever wrote that imbecile's books. And thanks for the extension.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 14 2005,18:18

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2005,18:14)
You don't have to give your reasons unless you want. I'm more interested in the general spiritual malaise wrought by Darwinism - or whoever wrote that imbecile's books. And thanks for the extension.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, I was talking to this woman I met a couple of weeks ago on a bike ride recently. She grew up in Texas, and moved to San Francisco when she was about 25 (she's in her early 30s now). She came from a deeply religious family, and until her mid-twenties she was deeply religious herself. Also, deeply depressed. To the point of suicide.

But as she reached young adulthood, she realized that religion just wasn't working for her. Shedding what for her was an oppressive belief system freed her spirit, and she is by all accounts a very happy, well adjusted person, with a great job, in a great relationship, living in a great city (well, at least those of us who live here think it is).

My point? Generalizations can be dangerous. I know plenty of very happy agnostics, and a lot of miserable religious people, too. I'm not sure one can make any valid generalizations correlating one's spiritual beliefs with one's overall contentment. I myself am a relatively happy person, and I am also happily agnostic.

Just out of curiosity: why do you consider Charles Darwin to be an "imbecile"? I've read On the Origin of Species, and it seems to me to be a well-written, well-thought-out exposition of the then-current state of knowledge of biological diversity, and a closely-reasoned argument attempting to explain that diversity.

Also, even if it were true that belief in non-theistic evolution brought about a spiritual malaise, would that matter--if it were true?
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Nov. 15 2005,03:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't have to give your reasons unless you want. I'm more interested in the general spiritual malaise wrought by Darwinism - or whoever wrote that imbecile's books. And thanks for the extension.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your statement appears to contain two errors - claiming an association between 'Darwinism' and spiritual malaise (an error because there is no evidence whatever of any causal connection); and claiming that Darwin was an imbecile (easily disproved by any reading of the man's works).  Perhaps you can demonstrate that you're not mistaken?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 15 2005,07:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your statement appears to contain two errors - claiming an association between 'Darwinism' and spiritual malaise (an error because there is no evidence whatever of any causal connection); and claiming that Darwin was an imbecile (easily disproved by any reading of the man's works).  Perhaps you can demonstrate that you're not mistaken?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 No, you are correct: correlation does not necessarily equal causation. But when two things consistently group together across different nations and cultures, I get suspicious. Heck, just look at the statements on this forum. "We never should have come down from the trees", "We must evolve, or die [the evolution part involving the surrendering of our culture, apparently]", "Physics and mother earth to humans: %$&* off![O.K.....that last one may be a little approximate]". Believe me, I could go to any atheist board and get much more along these lines. Could you find as many counterexamples? I bet not.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps you can demonstrate that you're not mistaken [about darwin]?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  Well, the man rarely appeared in public, let Huxley and Hooker handle the public presentation of his theory, and possessed indecipherable handwriting that only top echelon cult members can decipher. Means? Plagiarizing Grandpa's work. Motive? Collapse of Western Civilisation. Opportunity? Abundant. Not enough for an indictment, perhaps, but worthy of a "hmmmmmmmm...."
Posted by: Hyperion on Nov. 15 2005,09:06

Oy.

Seriously now, are you suggesting that social malaise did not exist prior to the discovery of evolution?

I don't think that any scientific theory or even any social movement is, in and of itself, capable of causing unrest.  It is people, acting of their own free will, who choose to do so.  There always have been and always will be those who choose to play off of various types of social unrest for their own purposes, and they have existed since civilization itself.  Accusing "darwinism" of causing social malaise is like accusing religion of doing so because of the Inquisition or the Crusades, which would be an equally absurd statement, as obviously religious people have also done great things in the world.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 15 2005,11:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Accusing "darwinism" of causing social malaise is like accusing religion of doing so because of the Inquisition or the Crusades, which would be an equally absurd statement[....]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm certainly not implying that each and every Darwinist is a social misfit, nor that every Christian is a cultural asset. Far from it. But looking at isolated cases gets us nowhere; we should instead focus on general trends. There are lots of short men and tall women, but it would be improper to conclude that women are the taller sex.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[[.......]as obviously religious people have also done great things in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 And maybe someday our textbooks will mention them again.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 16 2005,14:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heck, just look at the statements on this forum. "We never should have come down from the trees", "We must evolve, or die [the evolution part involving the surrendering of our culture, apparently]", "Physics and mother earth to humans: %$&* off![O.K.....that last one may be a little approximate]". Believe me, I could go to any atheist board and get much more along these lines. Could you find as many counterexamples? I bet not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But looking at isolated cases gets us nowhere; we should instead focus on general trends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I couldn't have said it better myself.

If you get enough people together debating religion, science, philosophy and politics, you are sure to find some inane comments  in the mix.  I'm amazed that you consider these quotes as evidence for your point.  Surely, you know better than that.  One could just as easily head on over to Dembski's blog and find equally enlightened quotes from his followers (if you're willing to actually check, I suggest you read the comments on any post that mentions Islam).    

Your challenge in backing up this claim (that acceptance of evolution causes spiritual malaise) is to get some numbers, not anecdotal evidence.  What are the trends, Paley?

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 17 2005,10:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your challenge in backing up this claim (that acceptance of evolution causes spiritual malaise) is to get some numbers, not anecdotal evidence.  What are the trends, Paley?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Well, if you recall, I did mention cross-national satisfaction surveys, but the subject was quickly changed into a debate over crime rates (which I won, in my humble opinion). But the original point still stands: the citizens of the United States, despite the evil machinations of the BED, rank as the happiest in the developed world. And yes, most Amuricans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This suggests a causal link.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 17 2005,13:54

Mr. Murphy:
I forgot that next week is Thanksgiving. I'm planning on visiting relatives, and won't be able to post until the following Tuesday. Sorry, but you'll get your model then.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 17 2005,13:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(which I won, in my humble opinion)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I expect no less from you Paley.

If I recall correctly, you demonstrated that the crime rates across this country fell substantially during the mid 90's.  You claimed that it was due to Guiliani's doing.  You failed to show, however, how Guiliani's policy changes affected every other major city's crime rates in the country.  You claimed it was a Republican Revolution, but failed to demonstrate how that was related at all.  I pointed out that the drop in crime rates happens to be 20 years after Roe v. Wade, and even expained how those are related.  If "winning the debate" means convincing you of something, then I've a snowballs chance...

You also claimed that crime is higher in the more secular European countries (or at least comparable to the US) when you take race into account.  Of course, you made this claim by only taking race into account in the US, not in the secular European countries.  You claim race is a larger factor than income levels without backing that up with data either.  Humble opinion, indeed.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any case, the fair question is: do white Americans commit murders more frequently than white European Americans? I suspect not; in fact, when lily-white American border cities are compared with Canadian cities of similar population density, America often comes out ahead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I still fail to understand why we have to neglect the minorities of this country to massage the result that you want.  Blacks and Latinos are Americans too, and they are also religious.

But, besides that.  What about these cross-national surveys?  I probably didn't see them.  Can you point them out again?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 17 2005,15:48

Cogzoid wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I recall correctly, you demonstrated that the crime rates across this country fell substantially during the mid 90's.  You claimed that it was due to Guiliani's doing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep. And even linked to a study backing it up. Which you dismissed without cause.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You failed to show, however, how Guiliani's policy changes affected every other major city's crime rates in the country.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 No, but I did demonstrate that:
1) Much of the national decline was driven by a handful of big cities (a claim you initially scoffed at, by the way)
2) At least one of those cities (Boston) adopted Guiliani-style policies
3) There was a change in the American mood, as evidenced by the Republican Revolution in Congress, which proceeded to establish badly-needed welfare reform and encourage tougher enforcement of felony sentences (if bad guys stay in prison longer, they have less opportunity to commit crime; please look at the incarceration statistics)
 4) There was a net decline in crime during Reagan's tenure.

 And you know what's funny about points three and four? Liberals widely predicted that crime would explode under Reagan and Newt's watch. Oh those mean ol' 'Publicans, slashin' social programs and driving women and children to the streets! Driving healthy young adults to the workforce, is more like it. To complete the pratfall, latte-lappers even tried to pin the extra homeless on the Gipper, until it was discovered that the increase was due almost exclusively to the relaxation of involuntary committal policies, inspired by......wait for it.......liberal hand-wringing.
 I'm not being mean, really I'm not, but....have liberals ever made a successful prediction? About anything?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You claimed it was a Republican Revolution, but failed to demonstrate how that was related at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Hopefully this helps.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I pointed out that the drop in crime rates happens to be 20 years after Roe v. Wade, and even expained how those are related.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 A good point, and one I didn't address. Why? Because even if true, it's the kind of solution I could never embrace. Heck, in my opinion, those unborn children should be added to the death total. But I didn't want to focus on that issue, because I knew it would sidetrack our debate. In any case, not all experts are sold on this idea; I've seen challenges to the study that inspired this claim. I'll look them up if you wish.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You also claimed that crime is higher in the more secular European countries (or at least comparable to the US) when you take race into account.  Of course, you made this claim by only taking race into account in the US, not in the secular European countries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Actually, I claimed more than that. Even without adjusting for racial disparities, several European countries < have higher victimization rates than ours > (You really need to check out figures six and seven). And when you subtract racial minorities from the pool, the U.S. rates look very good indeed. Of course, you'd also have to subtract European minorities - but even then, I'll take our BEDs over theirs. This issue needs further study. And while we're at it, you never did address the Fed's crooked bookkeeping, under which Mestizos are often classified as white if they commit a crime, but as nonwhite if they're victimized. Since Mestizos are much more likely than whites to commit crimes, this artificially inflates the white crime rate. And also implies that whites target blacks for violence more than they really do. Don't kid yourself; this is very deliberate.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You claim race is a larger factor than income levels without backing that up with data either.  Humble opinion, indeed.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I'm struggling to stay polite here - but Cogzoid, really, you have got to be kidding. There is no possible way that you could have missed my citation of The Color of Crime during our original debate - I even quoted part of it again, and practically begged for commentary. I know that lengthy cut n' paste jobs are frowned on here, but you really brought this on yourself:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One more thing. I think your assumption that racial crime disparities are merely a function of social inequalities can be questioned. The Color of Crime, a study done white nationalists Ian Jobling and Jared Taylor, but based exclusively on federal crime data and surveys, suggests that this may not be the case. Apparently, this study was reviewed by several criminologists  who endorsed the paper's math, if not conclusions. Some of its provocative findings:
Quote  
“… between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.”

Between 2001 and 2003, blacks committed, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year.

“Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.”
Nationally, youth gangs are 90 percent non-white. “Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.”

The only crime category in which Asians are more heavily represented than whites is illegal gambling.

“Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.”
Far from being guilty of “racially profiling” innocent blacks, police have been exercising racial bias on behalf of blacks, arresting fewer blacks than their proportion of criminals: “… blacks who committed crimes that were reported to the police were 26 percent less likely to be arrested than people of other races who committed the same crimes.”

“… police are determined to arrest non-black rather than black criminals.” (I have seen this practice in operation on the streets and subways of New York.)

“[Blacks] are eight times more likely than people of other races to rob someone, for example, and 5.5 times more likely to steal a car.”
Charges of racial profiling, which maintain that police target innocent black motorists for traffic stops notwithstanding, a 2002 study by Maryland’s Public Service Research Institute found that police were stopping too few black speeders (23%), compared to their proportion of actual speeders (25%). In fact, “blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites” in general, and there was an even higher frequency of black speeders in the 90-mph and higher range.

“… the only evidence for police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates, not police misconduct.”

Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than non-blacks, but their crimes are more violent than those of whites. Blacks are three times as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with guns, and twice as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with knives.

Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than whites, but blacks commit “white collar” offenses -- fraud, bribery, racketeering and embezzlement, respectively -- at two to five times the white rate.

The single greatest indicator of an area’s crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate.

Pretty wild, I know. Does anybody here have an informed opinion? This could very well be a crackpot study, but it seems worthy of commentary. And it is based on government data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Once again, I will highlight the most relevant bit:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The single greatest indicator of an area’s crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate. [my emphasis, natch]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  Are these conclusions valid? I don't know. But to their credit, these banjo pickin', 'backy chewin' rednecks knew what they were up against, and stuck to Federal Crime data in forming their argument. I'll give them that, at least.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, besides that.  What about these cross-national surveys?  I probably didn't see them.  Can you point them out again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 If you will address this response with more than catcalls, I will pony up the surveys.
Posted by: Hyperion on Nov. 17 2005,19:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, if you recall, I did mention cross-national satisfaction surveys, but the subject was quickly changed into a debate over crime rates (which I won, in my humble opinion). But the original point still stands: the citizens of the United States, despite the evil machinations of the BED, rank as the happiest in the developed world. And yes, most Amuricans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This suggests a causal link.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmmm...interestingly enough, America is also one of the few countries which has never had an established state religion.  I doubt that this is any more causally related than any of your reasons, but it is some food for thought.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 17 2005,20:08

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 17 2005,19:54)
Mr. Murphy:
I forgot that next week is Thanksgiving. I'm planning on visiting relatives, and won't be able to post until the following Tuesday. Sorry, but you'll get your model then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I've waiting this long. So this is going to be the Unified Field Theory of Geocentrism, right? It will explain the revolutionibus of the orbi as well as Mona Lisa's smile, right?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 18 2005,05:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, I've waiting this long. So this is going to be the Unified Field Theory of Geocentrism, right? It will explain the revolutionibus of the orbi as well as Mona Lisa's smile, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Thanks again. Out of curiosity, what's the highest level math you've studied?
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 18 2005,09:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep. And even linked to a study backing it up. Which you dismissed without cause.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I cited your study which claimed that crime rates dropped in cities across the country including, if I recall correctly: Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Denver, and New Orleans.  Are you claiming that Guiliani's and the Republican's influence affected all of these locations?  You're really straining the logic, my friend.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4) There was a net decline in crime during Reagan's tenure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< And went up during G.H.W. Bush's  term. >  Fluctuations happen, what's your point?  Notice the trend in '94.  WHILE A DEMOCRAT WAS IN OFFICE.  I like how you point to Reagen when crime slightly drops in the '80s and Newt when crime plummets in the '90s.  I'm not going to let you claim victory for this one, I'm sorry.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 And you know what's funny about points three and four? Liberals widely predicted that crime would explode under Reagan and Newt's watch. Oh those mean ol' 'Publicans, slashin' social programs and driving women and children to the streets! Driving healthy young adults to the workforce, is more like it. To complete the pratfall, latte-lappers even tried to pin the extra homeless on the Gipper, until it was discovered that the increase was due almost exclusively to the relaxation of involuntary committal policies, inspired by......wait for it.......liberal hand-wringing.
I'm not being mean, really I'm not, but....have liberals ever made a successful prediction? About anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 This is known as confirmation bias, Paley.  You only remember when Republican predictions are correct and Liberal predictions are wrong.  There are plenty of Republican predictions that are plain old wrong.  Global warming and WMDs in Iraq immediately come to mind.  (Much more grave incorrect predictions if you ask me!)  In Levitt's Freakonomics he points out that all parties were guilty of fear mongering over the youth crime wave in the country.  He reminds a Republican politician (I can't recall specifics) about his '94 quote something along the lines of "blood will flow in the streets".  Later he was accused of saying "bloodbath."  He bothered to draw the distinction between the comments, like a good politician.  Let's not even get into the discussion of how Republicans distort scientific findings to fit their agenda (mercury levels, global warming studies, abstinence-only effectiveness... etc).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And when you subtract racial minorities from the pool, the U.S. rates look very good indeed. Of course, you'd also have to subtract European minorities - but even then, I'll take our BEDs over theirs. This issue needs further study.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why?  You seem to have already reached your conclusion.  You just need to keep massaging the data till you've made your point.  Or maybe that's what you mean by "further study"?

I'm very skeptical of your "Color of Crime" study.  Does it take into account the fact that blacks are targeted by police at higher rates.  I read some study that pointed out that blacks use some percentage, say 15-20%, of the drugs in this country but account for, 50-60%, of the drug arrests.  I don't walk around with a list of all sources that I use to form my opinions, sorry.  This study seems to conflate "crimes committed" and "arrests made". But, that is a minor point overall.  Blacks may have higher crime rates.  I'll concede the point.  However, you haven't yet justified why you have to exclude blacks when looking at our country as a whole.  Are they not as American as you and your white neighbors?  Are they not religious people?  Aren't they part of our society, whether you like it or not?  I believe this is the 3rd or 4th time I've asked you this very fundamental question.

-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 18 2005,10:29

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 18 2005,11:23)
Thanks again. Out of curiosity, what's the highest level math you've studied?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pre-calculus in high school, about 26 years ago. If there's anything I'm actually good at, it's probably writing. Other than riding my bike ~10E4 km a year.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 18 2005,10:40

Mr. P,

Just out of curiosity: do you think that if someone were to take, say the top 1% of income earners among white Americans of European extraction, and compared them to the top 1% of African-Americans descended from slaves, that there would be a statistically-significant difference in the amount of violent crime committed by the two groups? If one were to compare the relative crime rates committed by each of the two groups when matched for income and social status? I wonder if anyone has ever done such an analysis.

Of course, one confounding factor would be that the top 1% of white European-Americans probably have a much higher income than the top 1% of African-Americans, and if you tried to match incomes across both groups, you probably wouldn't have a big-enough sample to draw any conclusions from the data on African Americans...

But in any event, I have a suspicion that such an analysis would contradict your position that there is a stronger correlation between violent crime and ethnicity than there is between violent crime and socioeconomic status.

And remember Thomas Sowell's words (from "The Vision of the Annointed") that you can basically prove any position with some set of statistics.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 20 2005,11:52

Hi Cogzoid.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
Yep. And even linked to a study backing it up. Which you dismissed without cause.
I cited your study which claimed that crime rates dropped in cities across the country including, if I recall correctly: Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Denver, and New Orleans.  Are you claiming that Guiliani's and the Republican's influence affected all of these locations?  You're really straining the logic, my friend.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You're mixing the studies up, but that's OK; I get the point. My point is that Guiliani was really responsible for the < crime drop in New York City, > an assertion you didn't challenge. And do you really trust N'Awlin's finest to compile accurate crime statistics?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fluctuations happen, what's your point?  Notice the trend in '94.  WHILE A DEMOCRAT WAS IN OFFICE.  I like how you point to Reagen when crime slightly drops in the '80s and Newt when crime plummets in the '90s.  I'm not going to let you claim victory for this one, I'm sorry.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 It seems like I'm equivocating, doesn't it? But I'm not. Focus on the accomplishments, not who was in charge, and you'll see that the 80's and mid 90's were much more conservative policy-wise than the 1988 - 1994 period. Even with Bush Sr..


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is known as confirmation bias, Paley.  You only remember when Republican predictions are correct and Liberal predictions are wrong.  There are plenty of Republican predictions that are plain old wrong.  Global warming and WMDs in Iraq immediately come to mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Well, you've got me on Global Warming. As for the missing WMD, let me just say that I think it's cruel to pick on the mentally retarded, even when they become president. :D


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm very skeptical of your "Color of Crime" study.  Does it take into account the fact that blacks are targeted by police at higher rates.  I read some study that pointed out that blacks use some percentage, say 15-20%, of the drugs in this country but account for, 50-60%, of the drug arrests.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 After you left,  MidnightVoice floated a similar argument. Please see my response to him. And yes, the study does anticipate your counter.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Charges of racial profiling, which maintain that police target innocent black motorists for traffic stops notwithstanding, a 2002 study by Maryland’s Public Service Research Institute found that police were stopping too few black speeders (23%), compared to their proportion of actual speeders (25%). In fact, “blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites” in general, and there was an even higher frequency of black speeders in the 90-mph and higher range.

“… the only evidence for police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates, not police misconduct.”

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  If Jared's reading this, he's probably laughing his ass off at all the free publicity you're giving him, Cogzoid.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, that is a minor point overall.  Blacks may have higher crime rates.  I'll concede the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  :0  :0  :0  :0  :0
  Wow. I've really sold you short. You definitely have earned my respect.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, you haven't yet justified why you have to exclude blacks when looking at our country as a whole.  Are they not as American as you and your white neighbors?  Are they not religious people?  Aren't they part of our society, whether you like it or not?  I believe this is the 3rd or 4th time I've asked you this very fundamental question.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Then again, maybe not.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My purpose is not to bash black people, nor suggest that they are genetically predisposed to crime. I'm just saying we should control for as many variables as possible. If you want to adjust for SES, then do so. But let's compare similar groups, like, ohhhhhh....middle-class white people, for example. I'm afraid you won't like the results, however.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) No, but let's face it: when evos talk about the "dangers" of fundamentalist Christianity, they're not referring to Joseph Lowery. They mean Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. White Christians, in other words.
 2) When trying to measure the effects of a single variable (religion), it is important to match groups that are as identical as possible in all other ways. This avoids confounding factors.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 You do realise the importance of avoiding confounding factors, don't you, Cogzoid?
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 20 2005,17:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My point is that Guiliani was really responsible for the crime drop in New York City, an assertion you didn't challenge. And do you really trust N'Awlin's finest to compile accurate crime statistics?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And my point is the drop occured all across the nation, L.A., San Diego, Denver, N.O., N.Y., etc.  And yes, I do trust N'awlin's finest to be able to compile statistics.  Just because the southerners talk slow doesn't mean they can't count bodies.   Your theory that Guiliani is responsible for the drop of crime in NY works if you only look at NY.  When one looks at the crime drop in all of the cities, it seems more likely that there is another, more US-spanning cause.  Of course, I won't rule out the possibility of multiple causes.  I've given an explanation.  You've given Republican trunk-waving.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 It seems like I'm equivocating, doesn't it? But I'm not. Focus on the accomplishments, not who was in charge, and you'll see that the 80's and mid 90's were much more conservative policy-wise than the 1988 - 1994 period. Even with Bush Sr..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your theory is becoming more and more contorted as you go.  What are these accomplishments I should look at?  Can you show me the "anti-accomplishments" of the '88-'94 period?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My purpose is not to bash black people, nor suggest that they are genetically predisposed to crime. I'm just saying we should control for as many variables as possible. If you want to adjust for SES, then do so. But let's compare similar groups, like, ohhhhhh....middle-class white people, for example. I'm afraid you won't like the results, however.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You want it both ways, Paley.  You don't want to include blacks of our society.  Yet, you haven't removed the minorites of the secular Europeans.  As well, you will need to remove entire sections of inner-city populations of the cities in Europe, for that is what you do for the US while you are removing the blacks.  I tried to find the necessary data to do this myself.  Either the Europeans don't post  racial data on the web, or I give up too easily.  I'm sure you are more capable, however.  Your point is as hollow as W's head without such data.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 21 2005,05:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And my point is the drop occured all across the nation, L.A., San Diego, Denver, N.O., N.Y., etc.  And yes, I do trust N'awlin's finest to be able to compile statistics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given the events post-Katrina, forgive me for being a little more skeptical of their corpse-counting abilities. But if I need a plasma TV at a super discount, I know where to go, that's for sure.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just because the southerners talk slow doesn't mean they can't count bodies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 No but our drawls can drive a Paris-born French teacher over the edge. Trust me on this. :D



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your theory that Guiliani is responsible for the drop of crime in NY works if you only look at NY.  When one looks at the crime drop in all of the cities, it seems more likely that there is another, more US-spanning cause.  Of course, I won't rule out the possibility of multiple causes.  I've given an explanation.  You've given Republican trunk-waving.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Don't forget the victimization studies, which also show America in a good light, without making any racial adjustments whatsoever.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You want it both ways, Paley.  You don't want to include blacks of our society.  Yet, you haven't removed the minorites of the secular Europeans.  As well, you will need to remove entire sections of inner-city populations of the cities in Europe, for that is what you do for the US while you are removing the blacks.  I tried to find the necessary data to do this myself.  Either the Europeans don't post  racial data on the web, or I give up too easily.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Don't blame yourself; there's a very good reason these stats aren't readily available.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your theory is becoming more and more contorted as you go.  What are these accomplishments I should look at?  Can you show me the "anti-accomplishments" of the '88-'94 period?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 You're pulling my leg again, aren't you, Cogzie? Don't you remember all those articles bemoaning the Contract "on" America, or bashing the Gipper? The media noticed the difference; why didn't you? On the other hand, all I remember during the Bush administration were Dan Quayle jokes and an obsession with Presidential malaprops. Of course, many complained about Bush Sr.'s foreign policy, but that doesn't impact our discussion.

Eric Murphy said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just out of curiosity: do you think that if someone were to take, say the top 1% of income earners among white Americans of European extraction, and compared them to the top 1% of African-Americans descended from slaves, that there would be a statistically-significant difference in the amount of violent crime committed by the two groups?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Yep. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 21 2005,06:14

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 21 2005,11:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eric Murphy said:
[quote]Just out of curiosity: do you think that if someone were to take, say the top 1% of income earners among white Americans of European extraction, and compared them to the top 1% of African-Americans descended from slaves, that there would be a statistically-significant difference in the amount of violent crime committed by the two groups?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Yep. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But Bill, don't you realize that your propensity to believe that African-Americans are more likely to commit violent crime than a similar group of European-Americans are, in the absence of data to support such a position, makes you a, well, um...racist? By definition?

One other technical question. You say:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Focus on the accomplishments, not who was in charge, and you'll see that the 80's and mid 90's were much more conservative policy-wise than the 1988 - 1994 period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How can the "80's and mid 90's" be much more conservative than the "1988-1994 period," when the one is a subset of the other? Just curious.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 21 2005,06:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can the "80's and mid 90's" be much more conservative than the "1988-1994 period," when the one is a subset of the other? Just curious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Yeah, sloppy wording on my part. I meant that the original Bush administration + Congress was less conservative than either Reagan + Democratic Congress or Clinton + Republican Congress. And the media seemed to agree with me, based on what I read at the time.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Bill, don't you realize that your propensity to believe that African-Americans are more likely to commit violent crime than a similar group of European-Americans are, in the absence of data to support such a position, makes you a, well, um...racist? By definition?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Et tu, Murphy, et tu? My understanding of a racist is someone who believes that genetic differences impact on mental performance or emotional stability. A position that I have never argued. What I do assert is that different cultures lead to different results regardless of income. Hey, do a favor for me: look up the results of SAT scores for upper-middle class African-Americans as compared to white americans around the poverty line. See something interesting? Do you think culture might play a role in this? If not, why not? And was Bill Cosby high when he gave his speech criticizing Black culture?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 21 2005,08:35

By the way, here's my < source > for the SAT claim:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences are the paramount explanation for the racial scoring gap. Consider these three facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

All of this is very bad news since it suggests the possibility that even if blacks reach economic parity with whites, SAT score differences between the races may persist.

Moreover, the data gives fuel to the biological racists who believe in the inherent inferiority of the cognitive capabilities of blacks.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Yes, and I noticed during a recent search that several racist websites have already made much hay out of these results. But I think that culture may explain the discrepancies.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 21 2005,09:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given the events post-Katrina, forgive me for being a little more skeptical of their corpse-counting abilities. But if I need a plasma TV at a super discount, I know where to go, that's for sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Counting bodies during the evacuation of an entire city is a little different than counting bodies in the morgue on a typical Friday night.  Your skepticism is duly noted.  What about every other major city in the US?  Perhaps no one is good at counting bodies except NY.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No but our drawls can drive a Paris-born French teacher over the edge. Trust me on this. :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You a southerner too?  I was raised in Slidell.  And I've got Cajun relatives that make me look cosmopolitan.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't forget the victimization studies, which also show America in a good light, without making any racial adjustments whatsoever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And don't forget the less subjective murder rates of all of those same countries.  Which don't put the US in such a good light.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't blame yourself; there's a very good reason these stats aren't readily available.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It must be nice to not need any stupid numbers or data before you reach your conclusions.  If only we could all live in your world, Paley.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're pulling my leg again, aren't you, Cogzie? Don't you remember all those articles bemoaning the Contract "on" America, or bashing the Gipper? The media noticed the difference; why didn't you? On the other hand, all I remember during the Bush administration were Dan Quayle jokes and an obsession with Presidential malaprops. Of course, many complained about Bush Sr.'s foreign policy, but that doesn't impact our discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We're not all timeless spirits, Paley.  I, in fact, wasn't old enough to care about politics in the eighties.  Perhaps you can euclidate the accomplishments and anti-accomplishments that I asked you for previously.

So, to make your point you have to throw out a major section of our crime statistics, and you seem unable to make the same cut for the other nations that you wish to compare to.  You don't see a problem with that?  Tell me again how you feel that you've "won the debate"?

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 21 2005,12:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Counting bodies during the evacuation of an entire city is a little different than counting bodies in the morgue on a typical Friday night.  Your skepticism is duly noted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Also, keep in mind the mass desertion, looting and overall incompetence shown by Nawlins finest.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What about every other major city in the US?  Perhaps no one is good at counting bodies except NY.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least with New York there has been an attempt to verify the official stats. You can check it out in this thrice-quoted < paper. >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And don't forget the less subjective murder rates of all of those same countries.  Which don't put the US in such a good light.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I see you're not going to let go of this, so let me support my hypothesis that white American homicide rates beat Europe's.
   Take Canada, for example. As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that Canadians are especially prone to violence. If memory serves, Canada has traditionally had lower < homicide rates > than many European countries, even before recent immigration trends. So let's compare our honkies to their crackers. How? By using the approach suggested in the original debate - by comparing crime rates in demo-and geographically similar territories. Here is one < study > that does just that:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of eight jurisdictions (four states, three provinces and Canada as a whole), Montana had the most homicides per capita over the fifteen year period, with an average of 3.8 per 100,000 citizens. Manitoba was second highest at 3.6, followed by Idaho at 3.4, Saskatchewan and Alberta, each at 3.1, Canada at 2.7, Minnesota at 2.4 and North Dakota at 1.3.

The first seven averages are in the anticipated range, but the rate for North Dakota is one of the lowest in the world despite an abundance of guns in the hands of its citizens.

The 15 year per capita homicide rate for the three provinces combined was 3.2 per 100,000 compared to 2.7 per 100,000 in the four states.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Notice that this study covers the period before the big G and Newt worked their magic, so if anything, the study is slanted agin America (although Canada's rates also dropped during the 90's). This paper also makes no adjustment for the undoubtedly higher minority population in the surveyed states. Could population density be a biasing factor?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In response to criticism that the three states contained no large cities, Minnesota was added to the mix. The twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have a combined population comparable to that of Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  Pretty interesting results, eh?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, to make your point you have to throw out a major section of our crime statistics, and you seem unable to make the same cut for the other nations that you wish to compare to.  You don't see a problem with that?  Tell me again how you feel that you've "won the debate"?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   First, as I stated several times, I'm don't have to throw out anything; the vic surveys prove my point all by their lonesome. Second, you never answered my question about confounding factors. Third, you never responded to my evidence that the FBI and local cities cook the books. Fourth, the very fact that the crime rates are in doubt utterly destroys your original contention that the U.S. is peopled by Bible-toting thugs. Admit it, Cogzie - you were lied to by your media, teachers and government. Aren't you glad you finally met someone capable of cleaning the Aegean stables?



You're welcome.
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 21 2005,18:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At least with New York there has been an attempt to verify the official stats. You can check it out in this thrice-quoted paper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Are you implying that the other cities can't count bodies well?  What would that imply for statistics of the "softer" crimes?  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 I see you're not going to let go of this, so let me support my hypothesis that white American homicide rates beat Europe's.
  Take Canada, for example. As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that Canadians are especially prone to violence. If memory serves, Canada has traditionally had lower homicide rates than many European countries, even before recent immigration trends. So let's compare our honkies to their crackers. How? By using the approach suggested in the original debate - by comparing crime rates in demo-and geographically similar territories. Here is one study that does just that:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This succeeds in demonstrating that homicide rates are low in rural areas with no racial clashes, even when including the bustling Twin Cities.  To compare this at all with Europe you'd have to find equally rural and racially consistent areas there.  Something you have yet to do.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice that this study covers the period before the big G and Newt worked their magic, so if anything, the study is slanted agin America (although Canada's rates also dropped during the 90's).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

For this to be true one has to believe that the big G or Newt had anything to do with the drop in crime in America.  I do not take that assumption as blindly as you do.  And you have yet to show it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This paper also makes no adjustment for the undoubtedly higher minority population in the surveyed states.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

HA!  Have you been to any of those states?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, as I stated several times, I'm don't have to throw out anything; the vic surveys prove my point all by their lonesome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But the murder rates flatly disagree with you.  And since victimization is subjective to the victim, I think those statistics should carry less weight than murder rates, which are as objective as one can get.  You have yet to give a good argument as to why murder rates are NOT a good single statistic that we can look at.  (Besides murder rates not helping your point.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second, you never answered my question about confounding factors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And you never answered my questions about what accomplishments and anti-accomplishments by the Dems or Rebs resulted in the crime fluctutations.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Third, you never responded to my evidence that the FBI and local cities cook the books.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Would they fudge more or less murders as they cooked these books?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fourth, the very fact that the crime rates are in doubt utterly destroys your original contention that the U.S. is peopled by Bible-toting thugs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You doubt the crime rates, not me.  You want to look at victimization, not me.  I like to look at objective numbers, such as murders.  Which are counted as bodies, not counted as arrests.  And my revised contention is that being religious doesn't help us keep down murders.  In fact, our murder rates our worse.  I prefer to look at all of our society, simply because I believe that we are all responsible for our society's ills.  I don't like to pass my responsibilty on to others.  And I sure hope that you don't claim that you or our fellow religious Americans have no impact on the crime problems of our inner cities.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Admit it, Cogzie - you were lied to by your media, teachers and government. Aren't you glad you finally met someone capable of cleaning the Aegean stables?
Your welcome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please, keep the self-aggrandizing and conspiracy theories to a minimum in the future.  I tire easily of unnecessary and unwarranted gloating.

-Dan
Posted by: celtic_elk on Nov. 22 2005,04:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, here's my source for the SAT claim:
[QUOTE]
But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences are the paramount explanation for the racial scoring gap. Consider these three facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

All of this is very bad news since it suggests the possibility that even if blacks reach economic parity with whites, SAT score differences between the races may persist.

Moreover, the data gives fuel to the biological racists who believe in the inherent inferiority of the cognitive capabilities of blacks.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, and I noticed during a recent search that several racist websites have already made much hay out of these results. But I think that culture may explain the discrepancies. [/QUOTE]

I'm interested in your explanation for the disparity at high income levels.  Surely you can't be seriously suggesting that there is a fundamental cultural difference in the US between blacks and whites at the $80,00-100,000 annual income level?  

Note also that the data for white students (and probably for other races as well) at varying income levels is probably subject to extreme sampling bias: many affluent students go to college, and therefore take the SATs, because they can afford it, whereas the poor students who take the SATs are self-selecting for those at the upper end of academic ability and ambition.  This is conjecture, as I don't have the data to support this at the moment, but a simple comparison of the number of students who take the SATs vs. the number of students eligible in each income bracket should prove or disprove my hypothesis.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 22 2005,04:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you implying that the other cities can't count bodies well?  What would that imply for statistics of the "softer" crimes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Perhaps they can count bodies (but given the recent scandals attached to municipal police forces across the land, fogive me for being skeptical), but whether a killing is classified as a murder, self-defense, or suicide allows for more latitude than most people realise.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[Your study] succeeds in demonstrating that homicide rates are low in rural areas with no racial clashes, even when including the bustling Twin Cities.  To compare this at all with Europe you'd have to find equally rural and racially consistent areas there.  Something you have yet to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  But the authors did compare similar regions in America and Canada. Canada might not be Europe, but their low homicide rates serve as a suitable proxy when direct comparisons to the Old Continent are unavailable. And look what happens when we can make a fair adjustment - America wins. Against some of the most gentle, laid-back citizens in the entire world. Doesn't this suggest anything at all?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the murder rates flatly disagree with you.  And since victimization is subjective to the victim, I think those statistics should carry less weight than murder rates, which are as objective as one can get.  You have yet to give a good argument as to why murder rates are NOT a good single statistic that we can look at.  (Besides murder rates not helping your point.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Oh, I think murder rates are very relevant. But I like to look at the totality of violent crime because I also don't want to be assaulted, raped, or mugged - weird, I know. These crimes have the ability to wreck a person's life, and must be accounted for in any analysis. I also worry about the distibution of violent crime. Many of our homicides "victims" are themselves criminals, so that carries less weight than, say, a schoolteacher. Sorry, but if rival gang members like to shoot each other for trivial reasons, it's not the same as a thug preying on the civilised. In other words, if Bill Cosby ever gets murdered, I'll be depressed; Tupac, on the other hand, richly deserved what he got. And no, I don't give a toss about white, asian, or Jewish thugs either. Screw them. And the liberal hoss they ride on.

More later.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 22 2005,07:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm interested in your explanation for the disparity at high income levels.  Surely you can't be seriously suggesting that there is a fundamental cultural difference in the US between blacks and whites at the $80,00-100,000 annual income level?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I don't see why not. Many successful blacks describe themselves as "bicultural", and occasionally complain about the stress this puts on their everyday life. And I've read books where white-collar blacks express extreme frustration with the corporate (i.e. white) world, and complain about cultural isolation.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Note also that the data for white students (and probably for other races as well) at varying income levels is probably subject to extreme sampling bias: many affluent students go to college, and therefore take the SATs, because they can afford it, whereas the poor students who take the SATs are self-selecting for those at the upper end of academic ability and ambition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I'm sure that this explains some of it. But then why the positive correlation between income level and SAT scores? Rich and middle-class whites somehow find a way to outscore these poverty-stricken prodigies. And don't these rich black kids have access to better schools, tutors, etc.? It seems that you're reaching here.
Posted by: celtic_elk on Nov. 22 2005,07:55

GoPaley:

Also in re: the SAT claim: the source you listed (the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education) cites its source only as "The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT."  I was, however, unable to find a race-and-income breakdown for this year's scores in the official College Board national report (which, for interested parties, can be found < here >). It contains racial breakdowns and income-level breakdowns, but no breakdowns combining the two.  Can you provide an alternate source with the actual data?
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 22 2005,10:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps they can count bodies (but given the recent scandals attached to municipal police forces across the land, fogive me for being skeptical), but whether a killing is classified as a murder, self-defense, or suicide allows for more latitude than most people realise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Are these scandals related to how they count bodies?  I can't imagine that many suicides are wrongly attributed to being murders.  Conversely, murders that are dressed up as suicides would do nothing but give the appearance of lower murder rates.  This systematic error would apply to all countries, and doesn't help your argument in the least.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the authors did compare similar regions in America and Canada. Canada might not be Europe, but their low homicide rates serve as a suitable proxy when direct comparisons to the Old Continent are unavailable. And look what happens when we can make a fair adjustment - America wins. Against some of the most gentle, laid-back citizens in the entire world. Doesn't this suggest anything at all?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

America didn't "win" it was comparable.  And it was only the low population states of America that were compared to the low population states of Canada.  Why didn't they use the data comparing the higher population states of America, with the higher population states of Canada?  I've got a reason in mind.  And no, the low population states of Canada are not a suitable proxy for the Old World countries.  You're smarter than that.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, I think murder rates are very relevant. But I like to look at the totality of violent crime because I also don't want to be assaulted, raped, or mugged - weird, I know. These crimes have the ability to wreck a person's life, and must be accounted for in any analysis. I also worry about the distibution of violent crime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And once again you missed my point entirely.  I'm not saying that murders are the only crimes that matter.  I'm saying that murders are the only crime statistic that is accurate.  There are plenty of unreported rapes, robberies, and other crimes.  There are also definitional issues.  Some places lump frat guys taking advantage of a drunk girl as equal to a jogger getting dragged into the bushes in a city park.  Are both equal rapes?  There are alot of subjective statistics.  Which is why the data from my sources and your sources often disagree.  Which is also why victimization surveys are prone to error.  But a murder results in a tangible dead body, or a missing person.  It's easy to count those up.  No one "feels" murdered.  They either are or they aren't.  All of those other crimes are surely important and wreck a persons life, but they simply aren't prone to accurate statistics.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many of our homicides "victims" are themselves criminals, so that carries less weight than, say, a schoolteacher. Sorry, but if rival gang members like to shoot each other for trivial reasons, it's not the same as a thug preying on the civilised. In other words, if Bill Cosby ever gets murdered, I'll be depressed; Tupac, on the other hand, richly deserved what he got. And no, I don't give a toss about white, asian, or Jewish thugs either. Screw them. And the liberal hoss they ride on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And why wouldn't this logic apply to all countries?  Don't they all have thugs?  Or is your point going to be that they don't have as many as America?  Boy, wouldn't that be a stupid point to make.

And don't try to pass off < white thugs > as being liberal.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 22 2005,12:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Conversely, murders that are dressed up as suicides would do nothing but give the appearance of lower murder rates.  This systematic error would apply to all countries, and doesn't help your argument in the least.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I think your last sentence is potentially false. Crooked police in general do try to deflate the crime rate, and this would apply to all countries. But I think it's a fallacy to assume that:
 1) All police agencies are equally corrupt and incompetent
 2) All countries will attempt the same manipulations

 Let's take the F.B.I., for example. Earlier I showed evidence of hanky-panky in how they classify perps vs victims. But did they do it to lower the crime rate? No, they were far too busy playing pin the tail on the honkey for that. Result: No net crime deflation.
 But let's look at an American city during the mid-nineties. The city's finest know that the whole world watches New York, and when good things happen there, they'd like to share in the glory. Result: the crime stats plummet.
 Now let's look at a European country such as Great Britain during the mid-nineties. You've got a spanking-new gun policy, you're liberalizing immigration laws, and you read the papers and see the policing success in America and Canada. You'd like a piece of the action, and what's more, you don't want to alarm the public unnecessarily. So what do you do? Well, you carry out your tried-and- failed twin strategies of yanking guns from the civilians and letting in boatloads of terrorists, fanatics, and other enemies of civilisation. Predictably, this fails. Plan B? Let's let < my source take it from here: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A headline in the London Daily Telegraph back on April 1, 1996, said it all: "Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police." The story noted that "pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics," and "the recorded crime level bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."

For example, where a series of homes were burgled, they were regularly recorded as one crime. If a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to the statistics.

More recently, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime – for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism." The report lays much of the blame on the police's desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes.

Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count.

"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I'll let you draw your own conclusions.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And why wouldn't this logic apply to all countries?  Don't they all have thugs?  Or is your point going to be that they don't have as many as America?  Boy, wouldn't that be a stupid point to make.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 There's a big difference between intra-thug violence fueled by the drug trade and thugs attacking civilians. While both are regrettable, the second concerns me more since I don't plan on selling, or even buying, drugs.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And don't try to pass off white thugs as being liberal.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 But what shall I do when the fruits of liberal policy create them?
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 23 2005,09:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Great source, Paley.  An article written by a dentist and an optometrist in Colorado for "a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization" that just happens to < sell "What Would Reagen Do" bracelets. >  You'll pardon me if I don't trust every source you shill.  There are online articles to back up almost ANY possible viewpoint.  Just because you find them doesn't make them important.

The question, however, is if such bad counting continues today.  A 9 year old article (the source of your source) is hardly the best for judging the current numbers, which is what I am focusing on when comparing to other nations.

(Just to explain, we are having multiple arguments at the same time.  The drop in crime in the US in the mid-90s and how the US compares to the rest of the world.)

-Dan
Posted by: cogzoid on Nov. 23 2005,12:13

As an example of the myriad of opinions able to be found online.  < This recent article > hints that present day New York may be mistallying statistics.  Can this be true, Paley, under Guiliani-endorsed Bloomberg's watch?

Now, I'm not going to sit here and whine about such statistical manipulation.  I'm just proving the point that almost any opinion can be found online.

-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 28 2005,05:35

GoP:

How are we doing on our ToE?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2005,07:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As an example of the myriad of opinions able to be found online.  This recent article hints that present day New York may be mistallying statistics.  Can this be true, Paley, under Guiliani-endorsed Bloomberg's watch?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  But Cogzoid, you're only proving my case.
Your own source concedes that the hopitalization rate matches Guiliani's figures during the period of the Big Drop:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 1993, the last year of David Dinkins's administration, health department officials created an "injury surveillance system," hoping to monitor weapons-related assaults against young men. At first, they surveyed only hospitalizations. With the decline in shootings in the city, the number of hospitalizations caused by assaults dropped sharply, right through 1999, but then leveled off.

In the meantime, seeking better information on assaults against women, health department officials expanded the survey in 1997 to include emergency room visits in addition to hospitalizations.

From then until 2002, the number of assault victims who were either hospitalized or treated in emergency rooms in the city went up in every year but one for a total increase of 19 percent.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 So when you say:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm just proving the point that almost any opinion can be found online.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  You're just supporting my point that the Miracle was real, and not an artifact of shady bookkeeping.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Great source, Paley.  An article written by a dentist and an optometrist in Colorado for "a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization" that just happens to sell "What Would Reagen Do" bracelets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Your inability to refute their position is duly noted.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question, however, is if such bad counting continues today.  A 9 year old article (the source of your source) is hardly the best for judging the current numbers, which is what I am focusing on when comparing to other nations.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Actually, the quote came from a 2000 Inspectorate of Constabulary report, not the 1996 article you're referencing. And the report also takes current homicide classifications to task:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I suspect that British cops would know something about British crime classification and accounting, but I've been told before that I'm hopelessly naive, so help me out, Cogzoid. :)

  My contention that we should use as many sources as possible to triangulate the data seems as sound as ever.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2005,08:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
GoP:

How are we doing on our ToE?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  Pretty well, although some formatting problems are forcing me to split my paper into several sections. I'll try to summarise some of the main points tonight or tomorrow.....
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2005,12:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
GoP:

How are we doing on our ToE?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since there is a problem calculating the mass of the earth assuming Alpha Centauri and the rest of the universe orbit it, the evolutionists thing they have refuted the Biblical truth of geocentricism¡Xnot so!!!! The truth is that neither Alpha Centauri nor any other of the fixed stars orbits the earth via gravitational attraction. They are locked into a large conducting Gaussian sphere of dense ether.

Gauss Law states:

(1)

This is the electric field outside the sphere, which in our case is the sphere of the fixed stars, and the field is 0 inside of it. Now, since authentic discontinuities do not exist in nature, the diagrams you see in evolutionistic textbooks of a field instantaneously dropping to zero are somewhat bogus. We can know the true field inside the sphere by modeling this alleged discontinuity with Fourier series.


(2)
           =0 R<r

Now the period of this function is the distance from the sphere of the fixed stars to the center of God¡¦s creation, the earth. (Remember, this is the only section of the domain of R we care about, you can¡¦t bitch if the model does not work in the Empyrean. In addition, since this is an even-range expansion about R=0, it goes into ¡§negative R¡¨ space. This is as physically meaningless as evolutionism, but necessary for the model to work!;) The first terms of the series are:

(3)
   (4)
         

This is the A0 term

 (5)
     (6)

These are the An terms.



.

(7)

    (9)

Now, this is the summation from n=1 to n=15, any more terms is too much for little evolutionistic minds to fathom. Now, we know the radius of the sphere of the fixed stars, it is 4.5 light-years. (The Triple Centauri System is something of an anomaly, since it serves as a revolving door for angels to pass in and out of the Empyrean, it protrudes a little.) We also know the value of the permittivity constant  , and the value of ƒàƒ|ƒn(Evolutionists, being basically stupid often need this explained to them.) All that is unknown now is the charge outside the sphere of the fixed stars, Q.  

We can find Q by calculating how the field gradient inside the sphere of the fixed stars from the 2.7K uniform temperature the evolutionistic Soviet agents Penzias and Wilson. They called this the ¡§echo of the big bang¡¨ in order to score a propaganda victory for the motherland by ¡§proving¡¨ Gamow¡¦s theory.  In a paper published in Physical Review Letters in 1976 showing the relationship between Temperature and field gradient at a given temperature is:

(10)1

Here eqe1 is the field gradient at Temperature T which is 2.7K, and eq0e1 is the field gradient at 0K.  Since the field has no angular variation, the field gradient can be assumed to be E¡¦®.  Now, here is the formula:

    (11)

Of course, there are still a few unexplained parts in equation 10. Indeed, those of you who actually bothered to read the paper in question and find out the evolutionists who wrote it meant the equation to be applied to solids will dismiss my application of it to this kind of problem as utterly bogus, but that is just another evolutionistic presupposition, not a reality. The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of ¡§nothingness¡¨ allows you to believe in a ¡§vacuum.¡¨  

Continuing with our discussion of equation 10,    approaches the inverse of the fine structure constant, 137 as the crystal becomes more perfect. In addition, in perfect quintessence the Debye temperature, TD also approaches the same value. (This flows from the electromagnetic nature of the universe which you will not see in papers because it proposes a direct, in-your-face challenge to the gravity-based, big bang evolutionistic model.)  The constant ƒ× is given by the formula:

   (12)1


Filling in the numbers, we have:

  (13)

50.7413  (Real answer)

The other constant, ƒÒ can be assumed to be 1. Finally, Equation 10 with numbers comes out to be:

 (14)
-0.0014781

Now, when we set equation 14 equal to equation 11, and set the values for   and the radius of the sphere of the fixed stars r (4.5 light-years), and set R equal to the radius of the earth. (In the absence of the sun, the temperature would be 2.7K, so I can get away with this. This is the temperature due to the electric field gradient.) We can calculate a value for Q in the Empyrean to be:

1.46088 X10^46 C

This is a very big number. I bet you¡¦re wondering how this much charge can exist. The answer is in the stars themselves. This plasma flow is how the angels keep the stars shining. How this works will be discussed in subsequent posts.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2005,12:57

K. Nishiyama, F. Dimmling, Th. Kornrumpf, and D. Riegel
Theory of the Temperature Dependence of the Electric Field Gradient in Noncubic Metals

Phyical Review Letters 37,357-360 1976
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2005,14:14

Sorry for all the formatting errors, but this gives a sample of my thinking. To summarize, in recognition of the relative strength of electromagnetic forces vis-a-vis gravity I have used Gauss's Law in conjunction with an equation relating temperature and field gradients to derive the cosmic microwave background value. No reference to the Big Clang required. But I will not stop here. The next section of the paper will discuss the infamous n-body problem in the context of induced dipole moments. I will then utilise Shannon's information theory to convert the excess charge to work, thus uniting my oeuvre with Dembski's.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 28 2005,19:29

Actually, none of that meant anything to me, since I never even took calculus in high school. But I do have one question about your postulate of a fixed sphere of stars 4.5 ly away.

How does your model account of differing parallax of different stars? Actually, how does it account for parallax at all? If everything orbits the earth, shouldn't the parallax of every body out there on the sphere be zero?
Posted by: Swoosh on Nov. 28 2005,21:52

O.  M.  G.

That's classic.  Thanks for the chuckles, spooky.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on Nov. 29 2005,04:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is the electric field outside the sphere, which in our case is the sphere of the fixed stars, and the field is 0 inside of it. Now, since authentic discontinuities do not exist in nature, the diagrams you see in evolutionistic textbooks of a field instantaneously dropping to zero are somewhat bogus. We can know the true field inside the sphere by modeling this alleged discontinuity with Fourier series.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please review Gauss.  It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly.  The equation set
E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}
     = 0 {R<r}
is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0.  A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}.  More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r.

So there is no discontinuity present, as the field decreases over the thickness of the proposed cellestial firmament.  So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis.  Obviously, the thickness must be non-zero, "since authentic" zero thickness shells "do not exist in nature."

That said, your argument is of course complete bullocks, and doesn't match with certain other observed phenomenon, such as the aforementioned parallax (btw, it is the fact that the observed parallaxes are non-equal, not non-zero, that falsifies the spherical firmament hypothesis - a non-zero but equal parallax would indicate a wobbling firmament).

Finally, absolutely none of this has anything to do with evolution.  In fact, Gaussian theory predates evolution.  Please stop using "evolutionistic" to mean "any scientific theory I oppose on theistic grounds."  If you must use a term, perhaps Galileonic or something similar?  That would be much more accurate.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Nov. 29 2005,08:47

Truly, er-- staggering, wisp.
I especially like this bit:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will then utilise Shannon's information theory to convert the excess charge to work, thus uniting my oeuvre with Dembski's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The similarities are already glaring. Let's see, megalomaniac delusions of overturning whole disciplines, useless and confusing formalisms, hand-waving bluster, obfuscating use of higher mathematics to impress the rubes, utter disconnect to reality...

I'd say your "oeuvre" belongs in the same (circular) file as D*mbski's already, husk.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 29 2005,12:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please review Gauss.  It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly.  The equation set
E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}
    = 0 {R<r}
is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0.  A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}.  More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r.

So there is no discontinuity present, as the field decreases over the thickness of the proposed cellestial firmament.  So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis.  Obviously, the thickness must be non-zero, "since authentic" zero thickness shells "do not exist in nature."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Seems so, doesn't it? But I'll justify my use of the Fourier series in the next installment, and solve a few conundrums while I'm at it.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How does your model account of differing parallax of different stars? Actually, how does it account for parallax at all? If everything orbits the earth, shouldn't the parallax of every body out there on the sphere be zero[or non-equal]?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Patience. It will all come together shortly. Genius moves at its own pace, after all.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2005,13:08

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 29 2005,18:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If everything orbits the earth, shouldn't the parallax of every body out there on the sphere be zero[or non-equal]?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Patience. It will all come together shortly. Genius moves at its own pace, after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it definitely wouldn't be non-equal. It might be non-zero, but if everything's the same distance from the earth, everything should have the same parallax, even if it's non-zero, due to divine sloppiness.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2005,13:36

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 29 2005,18:26)
Patience. It will all come together shortly. Genius moves at its own pace, after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just to give you a running start, I thought I'd include a few other, relatively non-controversial, astronomical observations, with the request that you explain how your model accounts for them:

The Hertzsprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship. According to your model, all stars (with minor exceptions) are at the same distance from earth: 4.5 ly. This means that all stars' apparent magnitude is equal to their absolute magnitude, and therefore their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity. This means that the Hertzprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship is broken, and there is therefore no relationship between a star's mass and its luminosity, or between its temperature and its luminosity. Therefore some other explanation is necessary for the different temperatures of stars. What is that explanation?

Galaxies. Since galaxies are all the same distance from the earth as the stars are (4.5 ly), either they're not made of stars at all (and hence are "nebulae"?), or they're made of extremely non-luminous stars. But stars have been resolved in some nearby galaxies, e.g., the Magellanic clouds. Presumably these are really tiny stars? Since their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity…

Cosmic elemental abundances. (Is evopeach out there somewhere?). Presumably Bill's geocentric universe precludes a big bang, and therefore precludes primordial nucleosynthesis. Therefore, one needs some other explanation for the eerie concordance between the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the predicted abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium, which are exquisitely sensitive to the temperature of that radiation. Of course, we also need an explanation for the existence of the CMB in the first place, since the Big Bang evidently didn't happen in Bill's world.

Existence of metals. (Of course, I mean metals in the sense that astrophysicists use the term). I assume that supernovae don't happen in Bill's world, since a supernova occurring 4.5 ly away would preclude the existence of the earth. So, Bill—how did metals get here? I'm assuming since there was no big bang, they've always been here, but I'm hoping your answer is a little more entertaining than "I don't need to explain how metals got here, because they've always been here."

Cosmic redshift. Obviously, neither stars nor galaxies have a recession velocity, since they're all at the same distance from the earth (4.5 ly), and presumably always have been. So what accounts for the observed redshift? Tired light? Intervening dust? God playing tricks on us?

Distance to the celestial sphere. Bill, you say you know the distance to the A Centauri system. But how did you derive that distance? By its parallax? Even if, as WKV points out, parallax could be due to a wobbly cosmic sphere, you wouldn't be able to determine the sphere's distance that way. The reason we know the distance to A Centauri is because we know the diameter of the earth's orbit around the— oh, wait. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun. So what's the base of the triangle that allows us to compute the distance to the celestial sphere?

I'm sure I'll think of other phenomena in need of explanation, but I thought I'd give you a few to get you started.

And yes, I will expect an explanation for all of them, since there's already a perfectly good, non-geocentric, explanation for them. No one said re-writing the laws of nature was going to be easy, or quick.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 29 2005,15:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just to give you a running start, I thought I'd include a few other, relatively non-controversial, astronomical observations, with the request that you explain how your model accounts for them:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  That's sweet of you, Matlock. I do appreciate your criticisms, as they help refine my thoughts. To avoid distraction, I'll try to incorporate my rebuttal within the work proper. Please understand, however, that the paper must simultaneously address many criticisms, so part of it might be rough going for those without calculus. The study must strike a balance between detail and clarity, and enchant in the process. I'll do what I can.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2005,05:46

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 29 2005,21:56)
  That's sweet of you, Matlock. I do appreciate your criticisms, as they help refine my thoughts. To avoid distraction, I'll try to incorporate my rebuttal within the work proper. Please understand, however, that the paper must simultaneously address many criticisms, so part of it might be rough going for those without calculus. The study must strike a balance between detail and clarity, and enchant in the process. I'll do what I can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, none of my questions are criticisms. I'm just wondering if your theory will have the breadth and explanatory power of the theory it purports to replace (I will admit that I've made certain predictions on that subject).

Therefore, there's no need for any rebuttal, since I haven't made any rebuttable assertions. However, my difficulties with higher mathematics shouldn't present an obstacle to you, since the currently-existing theory accounting for the above-referenced observations has been able to explain those observations without resorting to the sort of difficult mathematical formalisms favored by (what's his name again?) The Master(sm)(?). I have every confidence you'll be able to do the same.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 30 2005,07:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore, there's no need for any rebuttal, since I haven't made any rebuttable assertions. However, my difficulties with higher mathematics shouldn't present an obstacle to you, since the currently-existing theory accounting for the above-referenced observations has been able to explain those observations without resorting to the sort of difficult mathematical formalisms favored by (what's his name again?) The Master(sm)(?). I have every confidence you'll be able to do the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Fair enough. Actually, my first summary was a failed effort in that direction. I'll expand my abstracts a little more in the future. And by the way:

Dembski  -> The Wizard

Berlinski  -> The Master.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 30 2005,15:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please review Gauss.  It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly.  The equation set
E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}
    = 0 {R<r}
is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0.  A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}.  More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Vickland, although  still basically stupid, is intelligent for an evolutionist. Vicky, I am aware of the equations for a Gaussian sphere of thickness greater than zero. However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. Indeed, they are hypersolid, to stretch a metaphor. In addition, you appear to be confused about the symbols; this is partially my fault; that registered trademark symbol is actually the derivative of the field with respect to R, which is the field gradient if there is no angular variation.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So there is no discontinuity present,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



At this point you're correct. There is no authentic discontinuity, even as the thickness of the shell approaches zero. (Review your Delta functions if you have trouble understanding this.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The thickness is differential, my use of Fourier series is absolutely correct in light of this fact.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, absolutely none of this has anything to do with evolution.  In fact, Gaussian theory predates evolution.  Please stop using "evolutionistic" to mean "any scientific theory I oppose on theistic grounds."  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evolutionism was revealed to Nimrod by Satan at the Tower of Babel. It was not invented by a 19th century retard with a rich family who had a bunch of books ghost-written for him. Although an utter dolt, Chuckie had connections to dark powers that orcs like yourself following him can not begin to understand, even with liberal use of pinhead's cokespoon. He gave his money and  his soul to the purveyors of Atlantean magic in exchange for fame.

One more thing Wally--that is your first name, isn't it?--please find an optics expert for Nicky. In conclusion, all these issues will be resolved in due time, so please, I continue to beseech all of you to be patient.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2005,19:08

I have to say, Bill, I can't tell whether you really know what you're talking about or if you're just a great spinner of tales. But if you do know what you're talking about, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you hold Mr. Wizard in such high regard. It seems like the guy isn't even very competent in his own field of information theory…
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 01 2005,11:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have to say, Bill, I can't tell whether you really know what you're talking about or if you're just a great spinner of tales.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Here are some clues, Eric:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Unjustified call for multiple dimensions.  He could've picked 777 dimensions just as easily.  He also doesn't explain why a 7 dimensional ensemble would have 0 thickness in our 3 dimensions.  To help you imagine this for yourself, a 3D object still maintins a 2D length.  Why wouldn't a 7 dimensional ensemble maintain a 3D volume?  Paley is just spewing senseless jargon.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, this is the summation from n=1 to n=15, any more terms is too much for little evolutionistic minds to fathom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Needlessly working out lenghty expansions.  Don't let it impress you as much as he wants it to.  His basic assumptions have yet to be justified by anything.

Paley, don't worry about going over anyone's head here with the math.  You surely won't go over mine.  I'm eager to see how much time you'll waste with your theory.  Although, I certainly shouldn't call it a waste, it gives me a great laugh.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 01 2005,15:55

Cogzoid said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley, don't worry about going over anyone's head here with the math.  You surely won't go over mine.  I'm eager to see how much time you'll waste with your theory.  Although, I certainly shouldn't call it a waste, it gives me a great laugh.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I'm glad you find science so entertaining, Cogzie. But I must admit I find some of your actions strange for such a maths wizard:

 1) In our crime stats debate, you equivocated over what represents an "objective" counting stat. Early on, you compared our rape rate to those of European countries, but then balked when I brought up assaults, claiming that only murder could be accurately tallied. Surely you realise that rape has to be one of the most subjective crimes around, as many "rapists" have found to their abundant surprise (it doesn't help that victims frequently invent incidents to spite boyfriends or male coworkers - and no, I'm not speaking from personal experience, thank God).
 2) When I asked you why you were so careless about confounding factors, you never answered, nor defended your decision to compare heterogeneous populations - a practice that practically begs for an eccentric outcome, which arrived in timely fashion.
 3) You were strangely indifferent to the results from scientific surveys, which are often used by professional criminologists to verify police stats. Sure, victim's interpretations can differ, but that's why researchers avoid ambiguous questions. This practice is standard, and well known to beginning statistic students. Yet you seemed unaware of this.
  Once again, I'm not tweaking you, and I certainly don't want to revisit the debate, so I'll let you have the final response.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid.

Unjustified call for multiple dimensions.  He could've picked 777 dimensions just as easily.  He also doesn't explain why a 7 dimensional ensemble would have 0 thickness in our 3 dimensions.  To help you imagine this for yourself, a 3D object still maintins a 2D length.  Why wouldn't a 7 dimensional ensemble maintain a 3D volume?  Paley is just spewing senseless jargon.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I realise I wasn't being clear here, but I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that the n dimensional objects must inevitably map to n-1 shadows in n-space. Consider the < Klein bottle >, a two-dimensional manifold (or surface) that can only be physically realised in four spatial dimensions, but can be reduced to a one-sided < Moebius strip >! And yes, Cogzie, my source includes the relevant mappings and parameterizations just for you........
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 01 2005,18:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once again, I'm not tweaking you, and I certainly don't want to revisit the debate, so I'll let you have the final response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You don't want to revist the debate, but apparently you want to bring it up anyway.  You'll have to pardon my tardiness in replies lately.  I often get bored by your condescending drivel.  But lately I'm also recovering from the removal of God's little gift to humans, the appendix.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) In our crime stats debate, you equivocated over what represents an "objective" counting stat. Early on, you compared our rape rate to those of European countries, but then balked when I brought up assaults, claiming that only murder could be accurately tallied. Surely you realise that rape has to be one of the most subjective crimes around, as many "rapists" have found to their abundant surprise (it doesn't help that victims frequently invent incidents to spite boyfriends or male coworkers - and no, I'm not speaking from personal experience, thank God).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You're correct, I decided to throw out the rape, assaults, car thefts, etc. data, as I feel that those things are too subjective, or inaccurately gathered.  I'm allowed to refine my argument as we argue, am I not?  Was I not clear when I said "I'm not saying that murders are the only crimes that matter.  I'm saying that murders are the only crime statistic that is accurate."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) When I asked you why you were so careless about confounding factors, you never answered, nor defended your decision to compare heterogeneous populations - a practice that practically begs for an eccentric outcome, which arrived in timely fashion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Pardon me, I thought you were just being condescending.  And I generally don't reply to rudeness.  I thought that I had explained my reasoning for comparing heterogeneous populations:  "I prefer to look at all of our society, simply because I believe that we are all responsible for our society's ills.  I don't like to pass my responsibilty on to others.  And I sure hope that you don't claim that you or our fellow religious Americans have no impact on the crime problems of our inner cities."  You gave no comment to this, perhaps you passed over it?  Perhaps now would be a good time to explain how the religious Republicans are only responsible when crime is prevented.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) You were strangely indifferent to the results from scientific surveys, which are often used by professional criminologists to verify police stats. Sure, victim's interpretations can differ, but that's why researchers avoid ambiguous questions. This practice is standard, and well known to beginning statistic students. Yet you seemed unaware of this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm sorry, is this a question?  My apathy and surgery pain prevent me from replying to this one.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I realise I wasn't being clear here, but I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that the n dimensional objects must inevitably map to n-1 shadows in n-space. Consider the Klein bottle, a two-dimensional manifold (or surface) that can only be physically realised in four spatial dimensions, but can be reduced to a one-sided Moebius strip! And yes, Cogzie, my source includes the relevant mappings and parameterizations just for you........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sure, higher dimensional objects don't have to be renderable in lower dimensions.  What 7 dimensional object is our star pattern then, such that it doesn't have 3D volume.  Perhaps you'd care to Euclidate.  I just don't want you to get a free ride on the Theory of Everything.  Why did you pick 7?  Or is it because that is a Godly number?

All I can stomach at the moment,
Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 02 2005,05:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps now would be a good time to explain how the religious Republicans are only responsible when crime is prevented.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Liberals had three full decades to make an impact, and boy did they ever. It's our turn now.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 02 2005,06:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You'll have to pardon my tardiness in replies lately.  I often get bored by your condescending drivel.  But lately I'm also recovering from the removal of God's little gift to humans, the appendix.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Sorry to hear about your surgery. I hope that you have a fast recovery.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 02 2005,09:24

Thanks, Paley.  I'm sure I'll be back in the saddle soon.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 02 2005,09:34

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 02 2005,11:52)
Liberals had three full decades to make an impact, and boy did they ever. It's our turn now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And boy are you ever.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 02 2005,10:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 02 2005,11:52)
Liberals had three full decades to make an impact, and boy did they ever. It's our turn now.

And boy are you ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 With all due respect, having the Commander-in-Chimp representing us is like being told you've won the lottery, but are being paid in Monopoly money...........
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 02 2005,13:16

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 02 2005,16:21)

 With all due respect, having the Commander-in-Chimp representing us is like being told you've won the lottery, but are being paid in Monopoly money...........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, I'd be the first to admit that anyone who thinks the current administration is in any way implementing "conservative" policies is hallucinating.

But, what does any of this have to do with the original topic of this thread?
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 02 2005,17:37

Paley,

I'm catching a slight bit of energy, and I'd like to point out some aspects about your theory.  Rather than fill pages of text about it's problems, I'll just focus on a small aspect at a time.  In general, I have no problem with the equations or substititions that he made, although I cannot follow it that well due to some formatting errors in the written text.  An example is this:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the value of ƒàƒ|ƒn(Evolutionists, being basically stupid often need this explained to them.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I guess I'm pretty dumb for not knowing what ƒàƒ|ƒn means.  I don't blame you of course, but I'd like for you to fix this eventually so dumb evos like me can follow.

My focus today will be on:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, there are still a few unexplained parts in equation 10. Indeed, those of you who actually bothered to read the paper in question and find out the evolutionists who wrote it meant the equation to be applied to solids will dismiss my application of it to this kind of problem as utterly bogus, but that is just another evolutionistic presupposition, not a reality. The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of ¡§nothingness¡¨ allows you to believe in a ¡§vacuum.¡¨
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I'm curious about the nature of your ether.  A perfect crystalline solid, eh?  My understanding of crystals is that they are ordered "atoms".  Table salt for example being a lattice of Na and Cl atoms, that generally are in a simple "every other" pattern.  What are the "atoms" of ether made of?  Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand?  If the ether isn't made of baryonic matter, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it?  If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators?  What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal?  Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky?  How do the stars get trapped in it?  Are the stars even made out of baryonic matter?  Is this the same as Michelson and Morley's ether?  (I'm assuming you'll claim they couldn't find any because the earth isn't moving afterall.)  Are there any independant tests we can make to see or demonstrate this ether?  Or is this just another unprovable conjecture on which your theory relies?

That's all I have for right now.

-Dan
Posted by: scordova on Dec. 03 2005,14:06

Dear Ghost of Paley,


How in the world did I ever miss your postings!  This has been an enormously refeshing thread.  Today was the first time I've ever seen your postings.

I'm really enjoying your fine work.  I feel much humbled to see your intellect and humor shine through.  I may not agree with everything, but I enjoy reading your posts.

regards,
Salvador Cordova
Posted by: scordova on Dec. 03 2005,14:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dan requested of the noble Reverend Paley:

Please, keep the self-aggrandizing and conspiracy theories to a minimum in the future.  I tire easily of unnecessary and unwarranted gloating

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, we want more, we want more.


Sal :D
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 03 2005,22:09

Salvador

You do realise Mr Ghost of Paley is a parody, don't you?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 04 2005,11:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador

You do realise Mr Ghost of Paley is a parody, don't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Thanks, Mr. Fox, for giving a real-time example of the transition of an idea from speculation to settled fact. One of the few transitions, I note, that can be easily found in the Evo literature. :D


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  

Dan requested of the noble Reverend Paley:

Please, keep the self-aggrandizing and conspiracy theories to a minimum in the future.  I tire easily of unnecessary and unwarranted gloating



No, we want more, we want more.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Oh, don't worry about that. I can tone down the sass upon request, but ain't no-one takin' away my right to say 2+2=4, even if he is a fellow Southerner, or his last name is.....O'Brien.
Posted by: scordova on Dec. 04 2005,13:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You do realise Mr Ghost of Paley is a parody, don't you?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Even if he's a parody (which is only your hypothesis) he's more entertaining and brilliant and sensible than anything I've seen coming out of the ole Earth Darwinists when they're trying to be serious and logical.  Darwinists are perennially distasteful when they're trying to defend their theory, not really very well humored....

Even a slight parody of creationism is far superior to serious Darwinism (a joke trying to pretend to be a serious theory).   :D

Ah yes, Dembski's sublime writings, good for the soul.  Far superior to the plagerism Chuck committed against the creationist Blythe....

Sal
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 04 2005,15:03

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 04 2005,17:54)
 Oh, don't worry about that. I can tone down the sass upon request, but ain't no-one takin' away my right to say 2+2=4, even if he is a fellow Southerner, or his last name is.....O'Brien.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, but before this discussion goes completely off the rails: how are we doing with your accounting for the various astronomical observations I set out a few pages back? I'm waiting with bated breath...
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 05 2005,00:10

Mr The Ghost of Paley wrote, with that disarming irony

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks, Mr. Fox, for giving a real-time example of the transition of an idea from speculation to settled fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As with evolutionary theory, evidence accumulates with your every post to establish the theory beyond rational argument.

Salvador, you wrote



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even if he's a parody (which is only your hypothesis) he's more entertaining and brilliant and sensible than anything I've seen coming out of the ole Earth Darwinists when they're trying to be serious and logical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree to the extent that Mr Paley does not lack wit or literary skill. Which is why I find it impossible to believe he is serious about geocentrism. By the way, are you still maintaining that Genetic-ID are employing techniques of "Intelligent Design" in their certification of gm-free plant material?

Cogzoid

I hope you can laugh and sneeze OK now. Having just had my prostate removed, I can empathise. But, looking on the bright side, forced recuperation at home for the next couple of weeks or so will allow endless opportunities to engage the rapier mind of Mr Paley.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 05 2005,06:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, but before this discussion goes completely off the rails: how are we doing with your accounting for the various astronomical observations I set out a few pages back? I'm waiting with bated breath...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Yeah, I realise I've been slow to respond lately. I'll try to get something up tonight that addresses a few of the issues. Mr. Cordova will have to provide the fireworks for now....
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 05 2005,09:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess I'm pretty dumb for not knowing what ƒàƒ|ƒn means.  I don't blame you of course, but I'd like for you to fix this eventually so dumb evos like me can follow.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, this is my fault. That symbol was supposed to be Pi. I will resolve the graphical issues in my posts that will explain it all.
Posted by: scordova on Dec. 05 2005,10:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

By the way, are you still maintaining that Genetic-ID are employing techniques of "Intelligent Design" in their certification of gm-free plant material?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're phrasing of my position is inaccurate to the max.  It is symptomatic of a malady I see amongnst many deniers of design.  

I prescribe as medicine, a daily reading of the sublime works of Dembski and Berlinski.  Good medine for the soul.  It will clarify thy confused thinking.

When thou hast read Design Inference and No Free Lunch, I can then set you straight on your plentitudinous miscomprehensions of ID.


But you must own the books first.  You can do so by making combined donation to the wedge for $110.00




< No Free Lunch > for $35.00



and



< Design Inference > for $75.00

And if you can't fork up the money, I recommend fasting every week so you can save up to make the donations.  Fast and repent of Darwin, and you will see the light.  :)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 05 2005,10:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal?  Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The crystals are perfectly packed spheres differential is size. Since their distribution is uniform below the level of the firmament, the answer to your second question is no.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What are the "atoms" of ether made of?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They are made of qunitessence, of course. Differentially sized sized crystals provide a way to preserve the material structure of the universe, but also its continuiuty. My theory has finally settled the debate between the atomists and Aristotaliens. The material world is real, but still exhibits no disorder.

I hope this sheds some light on the overall evolutionism/intellegent design debate. Evolutionists think like their atomistic predecessors that matter moves randomly in an empty void until interacting with other randomly interacting matter. Intellegent design theorists (Plato and Aristotle belong in this category, despite not having access to the Bible.) responded by claiming that intellegence is necessary for the order and purpose in the universe, but failed to fully account for thge material world. (This is the source of the evolutionistic wailing that intellegent design is a "supernatural" explanation and can hence be dismissed.) My crystalline ether theory makes it possible for final causes to be made manifest in the material universe, for thought itself can move objects of differential size. I think this not only proves my own theory, but answers the only critque evolutionists ever really had.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2005,11:08

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 05 2005,12:46)
Yeah, I realise I've been slow to respond lately. I'll try to get something up tonight that addresses a few of the issues. Mr. Cordova will have to provide the fireworks for now....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For what it's worth, Bill, I don't think you're a parody. I do think you're an instigator who likes to rile people up, and I don't think you necessarily believe everything you say you believe. You certainly don't believe the entire universe revolves around the earth. I think you've hinted at your agenda earlier, which I still think is ill-conceived. But I'm very curious to see what your next substantive post will say...
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 05 2005,11:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I prescribe as medicine, a daily reading of the sublime works of Dembski and Berlinski.  Good medine for the soul.  It will clarify thy confused thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah! Maybe this is Bill himself shilling. Perhaps the < fast-food trade > is a liitle slow this time of year.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 05 2005,14:09

Sorry for the typos - I hit the "Add Reply" key when I meant to preview.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For what it's worth, Bill, I don't think you're a parody. I do think you're an instigator who likes to rile people up, and I don't think you necessarily believe everything you say you believe. You certainly don't believe the entire universe revolves around the earth. I think you've hinted at your agenda earlier, which I still think is ill-conceived. But I'm very curious to see what your next substantive post will say...[my emphasis]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nooooooo!!!!!! Not this crap again. Eric, please don't play games like Hyperion. Just say what you mean - I promise I won't get offended.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 05 2005,15:09

Empirical support for the quintessence can be found < here. > Of course, my crystalline sphere has important multidimensional properties as well, but this should give a sample of my thinking:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Last year, while Kim was a graduate student, he and physicist Moses Chan used the can to squeeze ultracold helium into a crystalline solid that appears to flow without resistance--like a liquid with no viscosity. For decades physicists had mused about such a bizarre "supersolid," and others had searched for and failed to find it. So Kim and Chan's results have touched off a flurry of activity among experimenters and a debate among theorists as to whether it's even possible for a perfect crystal to flow. They are rejuvenating helium physics, a small field that has played a large role in shaping modern physics (see sidebar, p. 39).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   For more enlightenment, please consult < this paper. > I think the calculations are a bit crude, but it's a good starting point for my monograph, which will also use the concept of dipole moments to explain the n-body "gravitational" phenomenon. Given the relative magnitude of < Coulomb > forces to gravity, this approach should be fruitful, and my marriage of Bose to Maxwell will lead to the unification of all physics.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2005,17:07

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 05 2005,20<!--emo&:0)
Nooooooo!!!!!! Not this crap again. Eric, please don't play games like Hyperion. Just say what you mean - I promise I won't get offended.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying exactly what I mean. I don't think you're a parody (i.e., someone who believes evolution is a broadly accurate description of reality who is pretending to be a creationist, and someone who claims to be a geocentrist just to goad the scientists on this site), but I do think you're only claiming to believe the universe is centered on the earth, and you're using arguments supporting that belief as a stalking horse for another point entirely, i.e., that evolution is not as well-supported as, e.g., modern astrophysics and cosmology.

In other words, I don't think you're a parody, but I don't think you're necessarily being completely up-front about your beliefs. Which is fine; not intended as a criticism. I just think at times you're pulling our collective leg, as it were.

But I still want to hear your explanations for the various phenomena I pointed out. I see it as an exercise for your ingenuity. :-)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2005,17:12

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 05 2005,21:09)
   For more enlightenment, please consult < this paper. > I think the calculations are a bit crude, but it's a good starting point for my monograph, which will also use the concept of dipole moments to explain the n-body "gravitational" phenomenon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Busted link alert.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2005,17:18

Completely off-topic: I was at Trader Joe's last night, and saw some Guacamole called "Avocado's Number." Supposedly it was made from the meat of only five avocados, though. Off by about 23 orders of magnitude, or a bit more than my estimate of the earth's mass using Bill's assumptions.

:-)
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 05 2005,18:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The crystals are perfectly packed spheres differential is size. Since their distribution is uniform below the level of the firmament, the answer to your second question is no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Let me try to understand this.  The stars are caught in a perfect crystal of dark energy.  Of course, bringing quintessence into this only raises more questions.  First off, what do you mean by "their distribution is uniform below the level of the firmament"?  Don't be afraid of concise physics jargon, Paley.  I'm certainly not.  Do you mean these balls of quintessence are smaller than the Planck scale?  That's the only thing I can guess you meant from that statement.  Even if that is true, why wouldn't they still have a crystalline lattice with a particular structure?  Does it have the lattice of a diamond? table salt? or any of a myriad of other options?  Every crystal has axes.  Why would quintessence crystals be different?  Of course, I know the real reason they have to be.  Because you are afraid of proposing a theory with falsifiable consequences.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
for thought itself can move objects of differential size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

experiment?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think this not only proves my own theory, but answers the only critque evolutionists ever really had.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You're getting ahead of yourself, little breeches.  What proof?  You haven't even finished your theory.  Besides, I haven't even started with the critiques, my friend.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Empirical support for the quintessence can be found here. Of course, my crystalline sphere has important multidimensional properties as well
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I think you meant "Empircal support for super-fluid solids is < here >." Nothing is mentioned about quintessence.  Nothing at all.  The properties of baryons cannot be transferred to other forms of matter.  Not even fermions.  Why do you jump to the conclusion that your quintessence balls are described by Bose-Einstien statistics instead of Fermi-Dirac statistics, or an entirely different set of statistics all together?

You forgot some questions, Paley:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand?  If the ether isn't made of baryonic matter, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it?  If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators?  What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal?  Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky?  How do the stars get trapped in it?  Are the stars even made out of baryonic matter?  Are there any independant tests we can make to see or demonstrate this ether?  Or is this just another unprovable conjecture on which your theory relies?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You want to start with a clear theory, don't you?  You don't want to be accused of dodging honest questions about your theory.

So far, I've given you nothing but honest, straight questions about your theory, Paley.  I'll need you to flush it out more (and correct the previous formatting errors) before I can begin to critique it.

--Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 06 2005,06:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Busted link alert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 And this after I checked the *&^%$ link twice. Let me try again:

< A wavefunction describing superfluidity in a perfect crystal. >  Zhai/Wu, 2005. Journal of Statistical Mechanics.
 
    This should also give the Cogzser something to chew over. More later.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[B]ut I do think you're only claiming to believe the universe is centered on the earth, and you're using arguments supporting that belief as a stalking horse for another point entirely, i.e., that evolution is not as well-supported as, e.g., modern astrophysics and cosmology.

In other words, I don't think you're a parody, but I don't think you're necessarily being completely up-front about your beliefs. Which is fine; not intended as a criticism. I just think at times you're pulling our collective leg, as it were.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Not really, although I can see where you got that impression. Even if that had been my intention, it wouldn't have worked, since you and Cogzoid have admitted that you don't have any training in Evo biology. Now if P.Z. or Nick or Lilith had to retreat to sniping at my geocentrism, this would have established the paucity of support for Darwinism. But I'll stick to physics for now.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 06 2005,07:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you mean these balls of quintessence are smaller than the Planck scale?  That's the only thing I can guess you meant from that statement.  Even if that is true, why wouldn't they still have a crystalline lattice with a particular structure?  Does it have the lattice of a diamond? table salt? or any of a myriad of other options?  Every crystal has axes.  Why would quintessence crystals be different?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be careful about dichotomizing the universe into Apollonian baryons and Dionysian dark matter. My condensate aether, while baryonic in structure, possesses many properties that founder Darwin. For example, < my condensate > can slow light, fiddle with refractive indices, and thwart friction: these properties prevent your feeble attempts at pigeonholing. Of course, the traditional condensate is extremely temperature sensitive, which would seem to preclude its existence in a universe with appreciable background radiation, but I will show that this objection is quite specious. Y'all should feel grateful that I've blessed your board with Nobel-level physics.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 06 2005,07:57

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 06 2005,13:38)
Y'all should feel grateful that I've blessed your board with Nobel-level physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, Bill, statements like this put up everyone's crank-alerts. :-)

I suppose we should be flattered that a Nobel candidate would bother to visit our humble discussion group, but let's just say the likelihood of something like that actually happening are pretty slim. The chances that any Nobel candidate would really be a geocentrist are beyond slim. So—

A. You actually are a Nobel candidate, in which case I was right about you; or

B. You're not a Nobel candidate, but I was probably still right about you.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 06 2005,08:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So—

A. You actually are a Nobel candidate, in which case I was right about you; or

B. You're not a Nobel candidate, but I was probably still right about you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
  Ahhhh.....an Evo prediction in full flower!  :D
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 06 2005,08:33

Something quick before I head out,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Be careful about dichotomizing the universe into Apollonian baryons and Dionysian dark matter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I didn't dichotomize between the two.  I asked whether your dark matter is made of baryons or fermions or something new.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My condensate aether, while baryonic in structure, possesses many properties that founder Darwin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Don't hide behind obfuscating language, Paley.  What does "baryonic in structure" mean?  Either the balls display Bose-Einstein statistics, or they don't.  And why is Darwin the constant measuring stick for a scientist.  All of this stuff was developed long after his death.  You might as well say "properties that founder Newton" as at least he was in the relevant field.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, my condensate can slow light, fiddle with refractive indices, and thwart friction: these properties prevent your feeble attempts at pigeonholing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

BECs aren't magic, Paley.  They are a straightforward product of the BE statistics in thermodynamics and stat mech.  The only pigeonhole preventer here is your deliberately obfuscating language.  (By design, I'm sure.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, the traditional condensate is extremely temperature sensitive, which would seem to preclude its existence in a universe with appreciable background radiation, but I will show that this objection is quite specious. Y'all should feel grateful that I've blessed your board with Nobel-level physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Citing Nobel-level physics is easy.  Understanding it and using it are entirely different beasts.  So far you've demonstrated that you know how to look things up, but your lack of understanding comes through in your exposition.  You clearly don't know what you are talking about.  And unfortunately for you, I'm not prone to having the physics wool pulled over my eyes.

You still have many questions that you need to address.

-Dan
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 06 2005,11:10

I just realized that I made a mistake.  I was talking about dark energy when I said "Why do you jump to the conclusion that your quintessence balls are described by Bose-Einstien statistics instead of Fermi-Dirac statistics, or an entirely different set of statistics all together?"  But, when Paley said: "Be careful about dichotomizing the universe into Apollonian baryons and Dionysian dark matter." I should've pointed out his error, instead of saying this "I didn't dichotomize between the two.  I asked whether your dark matter is made of baryons or fermions or something new."

Now, let me describe the error.  Dark Matter is most definitely NOT Dark Energy.  They are completely different beasts with completely different effects on our universe.  Despite the fact that E=mc^2, even.  Dark Matter is a kludge to properly accomodate for the dispersion of rotational velocities of galaxies.  The stars on the fringe of the galaxy are moving way too fast, if the visible matter is all there is.  Of course, there was a recent paper about this problem being solved by a complete usage of GR in the calculation.  The basic idea is that the Newtonian approximations weren't good enough, afterall.  I'm not sure of how this paper has been accepted yet.  Dark Energy, on the other hand, is another kludge, but on a universal scale.  Dark Energy is used to explain why the universe seems to still be accelerating in it's expansion rate.  Until recent data showed otherwise, we assumed we were in a universe that was slowing down it's expansion, as gravitational forces took their toll.  Now it seems that not only is our universe not slowing down, but it's speeding up.  This surely won't help our future star travel prospects.  Paley, confused Dark Energy and Dark Matter.  I did too.  I hope this fixes any confusion.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A wavefunction describing superfluidity in a perfect crystal.   Zhai/Wu, 2005. Journal of Statistical Mechanics.

   This should also give the Cogzser something to chew over. More later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This paper, once again, has nothing to do with quintessence.  It describes more about our friend, super-fluid Helium.

I think you are under the impression that because you use the same words as they do that they are supporting your argument.  But, you made an assumption: that there is a sphere of supersolid, crystalline quintessence.  These people are writing papers about supersolid, superfluid Helium.  Now you have to connect the two, before you claim any evidence for your theory.  Surely, you can claim that your theory relies on these supersolid theories.  But until you demonstrate some evidence of the nature of your quintessence, these Helium experiments and theories don't support your theory at all.  As an example, you can make a theory that requires the earth to be hollow.  But until you demonstrate that it is, theories about how basketballs are hollow do not support your theory.  I'm not sure what logical fallacy this is, but it's a big one, and I hope you stop using it, now that I've pointed it out to you.

Cheers,
Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 06 2005,11:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't hide behind obfuscating language, Paley.  What does "baryonic in structure" mean?  Either the balls display Bose-Einstein statistics, or they don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I was just mimicking the loose language used on this board. Are you trying to ask, "Is the condensate composed of fermions, bosons, or fermions mediated by bosons?" Or are you asking me to which type of fermion the condensate belongs? I realise that the condensate cannot obey the Pauli exclusion principle, so scientists would normally classify it as boson-like. But as recent research reveals, neither God nor Nature obey man's dictates.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 06 2005,12:09

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 06 2005,13:38)
My condensate aether, while baryonic in structure, possesses many properties that founder Darwin. For example, < my condensate > can slow light, fiddle with refractive indices, and thwart friction: these properties prevent your feeble attempts at pigeonholing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know, Bill. How are these properties different from any superfluid? Any crystal (e.g., table salt) can "slow light, fiddle with refractive indices..." And any superfluid (e.g., helium II) flows without friction.

Doesn't sound all that impressive to me...
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 06 2005,14:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was just mimicking the loose language used on this board.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You really should hold yourself to higher standards.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you trying to ask, "Is the condensate composed of fermions, bosons, or fermions mediated by bosons?" Or are you asking me to which type of fermion the condensate belongs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm asking you to concisely describe your crystalline quintessence.  You lead, I'll follow.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I realise that the condensate cannot obey the Pauli exclusion principle, so scientists would normally classify it as boson-like. But as recent research reveals, neither God nor Nature obey man's dictates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sigh.  I guess I'll never get a straight answer out of you.  I'm not asking you to divulge info about someone else's thoery.  I'm asking you about your own, Paley.  Are you afraid of somehow being wrong?

So, I'll help you out.  Let me know what part of this I have wrong, if any.  Then you can correct that part.

Ether is made up of a crystal of quintessence particles.  Each little particle is differential in size and behaves like a boson.  Together they form a super-solid crystal that can flow without friction, much like the recently discovered Bose-Einstein Condensates and the recent work on Solid He4.

Now, you still have plenty more questions to answer.

Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand?
What forces does quintessence interact with?  Gravity, Strong, Electro-Magnetic, Weak?
If the ether interacts with different forces, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it?  
If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators?  
What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal? (differential is the size of the "atoms" but how far away are they from each other?)
Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky?
How do the stars get trapped in it?
Are the stars even made out of baryonic matter?  
Are there any independant tests we can make to see or demonstrate this ether?

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 07 2005,08:41

I'll try to fill in the details later tonight, but here are a few answers to Cogzoid's questions:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Certainly not, it doesn't have the requisite quark structure.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What forces does quintessence interact with?  Gravity, Strong, Electro-Magnetic, Weak?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 The quintessence interacts with the strong force, but not like a typical fermion. The strong force and gravity combine to align the quarks in a single direction (more on this later). Since the quintessence conducts electricity, it also interacts with the electroweak force (of course of course)  ;)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the ether interacts with different forces, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Since you haven't seen the model yet, we don't know how it all fits together. But later we will.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 See above. The quark structure is different, so no, not at present. Don't worry, I'll propose some tests along with the model.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal? (differential is the size of the "atoms" but how far away are they from each other?)
Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 "Infinitesimal" and "no", respectively. Remember, bosonic materials don't obey Pauli. And the quark alignment (along with the unique optical properties present in most condensates) would be impossible to detect with a telescope. Once again, I'll propose some tests later.

 Eric - don't worry, I'll give your questions due consideration tonight (hopefully). I just think it's important to answer the primary structure questions before hitting the secondary and tertiary structure of my model.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2005,08:47

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 07 2005,14:41)
Eric - don't worry, I'll give your questions due consideration tonight (hopefully). I just think it's important to answer the primary structure questions before hitting the secondary and tertiary structure of my model.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems like a lotta work just to show that the sun goes around the earth. :-)
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 07 2005,10:52

As I thought, already way over your head, Paley.

Can you hold it in your hand?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly not, it doesn't have the requisite quark structure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What forces does quintessence interact with?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since the quintessence conducts electricity, it also interacts with the electroweak force (of course of course)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently, you don't understand what allows us to hold things in our hand.  The atoms that make up your skin push on each other.  It is not the nucleus that does this pushing, but the spinning electron clouds that are interacting.  The electro-weak force is the force that keeps the ground below our feet "solid".  Quarks have nothing to do with it.  In one sentence you say I can't touch it.  Then you say that it reacts to the electro-weak forces.  Which is it?  I hope you can see how you making such a simple and basic mistake undermines your future endeavors in my mind.  Already your understanding is inconsistent with small things.  How can you be trusted to come up with a consistent grand unified theory?

-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2005,11:28

Quote (cogzoid @ Dec. 07 2005,16:52)
Already your understanding is inconsistent with small things.  How can you be trusted to come up with a consistent grand unified theory?

-Dan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I can't wait to see the answers to my questions. :-)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 07 2005,12:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I thought, already way over your head, Paley.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Now, now, your mamma taught you better than that, Cogzie. Besides, there was a gentleman here who once warned me of the dangers of self-aggrandizement, so be careful lest he admonish you as well. :p


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apparently, you don't understand what allows us to hold things in our hand.  The atoms that make up your skin push on each other.  It is not the nucleus that does this pushing, but the spinning electron clouds that are interacting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  Wow, Cogzie, you're such a good tutor that I find myself understanding your points before you even make them. Now if only my skills would let me return the favor, or at least allow you to understand me in the present. Instead, I must repeat myself:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The quintessence interacts with the strong force, but not like a typical fermion. The strong force and gravity combine to align the quarks in a single direction (more on this later). Since the quintessence conducts electricity, it also interacts with the electroweak force (of course of course)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Like, perhaps, a < photon. >

How are photons classified, Cogzie?

  More later.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 07 2005,13:22

One more thing: I didn't mean to imply that photons carry both the weak and electromagnetic forces. It takes leptons or heavier particles to do that, of course. This also explains this comment:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The quintessence interacts with the strong force, but not like a typical fermion. The strong force and gravity combine to align the quarks in a single direction (more on this later).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Hadrons are not the building blocks of quintessence, so something else must explain its interaction with the strong force.
Posted by: Ved on Dec. 07 2005,14:11

Sounds like this stuff can do it all, a kind of goo of the gaps.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 07 2005,14:41

Paley, you almost make a good point.  Photons react with the electro-weak force.  But we can't hold photons!  What gives?!

Photons, however, still react with our atoms.  Put your hand between the screen and your eyes to demonstrate.  One can't "hold" the photons for a number of reasons.  Firstly, they get absorbed by the atoms.  Secondly, they go the speed of light, so they would need to be trapped some how.  A trap, maybe like the lattice of some magic crystal, would suffice.

You still failed to understand that there is no "requisite quark structure" to hold something in your hand.  It's all electric.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, now, your mamma taught you better than that, Cogzie. Besides, there was a gentleman here who once warned me of the dangers of self-aggrandizement, so be careful lest he admonish you as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe you should look up self-aggrandizing.  Saying that you are over your head when you demonstrate lack of understanding of fundamental physics while attempting to formulate a GUT doesn't seem like a ridiculous comment to me.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow, Cogzie, you're such a good tutor that I find myself understanding your points before you even make them. Now if only my skills would let me return the favor, or at least allow you to understand me in the present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm also teaching the non-physicists that are reading this thread, Paley.  Your sarcasm is unwarranted.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It takes leptons or heavier particles to do that, of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Particle physics not a strong point, eh Paley.  Looking at < your website > it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force.  Photons and W and Z Bosons do that.  First paragraph, too.  I'm dissappointed, Paley.

But, please, don't let these details slow you down.  I'm still waiting for the next installment with bated breath.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 07 2005,15:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Particle physics not a strong point, eh Paley.  Looking at your website it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force.  Photons and W and Z Bosons do that.  First paragraph, too.  I'm dissappointed, Paley.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sloppy wording on my part, yes. W and Z bosons mediate the weak force, but they can only act on < leptons or heavier particles (for the most part, at least. Neutrinos are an exception). > By the way, are you implying that photons carry the weak force? Or is it just the massive gauge bosons?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You still failed to understand that there is no "requisite quark structure" to hold something in your hand.  It's all electric.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, I've really been < misinformed: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hadrons are defined as strongly interacting composite particles. Hadrons are either bosons (named: mesons), or fermions (named: baryons)
Ordinary baryons contain three valence quarks or three valence antiquarks each.
Nucleons are the proton and the neutron, the fermionic constituents of normal atomic nuclei.
Hyperons such as the Ä, Ë, Î and Ù particles are generally short-lived and heavier than nucleons. They do not normally appear in atomic nuclei.
Ordinary mesons contain a valence quark and a valence antiquark, and include the pions, the kaons and many other types of mesons. In quantum hadrodynamic models the strong force between nucleons is mediated by mesons.
Exotic baryons have been discovered only recently.
Pentaquarks consist of four valence quarks and one valence antiquark.
Exotic mesons are predicted by new theories.
Tetraquarks consist of two valence quarks and two valence antiquarks.
Glueballs are bound states of two or more real gluons.
Hybrid s consist of one or more valence quark-antiquark pairs and one or more real gluons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, those quarks sure are unrelated to a particle's structure.....
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 07 2005,18:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sloppy wording on my part, yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's not just sloppy wording.  It's incorrect language.  And it speaks volumes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gee, I've really been misinformed:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope, you just are unable to read.  I didn't say that quarks are unrelated to a particle's structure (a completely different point).  I said that there is no "requisite quark structure" for one to be able to "hold" something (apparently you disagree).  Unfortunately, your source says nothing about this, but offers great definitions for your future discourse.  And you demonstrate that you still fail to understand the (important!) subtleties.  And do you still have to rely on tired sarcasm?  *sigh*



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
leptons or heavier particles (for the most part, at least. Neutrinos are an exception)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And just so no one reading this gets confused: Neutrinos ARE leptons.  I don't know why Paley seems to imply otherwise (more sloppiness?).

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 08 2005,09:44

Cogzoid, you are priceless; you're not just a peach, you're an Evopeach! With your permission, I'd like to dub thee "Roshi" - you've certainly earned the title. But I digress.

   Let's back up and take stock of the situation. Apparently, Roshi-san finds me a rather dull student who needs polishing before being permitted to share knowledge with the other daiya no genseki. Clothed with this conviction, Roshi-san's yuurei journeys to a shadow world in which he sees ignorance in a bad choice of words, fear in a mote of expression. Since I am not blessed with Roshi-san's insight, I will use the humble methods available to gaijin.

 1) Did Paley confuse dark matter with dark energy?
 Not really. Paley was just following the train of Cogzoid's thought. Since we were discussing matter at the time, Paley correctly divined Cogzoid's real meaning. Since Cogzoid owned up to this gaffe, the discussion wasn't harmed.

2) Was Paley wrong when he used the phrase, "requisite quark structure"?
 As Cogzoid so elegantly explained, electrostatic forces govern intermolecular attraction. These range from weak London forces to stronger dipole-dipole forces, which result from partial charge separation in the molecule. One particularly strong force is hydrogen bonding, which results from a positive hydrogen atom in one molecule being tugged to molecules containing lone pairs of negative electrons (they are called lone pairs because they don't participate in the covalent bonds between valence, or outer shell, electrons). Molecules with flourine, nitrogen or oxygen atoms are particularly prone to this attraction.
  What about intramolecular forces? Electrons play a big role here as well. Recall that the atom is composed of three particles: electrons, neutrons, and protons. Neutrons and protons reside in the nucleus, while electrons inhabit "concentric" shells that surround the nucleus. Complex probability density equations describe the regions where electrons may be found in these shells, while other equations govern the movement of electrons between shells. Much to Cogzoid's probable displeasure, I will ignore them, as well as the accompanying jargon, in favor of a common and very loose analogy.
  Think of the nucleus as being a small village in the center of concentric, circular towns. Or imagine the conventional model of the solar system. Let's say a villager wishes to locate an electron in a surrounding town. One might start by finding which town, or orbit, the electron inhabits. Then one would locate the hotel at which the hotel rests. Then one calls the hotel clerk to find the room number. With this information, one goes to the room, opens the door, and finds the electron sleeping on the left side of the bed. We've accomplished our goal at last! This represents the heart of quantum numbers and electron configurations.
  Why is this important? Because electrical interactions govern bonding as well as the structure of the atom. The problem is, they are in turn influenced by the nucleus. After all, without the nucleus, there is no atom; without the atom, no baryonic matter (you know, the stuff of Cogzoid's dreams). And what is the nucleus made of? Quarks, of course (with a little help from gluons).
 In fact, there is a specific quark blueprint that determines whether or not a particle will be a proton or neutron. Recall that a proton possesses a +1 charge. Why? Because protons are composed of three quarks - two up quarks, each with a +2/3 charge, and a down quark, with a -1/3 charge. Neutrons reverse this scheme, with two down quarks and only one up quark. If you sum the charges, you'll see why neutrons are, well, neutral.
 Now here's the interesting part. A particle isn't necessarily frozen in one identity: a neutron, for example, can decay into a proton, electron, and antineutrino during beta decay (in this case, beta - decay). But if you check a Feynman diagram, you will see that there is an < intermediate > step in which the neutron emits a proton and W-boson, which in turn splits into the electron/antineutrino lepton/antilepton pair.
 How does this transformation happen? By a down quark "flipping" into an up quark! Although electrons themselves are considered point particles, they can be created by a quark flavor change, which in turn changes the identity of the matter in question. Of course, there are other examples, but this will suffice for now. For more detail, check < here. >

 In other words, I stand behind my statement. :D

3) Was Paley's lepton comment appropriate?
 In a word, no. Although literally true - "heavier particles" such as the gauge W / Z bosons do carry the weak force - the statement, despite the insertion of the word "or", clearly implies that leptons carry the weak force. But in gloating over this error, Cogzoid made a mistake of his own in implying that protons carry the electromagnetic and weak forces:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Looking at your website it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force.  Photons and W and Z Bosons do that.  First paragraph, too.  I'm dissappointed, Paley.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 So if my mistake constitutes an impeachable sin, how should we interpret Cogzoid's blunder? Being charitable, I will pass it off as sloppy wording. Notice, however, that I corrected my mistake, while Cogzoid snipped around his. Don't worry Cogzie, I forgive you. :)

4) Finally, do I imply that neutrinos aren't leptons?
Perhaps, but if you check the structure of the offending sentence, you'll see that I was attempting to contrast the neutrino's small rest mass with the mass of W/Z gauge bosons. In other words, I created an objection by attempting to thwart another. Oh well.
 
 I hope this helps.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2005,10:13

Based on the length of this discussion and the disagreements on quantum-mechanical minutiae, I'm estimating we'll get to discussion of using Cepheids to come to an agreement on the value of Hubbell's constant in, oh, 2016.

By the way, have we cleared up misunderstandings regarding the consensus phylogenetic tree, or is that still on the menu (to be discussed starting in the fall of 2025)?
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 08 2005,10:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cogzoid, you are priceless; you're not just a peach, you're an Evopeach! With your permission, I'd like to dub thee "Roshi" - you've certainly earned the title. But I digress.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And now name calling?  C'mon, Paley, let's keep this civil.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Did Paley confuse dark matter with dark energy?
Not really. Paley was just following the train of Cogzoid's thought. Since we were discussing matter at the time, Paley correctly divined Cogzoid's real meaning. Since Cogzoid owned up to this gaffe, the discussion wasn't harmed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A careful re-reading of the posts at hand will reveal that indeed Paley was the first to refer to dark matter.  Specifically "Dionysian dark matter".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) Was Paley wrong when he used the phrase, "requisite quark structure"?
As Cogzoid so elegantly explained, electrostatic forces govern intermolecular attraction...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, quark structure is sufficient.  But it is not necessary.  One could hold < Positronium > in your hand, although for an exceedingly short amount of time.  You can see that < muonium > could also be held, and for longer (a couple of microseconds).  Look, ma!  No quarks!  So no, "requisite quark structure" isn't required for exotic materials to be held in one's hand.  One could imagine an even more stable material that could be held in one's hand for longer.  Also, let's not be fooled.  Electrons aren't required for something to be held in one's hand, either.  The only thing that is "requisite" is that the material reacts with the electroweak force.  Something that Paley's material does.  It was a fair question, and it recieved an answer that demonstrated a lack of understanding on Paley's part.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But in gloating over this error, Cogzoid made a mistake of his own in implying that protons carry the electromagnetic and weak forces:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Electromagnetic and Weak forces are < one in the same >.  No mistake on my part, no need for forgiveness on yours.

Please, continue with the theory.  I'm genuinely curious where it will lead.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 08 2005,12:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And now name calling?  C'mon, Paley, let's keep this civil.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name calling????


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A careful re-reading of the posts at hand will reveal that indeed Paley was the first to refer to dark matter.  Specifically "Dionysian dark matter".

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 At best, this proves we conflated the same concepts.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, quark structure is sufficient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apology accepted. ;)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But it is not necessary.  One could hold Positronium in your hand, although for an exceedingly short amount of time.  You can see that muonium could also be held, and for longer (a couple of microseconds).  Look, ma!  No quarks!  So no, "requisite quark structure" isn't required for exotic materials to be held in one's hand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Cogzie, you were born too late: you would have made one #### of a scholastic philosopher. :D


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was a fair question, and it recieved an answer that demonstrated a lack of understanding on Paley's part.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I demonstrated my understanding in the previous post. Unless you really believe that I learned all that within a day. Gee, mebbe ah hain't sech a bad student aftuh all.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Electromagnetic and Weak forces are one in the same.  No mistake on my part, no need for forgiveness on yours.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 You don't realise it, but you just won a bet for me. But I can't let you slide on this one. From your < source: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Although these two forces appear very different at everyday low energies, the theory models them as two different aspects of the same force. Above the unification energy, on the order of 102 GeV, they would merge into a single electroweak force.

Mathematically, the unification is accomplished under an SU(2) × U(1) gauge group. The corresponding gauge bosons are the photon of electromagnetism and the W and Z bosons of the weak force. [my emphasis]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 At the very least, your statement was misleading. Why can't you just say, "Sorry, bad wording guys"? Typos and awkward phrases happen; check out my last post, for example:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But in gloating over this error, Cogzoid made a mistake of his own in implying that protons carry the electromagnetic and weak forces:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Boy that dumb Paley, what with him mixin' up his photons and protons and all.......



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Based on the length of this discussion and the disagreements on quantum-mechanical minutiae, I'm estimating we'll get to discussion of using Cepheids to come to an agreement on the value of Hubbell's constant in, oh, 2016.

By the way, have we cleared up misunderstandings regarding the consensus phylogenetic tree, or is that still on the menu (to be discussed starting in the fall of 2025)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 You know, I remember that Stephen King once claimed that he had to stop writing The Stand for a while because the book had turned into his personal Vietnam. I didn't understand him then, but I think I do now. But I'll muddle on anyway.........
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 08 2005,12:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the very least, your statement was misleading. Why can't you just say, "Sorry, bad wording guys"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I said:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force.  Photons and W and Z Bosons do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I fail to see what I need to apologize for.  It's a simple fact.  And it's 100% correct.  Typos and awkard phrases happen.  (And yes, I saw your pRoton typo, and let it slide, because I know what you meant.)  However, this is not a typo or awkward phrase.  It's a correct phrase and you're still complaining.  Stop stalling and get on with the theory.

-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2005,13:36

Forget the Cepheid variables; I wonder when gravity will enter the discussion. We've only gotten through two (or is it one?) of four forces. And from what I've understood from Bill so far (which admittedly isn't much), I'm beginning to wonder if gravity even figures into GOP's TOE at all.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 08 2005,13:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I fail to see what I need to apologize for.  It's a simple fact.  And it's 100% correct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Just like my lepton statement, taken literally, was 100% correct. But the two statements are still misleading. Why do you think I asked this question in the very next post?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, are you implying that photons carry the weak force? Or is it just the massive gauge bosons?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 You didn't respond, although it would have given you a perfect opportunity to justify your choice of words.

  I know, I know, you think I'm making a lot out of nothing, and you're probably correct. But this stubborness, this inability to admit the dreaded amateur might have a valid point to make, is symptomatic of the gulf between scientists and the public (not that I'm pinning this on you; you seem like a reasonable enough fellow to me). Let's return to one of Mr. Cordova's comments:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinists are perennially distasteful when they're trying to defend their theory, not really very well humored....

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   You may not understand his meaning, but talk to the average American and I bet he'd give you an earful. If you guys would only listen to him, you just might make some headway.
   Well, that's enough of that. You don't have to respond, but I'd appreciate if some of you would think about this issue. Anyway, back to the fun, and keep those questions flowing.......
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2005,14:01

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 08 2005,19:37)
Let's return to one of Mr. Cordova's comments:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinists are perennially distasteful when they're trying to defend their theory, not really very well humored....

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   You may not understand his meaning, but talk to the average American and I bet he'd give you an earful. If you guys would only listen to him, you just might make some headway.
   Well, that's enough of that. You don't have to respond, but I'd appreciate if some of you would think about this issue. Anyway, back to the fun, and keep those questions flowing.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not being a scientist, and hence never having had to defend my life's work against sniping from those manifestly unqualified to have an opinion on the subject at hand, I can nevertheless understand why evolutionary biologists might become short-tempered when going over the same old ground with someone who insists he or she "isn't descended from monkeys," who insists "there's no evidence for evolution," "there are no examples of traditional life forms," "no one can say evolution happened because no one was there to witness it," etc. It can't be very much fun. Particle physicists don't have to go through it, cosmologists don't (for the most part, YECs notwithstanding), chemists, don't. If I were a practicing "Darwinist," or evolutionary biologist, I'd probably be feeling rather peeved and humorless these days. Given that IDists are only slightly less hostile to their work than your average garden-variety YEC, I can also see why many biologists fail to make what in their eyes is no doubt a distinction without a difference.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 08 2005,15:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just like my lepton statement, taken literally, was 100% correct. But the two statements are still misleading. Why do you think I asked this question in the very next post?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am not held to answering all of your questions, Paley.  I was clear in my original wording.  Your misunderstanding of a simple statement is not my fault.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know, I know, you think I'm making a lot out of nothing, and you're probably correct. But this stubborness, this inability to admit the dreaded amateur might have a valid point to make, is symptomatic of the gulf between scientists and the public
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, buddy, I'm listening to your theory.  I'm not dismissing it outright.  I'm just asking questions and pointing out some small inconsistencies in your language.  But, at the moment we're discussing some fundamental physics which you are not contending.  Hence, we are both accepting the standard model.  The standard model doesn't have alot of flexibility.  Don't pretend that you're making some grandiose strides in electroweak theory, and that I'm upturning my nose.  You've made some mistakes and I'm correcting you.  Keep in mind who is challenging who, regarding your developing of this theory.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 09 2005,07:48



 A lesson on appearances versus reality:

The above fellow obtained a Bachelor's Degree in mathematics and a Master's in education from the University of Cincinnati, taught high-school math before pursuing another career, but still tutors at-risk youth in his spare time. What does he do for a living? The first person with the correct answer doesn't win anything except the respect of cool people everywhere.
Posted by: celtic_elk on Dec. 09 2005,08:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The above fellow obtained a Bachelor's Degree in mathematics and a Master's in education from the University of Cincinnati, taught high-school math before pursuing another career, but still tutors at-risk youth in his spare time. What does he do for a living? The first person with the correct answer doesn't win anything except the respect of cool people everywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's a professional athlete, probably from a team based in or near Atlantic City.   I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make with this question.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 09 2005,08:59

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 09 2005,13:48)
A lesson on appearances versus reality:

The above fellow obtained a Bachelor's Degree in mathematics...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doesn't this post belong in the "State of Denial" thread? I'd like to get past quarks, hadrons, nuclei, and maybe even molecules sometime before the end of the decade...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 10 2005,05:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's a professional athlete, probably from a team based in or near Atlantic City.   I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make with this question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  Yes, the sign provides a few clues, but shouldn't be taken at face value. Hopefully, the point will become clearer when his identity is revealed.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't this post belong in the "State of Denial" thread? I'd like to get past quarks, hadrons, nuclei, and maybe even molecules sometime before the end of the decade...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm working on it, I'm working on it. You won't be disappointed; it's a Duesy, I tells ya.......Come on guys, don't let me down. Surely one of you must know....Sir Toejam? Cogzie?
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 10 2005,23:42

Nope, no guess from me.  I'm not good at celebrity spotting in general.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 11 2005,10:11

Well guys, I have to admit I'm a little surprised. Then again, he's not exactly a household name, and an appreciation for this man's talent is usually scarce on g-loaded fora like this one. But your intellects should be able to divine my point after seeing < this page. > (You may have to click past an annoying ad to get where you want).
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 11 2005,18:12

An athlete who is educated and a good person.  He sounds like a fine role model.  It's too bad that there aren't more like him.  But, what's your point, Paley?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 12 2005,04:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An athlete who is educated and a good person.  He sounds like a fine role model.  It's too bad that there aren't more like him.  But, what's your point, Paley?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 That appearances can mislead. After all, very few people would give this man a chance in a streetfight against, say, an in-prime Muhammad Ali, but his accomplishments suggest otherwise (don't laugh; even world class strikers/kickboxers tend to get clobbered in mixed martial arts settings). Likewise, scientists deride the credentials and reputation of ID folk, but this doesn't mitigate the quality of ID argumentation. When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't. Y'all have been pretty good to me so far, and I just don't want any backsliding. I'll try to get the model together as soon as I can.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2005,07:30

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 12 2005,10:48)
When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The same could be said of IDists. When the argument devolves into special pleading and ad hominem attacks, it all turns into a monumental waste of time.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 12 2005,08:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Likewise, scientists deride the credentials and reputation of ID folk, but this doesn't mitigate the quality of ID argumentation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe you're reading other stuff than I.  But mostly I see scientists attacking the claims and arguments of anti-evolution folks.  And scientists back up their attacks with some hard-hitting science.  For example, have you read Meyer's Hopeless Monster at Panda's Thumb?  It is 6000 words attacking Meyer's arguments.  I'm not going to claim that all scientists argue above the belt though.  Overall, I think your complaint is unwarranted.  If you don't think the ad hominems are worthwhile, don't read them.  There are plenty of scientists that address the arguments of creationists alone.  You can spend your energies addressing these folks.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 12 2005,08:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, have you read Meyer's Hopeless Monster at Panda's Thumb?  It is 6000 words attacking Meyer's arguments.  I'm not going to claim that all scientists argue above the belt though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's true that some scientists play by the rules; this is why I wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You could have also mentioned the critique of Behe/Snokes; that essay was very good. But both papers responded to peer-reviewed literature, so a higher standard of argumentation was necessary. Why can't this be the default standard for all replies? By the way, I'm not including you or Murphy in my complaint. You both rise above the usual level of discourse. So do Elsberry, Theobald, and Cartwright.
Posted by: Tim Hague on Dec. 12 2005,21:53

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 12 2005,10:48)
Likewise, scientists deride the credentials and reputation of ID folk, but this doesn't mitigate the quality of ID argumentation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mitigate - "to make something less harmful, unpleasant or bad".  From the < Cambridge Dictionary >.

I'm not sure your sentence means what you intended, but I agree that there is not much we can do to mitigate the quality of the ID argumentation.  

I also agree with the overall impression that it's the ID folk who do most of the ad-hominems against the credentials and reputations of the evolution supporters, not the other way round (Salvador vs Flank being another prime example on this board).
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 13 2005,08:43

Righti-o, we all agree.  Adressing arguments: good.  Ad hominems: bad.  Appearances: decieving.  Death and taxes: inevitable.  Let's get on with the universe spinning around us.

-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2005,09:37

Quote (cogzoid @ Dec. 13 2005,14:43)
Righti-o, we all agree.  Adressing arguments: good.  Ad hominems: bad.  Appearances: decieving.  Death and taxes: inevitable.  Let's get on with the universe spinning around us.

-Dan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still waiting for Bill's explanation for the CMB...but we haven't even found out yet whether his "quintessence" interacts with the Higgs field.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 13 2005,10:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mitigate - "to make something less harmful, unpleasant or bad".  From the Cambridge Dictionary.

I'm not sure your sentence means what you intended, but I agree that there is not much we can do to mitigate the quality of the ID argumentation.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I'm aware of the legal meaning, but doesn't the word also mean "to lesson the impact of"? If not, I apologise.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Adressing arguments: good.  Ad hominems: bad.  Appearances: decieving.  Death and taxes: inevitable.  Let's get on with the universe spinning around us.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 I agree. Part of the delay is my fault; I couldn't resist contributing to another thread. But I'm working on it.....
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 15 2005,07:57



******      It's Clobberin' Time!      ******









Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation. This wave function operation can be used to determine the probability that two particles can be found in the same quantum state.  For bosons the equation is:





While the analogous one for fermions is:



Now we know that 1 and 2 are the subscripts for the wave functions acting on particular particles, while a and b are their quantum states.  For the fermions, even the dumbest evolutionist can comprehend that the probability of two fermions being in the same state is zero, while for the bosons it is finite*. The property that makes this possible is spin. This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality.

When Jesus taught ethical imperatives in parables, the evolutionists of his day responded by demanding they, “Tell us plainly.” Likewise, today’s evolutionists reject non-material realities by demanding “evidence” on materialistic terms. The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me.

Spin can be thought of as the number of rotations it takes to move something around and have it come back to its original place. Bosons have an even integer spin, so every time they turn around they are exactly the same, and are hence, indistinguishable. Since things that are truly indistinguishable are alike, it follows that all of them can be in the same state and it would be impossible to tell them apart. No doubt, there will be some objections to this idea. Two ordinary objects that look alike such as Jack Daniels bottles (I know evolutionist are very fond of this product, so I am trying to bring this into your world.) that look alike actually are distinguishable, but you must look very closely, for the bottles at the gay bar, the ACLU office, and the Dungeons and Dragons coven all have different fingerprints on them. Hence they still are distinguishable, and can not be molded into a single bottle, unlike bosons. I understand this concept because it is like the Trinity. G-d is three beings, yet all of them are indistinguishable, and can exist as a single state.

Fermions by contrast, have fractional spins and hence need to be turned around at least twice to come back to the way they were. Since most ordinary matter is fermions, we tend to be more familiar with their properties. These are the material particles that can do  generate magnetic fields, something that bosons can not.




This is an illustration of how a spin-1/2 particle behaves. It needs to go around twice before it is back to its old self.



This is the same sort of thing for a boson, every time it turns around it is always the same.


Now, what does this have to do with quintessence? Quintessence has a very special kind of spin. The spin of quintessence is 1+i. This enables it to turn around in hypercomplex space yet maintain certain fermion-like properties while in our own. Like a boson, quintessence particles can all exist in the same state, enabling it to have superfuild-like properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate yet still create a magnetic field that holds in place all of the excess charge in the Empyrean that is the source of the back ground temperature.  

Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light. The speed of light c in our space is merely a function of the near-earth quintessence flux density, our near the sphere of the fixed stars the speed of light is much faster, and hence this explains what evolutionists keep referring to as “the redshift” It has nothing to do with some recessional velocity of stars proportional to their distance, but only to changes in c corresponding to changes in quintessence flux density.




This is how quintessence works relative to fermions and bosons. Every time it turns, it is always the same, but it turns in hypercomplex space, leaving its properties in our space varied.


* These equations can actually refer to the creation of particular particles. This in and of itself violates evolutionistic ontology. While perhaps getting the details wrong,< this great man > did have a powerful intuition of how subatomic physics refuted evolutionism
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 15 2005,08:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Forget the Cepheid variables; I wonder when gravity will enter the discussion. We've only gotten through two (or is it one?) of four forces. And from what I've understood from Bill so far (which admittedly isn't much), I'm beginning to wonder if gravity even figures into GOP's TOE at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Gravity is a property of earth and water to move toward the center of the universe, it is not a property of air, fire, or quintessence. The rest of the universe is sustained by strictly electromagnetic forces.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2005,08:37

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 15 2005,13:57)
Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why the constant jibes at "evolutionists" when talking about particle physics? I doubt that many evolutionary biologists have more than the foggiest notion of what you're talking about. The differences between bosons and fermions (or even protons and neutrons, for that matter) are pretty much completely irrelevant to their field of study.

You've made your feelings about evolutionary biologists pretty plain, Bill, but the constant insults about their hazy understanding of science that's way, way outside their field of study smacks of nothing so much as crankiness. I wonder if your knowledge of, say, the Krebs cycle is any more detailed than their knowledge of the carbon cycle of nucleosynthesis.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2005,08:47

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 15 2005,14:10)
Gravity is a property of earth and water to move toward the center of the universe, it is not a property of air, fire, or quintessence. The rest of the universe is sustained by strictly electromagnetic forces.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm so disappointed. So this means none of the observations I listed a few pages ago will ever get any kind of explanation, Bill? And I've been waiting all this time...

But while we're here, I have another observation. Air pressure is higher at sea level than it is at 30,000 feet. But air does not have a tendency to move towards the center of the universe (i.e., the earth, I'm guessing), so what causes the pressure gradient?

Or do I need to wait until we're finished discussing the subatomic properties of "quintessence"?
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 15 2005,09:53

You are too much, Paley.  And with Jack T. Chick as a coup de grace?  Thanks for making my day.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 15 2005,13:15

This is more like it:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Brighter bulbs don't conflate the language of science.  Schrodinger's Wave Equation is not an Operator.  When you use made up terms like "Schrödinger wave function operations" it seems like you don't know what you're talking about.  It's more like how a child repeats words that he heard his parents use but doesn't quite understand yet.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Misunderstood, denied?  By whom?  Who do you think theorized spin, afterall?  I can make baseless claims, too.  Creationists eat babies.  Hitler was a geo-centrist.    



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Did Jesus tell you about the "non-material character of spin statistics"?  If not, I'd love to hear your source.  And what are these non-material characteristics?  I don't remember the spin of fundamental particles being in the Bible.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Spin can be thought of as the number of rotations it takes to move something around and have it come back to its original place. Bosons have an even integer spin, so every time they turn around they are exactly the same, and are hence, indistinguishable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is really a bad way of getting an intuition for spin.  Spin is wierd.  It is completely intrinsic angular momentum.  It can be shown that for electrons to have the magnetic moment that they have (due to their spin) they would have to spin faster than the speed of light.  Pretending that the little electrons are physically spinning will put you on the wrong path.  Just pretend that particles just have spin, kind of like a "color" or maybe just a name.  This color or name, however, also displays properties of angular momentum.  It's wierd, indeed.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why does it have to be a BEC to do this?  Window glass slows down light, too.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The speed of light c in our space is merely a function of the near-earth quintessence flux density, our near the sphere of the fixed stars the speed of light is much faster, and hence this explains what evolutionists keep referring to as “the redshift” It has nothing to do with some recessional velocity of stars proportional to their distance, but only to changes in c corresponding to changes in quintessence flux density.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What is this equation that relates quintessence flux to speed of light exactly?

How does your model account for the effect "evolutionists" call gravitational lensing?  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is how quintessence works relative to fermions and bosons. Every time it turns, it is always the same, but it turns in hypercomplex space, leaving its properties in our space varied.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What are its properties in our space exactly?  And how do they vary because it moved in "hypercomplex space"?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
* These equations can actually refer to the creation of particular particles. This in and of itself violates evolutionistic ontology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What violates "evolutionistic" ontology exactly?

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 15 2005,15:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm so disappointed. So this means none of the observations I listed a few pages ago will ever get any kind of explanation, Bill? And I've been waiting all this time...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  How does this complaint follow from an analysis of my model? My reframing of the gravitational "force" has little to do with your observations, which will all be addressed in due time. Remember the analogy between my theory and the structure of proteins. I must address criticisms of the model's primary structure before tackling its predictions. Paradigm-shattering, nobel-level physics (with a Fields medal on the side) doesn't come easily, even for ectoplasmic folk.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2005,15:49

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 15 2005,21:23)
  How does this complaint follow from an analysis of my model? My reframing of the gravitational "force" has little to do with your observations, which will all be addressed in due time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's just impatience. Given that I posed my questions three weeks ago, I would have hoped we would have made some progress in answering them by now. But I guess given that we're overturning 500 years of physics, involving the work of uncounted thousands of scientists, it was unrealistic of me to anticipate answers in less than one lifetime.

I guess I'll have to leave the questions-asking to Mr. Cogzoid, since the kinds of high-level questions I'm asking will take a few hundred years to answer, at the rate we're going.

Hence the disappointment. That, and the fact that Mr. C seems able repeatedly to make criticisms of your theory you've had difficulty answering.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 16 2005,03:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's just impatience. Given that I posed my questions three weeks ago, I would have hoped we would have made some progress in answering them by now. But I guess given that we're overturning 500 years of physics, involving the work of uncounted thousands of scientists, it was unrealistic of me to anticipate answers in less than one lifetime.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 The hardest part of any journey is taking the first step. But I should have some more time in the upcoming week to flesh out my model. In the meantime, I want to avoid glib answers, especially since I smell a trap.  :D


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hence the disappointment. That, and the fact that Mr. C seems able repeatedly to make criticisms of your theory you've had difficulty answering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Can't have it both ways. If I'm having such "difficulty" answering Cogzoid, then I can't be expected to address other criticisms, now can I? But don't worry: I haven't backed out of a challenge yet, and I'm not going to now............
Posted by: Ved on Dec. 16 2005,06:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, you're so right!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two ordinary objects that look alike such as Jack Daniels bottles (I know evolutionist are very fond of this product, so I am trying to bring this into your world.) that look alike actually are distinguishable, but you must look very closely, for the bottles at the gay bar, the ACLU office, and the Dungeons and Dragons coven all have different fingerprints on them. Hence they still are distinguishable, and can not be molded into a single bottle, unlike bosons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you so much Mr. Paley for using examples that are familiar to me, I totally understand your argument now. Since I'm so out of touch with the conservative lifestyle, maybe you can answer a question for me. I think you'll see that my question is as relevant to this thread as your above references, so here it is: Does it ever make you nervous to have a supreme being looking over your "shoulder" in the bedroom? I mean, if that's not what he's doing, how else is he going to know you're not sticking it in the wrong place?

Thanks in advance.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 16 2005,08:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the meantime, I want to avoid glib answers, especially since I smell a trap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Don't worry, Mr. Paley.  Answering honest questions about your theory shouldn't be a trap.  Unless that trap is inherent in the model you're presenting.  This is how science is done.  You come up with a theory and others try to find reasons why it doesn't make sense.  If it stands up, it stands up.  If you get "trapped" then perhaps the model needs some work.

-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 16 2005,12:13

To echo Mr. C: the only trap your theory can fall into, Bill, is its own shortcomings. Given the incredible range of phenomena it must account for in order to displace current theories, that trap is immensely deep.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 18 2005,00:13

Mr the ghost of Paley posted on < a Panda's Thumb thread >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   Eric wrote:

   I enjoyed science and math in high school, and quickly learned to avoid both in college. The undergraduate math classes were just dreadful—“Theorem. Lemma. Lemma. Proof. Theorem. etc.”. The professors would just stand there and copy proofs from the textbook to the blackboard.


Yes! Eric, yer a man after Paley’s own heart! Math has to be the worst taught subject in the curriculum. Can anyone tell me why math “teachers” at all levels spend 90% of the time transferring the textbook to the blackboard? If you understand the text, the lecture is pointless; if you don’t, the lecture reinforces your insecurities. I recommend Morris Kline for further insight on this issue.
I also find the American habit of shoving algebra down everybody’s throat to be quite dreadful. Outside of percentages, fractions, and statistics, math is completely irrelevant to many people’s lives, yet every child is forced to grind through mapping, domain and set theory. Stooopid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Could this explain why Bill is struggling to finalise his geocentrism arguments and is a bit tardy with the "gut to gamete" paper. You should have paid more attention in those math classes, Mr P.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Dec. 18 2005,14:06

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 25 2005,14:14)
By the way, while you guys are wallowing in your C-level IQ's, try to appreciate your correspondence with a member of the K community (the Master, the Master^2, and I'll let you take a stab at the third member).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're no scientist if you don't know what a degree Kelvin is Paley Ghostey - you are more unsuprisingly more familiar with more American uses for the letter K of course. Who is your wizard by the way? Can you spot him by his sublime maths??
At least that explains your quoting of "White Nationalists" in support of your irrelevant rants:
< >
<i>A lost Paley Ghostey</i>
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 20 2005,06:56

I go away for a couple of days, and all #### breaks loose.... :D


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're no scientist if you don't know what a degree Kelvin is Paley Ghostey - you are more unsuprisingly more familiar with more American uses for the letter K of course. Who is your wizard by the way? Can you spot him by his sublime maths??
At least that explains your quoting of "White Nationalists" in support of your irrelevant rants:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I don't know which is crazier: Morrie's attempts to discourage others from reading my musings by exhuming and displaying old threads from the poster's graveyard, or his Kabbalistic reworking of said posts, jokes, and quotes. Frankly, I thought that Manson's interveaving of the White Album, Revelation, and hippie agitprop would forever remain the standard-bearer of moonstruck Boomer lunacy, but the Yenta has cleared that bar in his flipflops, to mix a half-dozen metaphors (where are you when we need ya, k.e.?). Now, the early suggestion that I like to drag black people behind trucks was just tacky, but the Yenta's become more entertaining as his idee fixe has bloomed kudzu-like throughout the intellectual landscape, so I won't get too offended by his attempts to shut me up, especially when those efforts reveal more about him than they do about yours truly. By the way, here are some questions that he seems to have overlooked:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
O.K. Dean, here's your chance. Please explain how:

1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views, especially when I've made my own views perfectly clear on several occasions;
2) the citation is inappropriate, especially when it supports one of my main complaints against most cross-national studies, i.e. that they confound race and religion, driving the very conclusions that they're trying to prove;
3) Jared Taylor's political beliefs render him unable to multiply or divide government figures; and
4) if Jared's study is transparently worthless, nobody can refute it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 The floor is open, hoss.....
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Dec. 20 2005,15:20

Can't be arsed .. not that there's a smashing new ruling to read Whiter Shade of Paley..

apart form this fun bit of quote mining which I think sums up the point:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views; ...nobody can refute it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why should IDiots have all the fun.

:p
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 21 2005,06:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
apart form this fun bit of quote mining which I think sums up the point:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Quite frankly, this is no worse than your previous efforts; the honesty is a nice touch, however.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can't be arsed .. not that there's a smashing new ruling to read Whiter Shade of Paley..

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Read your ruling, then. My questions aren't going anywhere. In the meantime, here's a quiz for the lurkers:

 What source really inspired Paley's use of "Master" and "Wizard"?

Hint #1: It was made into a movie that nerds love to quote

Hint #2:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How many times must I wait while you scramble after your foil?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



  You have no one but yourselves to blame if you whiff on this one.....
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 21 2005,08:41

Paley,

I hope you're not giving up on geocentricism.  You can't leave us hanging right after introducing the complex spin of your quintessence condensate ether crystal.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 21 2005,09:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley,

I hope you're not giving up on geocentricism.  You can't leave us hanging right after introducing the complex spin of your quintessence condensate ether crystal.

-Dan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cogzie! I hope you've almost recovered from surgery. Where would this thread be without you or Mr. Murphy nagging me for my lack of progress? :D
 To answer your question: No, I haven't given up. Think of me as Columbo (with you guys playing the < Jack Cassidy > role, of course). It's not that I try to be slow and obsessed with detail; it's just my nature. But like the detective, I hope to uncover the truth eventually.
 By the way, can you answer my last question? Surely someone around here knows.....
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 21 2005,12:37

Paley,
Thanks for the concerns.  I'm up to 98% recovered.

But, unfortunately, I'm not very good with trivia, so I can't answer your question.

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 22 2005,07:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley,
Thanks for the concerns.  I'm up to 98% recovered.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good to hear. Hey Murphy, I haven't forgotten about you. What's your legal opinion on the upcoming Kansas trial? And if the Dover case does get appealed, how do you think the Supremes will rule (other than with their usual iron fist, of course). I think the Supreme Court is up for grabs myself...
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 22 2005,08:11

Mr The Ghost of ¨Paley assures us


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I haven't given up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And can we also expect your "gut to gamete" paper?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 22 2005,08:46



Cogzie, I think this one is most appropriate for you!




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation.
Brighter bulbs don't conflate the language of science.  Schrodinger's Wave Equation is not an Operator.  When you use made up terms like "Schrödinger wave function operations" it seems like you don't know what you're talking about.  It's more like how a child repeats words that he heard his parents use but doesn't quite understand yet.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, in the words of Roger Penrose,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to this procedure, (second quantization) try to pretend that the wavefunction Psi (Greek in the original) of some partice itself becomes an 'operator' 1
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are sort of correct here, but still confused. In the creation and anhilation operators to which I was referring the wavefunction does become an operator on itself. This is why I said "Wave function operaton", as opposed to "Wave function operator." Of course, evolutionists evade the implications of Creation, because, according to their ontology, it doesn't exist.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality.
Misunderstood, denied?  By whom?  Who do you think theorized spin, afterall?  I can make baseless claims, too.  Creationists eat babies.  Hitler was a geo-centrist.    

Quote  
The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me.
Did Jesus tell you about the "non-material character of spin statistics"?  If not, I'd love to hear your source.  And what are these non-material characteristics?  I don't remember the spin of fundamental particles being in the Bible.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, by your own words in your next paragraph you  tacitly admit spin can not be seen or touched, and is hence outside the purview of evolutionistic ontology. As far as your inquiry concerning whther Jesus gave me the answer to these questions, the answer is a qualified yes. All knowledge claims ultimately depend upon presuppositions, and only Biblical presuppositions can ground authentic knowledge. Your sacastic remarks concerning Hitler and cannibalism provide unintended insight into the epistemological void that is evolutionism. You certainly can claim that Hitler was a geocentrist, or that Creationists eat babies, and they are baseless, just like all claims that begin with presuppositions contrary to the Bible's, such as the one that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa.  Without the solid rock of the Bible, all claims are merely based on the shifting sands of human opinion. Read the works of < Cornelius Van Til > for more insight.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light.
Why does it have to be a BEC to do this?  Window glass slows down light, too.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, some BEC's, like quintessence, are far more effective. You can read < this paper > for more details. The equations governing the velocity of light in quintessence are similar. They will be coming shortly.


1--Penrose, Roger. 2005. New York. Alfred A. Knopf. < The Road to Reality. > p. 657
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 22 2005,08:54

Cogzie and all other interested parties can consult < this book > to grok the allusions 'master' and 'wizard' to which I occasionally refer.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2005,09:33

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 22 2005,13:57)
Good to hear. Hey Murphy, I haven't forgotten about you. What's your legal opinion on the upcoming Kansas trial? And if the Dover case does get appealed, how do you think the Supremes will rule (other than with their usual iron fist, of course). I think the Supreme Court is up for grabs myself...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to say I haven't followed the Kansas situation as close as the Pennsylvania case, but given the losing record creationists have amassed so far, I'm guessing it won't go so well for them this time, either. But as with any lawsuit, before the trial begins, it's pretty much a 50-50 proposition. Judges are, after all, humans, and therefore are hardly inerrant.

It doesn't look like the Dover case will be appealed, given the stunning defeat handed to the defendants coupled with the changes in the Dover school board, but if it goes to the Third Circuit, it's hard to imagine how the district court decision would be overturned. Generally appellate courts defer to the trial courts on issues of fact and determinations of witness credibility, which means normally a case would be overturned on questions of law. Given judge Jones's laborious application of the tests set forth in Lemon, McLean, and Edwards, among others, there's not much room for maneuver for an appellate court. If the case did make it to the Supreme Court, which seems even more doubtful, I'd expect a 7-2 or 6-3 decision in favor of Plaintiffs, depending on the makeup of the court at the time.

(But remember, I'm not an attorney.)

And in the meantime...how are we doing with that quintessence? :-)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 22 2005,09:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric Murphy wrote:
It doesn't look like the Dover case will be appealed, given the stunning defeat handed to the defendants coupled with the changes in the Dover school board, but if it goes to the Third Circuit, it's hard to imagine how the district court decision would be overturned. Generally appellate courts defer to the trial courts on issues of fact and determinations of witness credibility, which means normally a case would be overturned on questions of law. Given judge Jones's laborious application of the tests set forth in Lemon, McLean, and Edwards, among others, there's not much room for maneuver for an appellate court. If the case did make it to the Supreme Court, which seems even more doubtful, I'd expect a 7-2 or 6-3 decision in favor of Plaintiffs, depending on the makeup of the court at the time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the legal opinion. 7-2 seems a little "optimistic" to me, but that's just ghostly intuition.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alan Fox wrote:
Mr The Ghost of ¨Paley assures us
[he] ha[s]n't given up. And can we also expect your "gut to gamete" paper?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. By the way, what's your definition of a racist, and why did you play the Yenta's silly game in the other thread? I expected a more level head from you, not to mention better reading comprehension. :D
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 22 2005,10:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, by your own words in your next paragraph you  tacitly admit spin can not be seen or touched, and is hence outside the purview of evolutionistic ontology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You keep bringing up this "ontology" and making baseless claims.  How exactly is spin outside of "evolutionistic ontology"?  You can start with a definition of this ontology and your source for said definition.  (Or is that in the Bible, too?)

I'll wait till there is more content about your theory before I reply.

-Dan
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 22 2005,11:43

Mea culpa, Bill. I was all excited over the Dover decision. Blaming black people as disproportionately criminal rather than disproportionate victims of crime and exclusion seems racist. Racism is an unfettered expression of the innate tribal instincts we all possess, but that the veneer of civilisation sometimes manages to keep in check. But this is a forum related to evolutionary biology so I suggest we avoid the issue in future.

Excuse my cultural ignorance, but your reference to the Yenta is lost on me.

Anyway, I am looking forward to your seminal work on HGT. BTW, will you be cribbing from Professor Davison at all?
Posted by: Ved on Dec. 22 2005,17:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You certainly can claim that Hitler was a geocentrist, or that Creationists eat babies, and they are baseless, just like all claims that begin with presuppositions contrary to the Bible's
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So because cogzoid's(?) Godwining jokes don't depict the truth and "go against" the bible, all the rest of his arguments are also wrong, because they also go against the bible.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...they are baseless, just like all claims that begin with presuppositions contrary to the Bible's, such as the one that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa.  Without the solid rock of the Bible, all claims are merely based on the shifting sands of human opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So now you're appealing to the authority of a book. What is it that makes the bible better than any other human opinion???
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 22 2005,19:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So now you're appealing to the authority of a book. What is it that makes the bible better than any other human opinion???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Because the bible says it is the final authority.  Geeze, that was an easy one.
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 22 2005,19:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All knowledge claims ultimately depend upon presuppositions, and only Biblical presuppositions can ground authentic knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you say.  
(I think that's the punchline to the philosopher stumper joke.)

Sorry for being a little dense, but can you lay out these presuppositions for me.  Which presuppositions do typical scientists make?  And how do yours differ?

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 23 2005,07:54

Moderator(s), are you getting my messages? I think there's a glitch in the email system, and I don't know how else to reach you.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 23 2005,09:15

They're probably still hung over from celebrating the Dover result, Bill. You could try emailing Reed Cartright at PT admin.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 23 2005,09:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They're probably still hung over from celebrating the Dover result, Bill. You could try emailing Reed Cartright at PT admin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Don't know if you're joking or not, but you're probably right in either case. Thanks.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 23 2005,10:16

Since I'm still not sure if there's a glitch in the email system, and since I won't be able to access the moderator's reply shortly, I grant permission to the moderators to delete any part of the Dean Morrison rebuttal they feel necessary; I just ask that they keep as much of the original message as possible. I appreciate whatever assistance they can provide. Thanks.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Dec. 23 2005,15:25

You trying to censor me Paley Ghostey?
and why did you run away from this solid explanation of why I consider you to fit the definition of a racist?

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-64249 >

You did ask after all?

If the mods do want to bow down to Paley Ghostey on this one could they inform me too?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 23 2005,19:49

Could I? You know, like, interject for a moment here? We've been trying to get Mr. Paley to back up his assertions, and if we want to hear his backup before the universe grows old and dies, we could use a bit fewer distractions? Sorry to, you know, sound plaintive? But I've got some questions that are about 20 pages old now that need answers? Some day? Maybe?
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Dec. 23 2005,23:29

.. sorry Eric .. since I'm off for a couple of weeks anyway I'll leave Shadey Paley to you - good luck with your questions!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 29 2005,03:21

Guys, I heartily recommend that you check out my latest reply to Mr. Brazeau in the Panderichthys thread (the PZ Myers thread with the drawing of the fish "arm"). Also, I've replied to the Yenta in the "This is what happens when the facts are fairly presented" thread. And Murphy/Cogzie, I haven't forgotten about you; next week I'll have access to a real computer.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 29 2005,05:18

And "Gut to Gametes" paper, Mr Paley.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 30 2005,04:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And "Gut to Gametes" paper, Mr Paley.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 Thanks for the helpful reminder, Foxy. :)
Posted by: cogzoid on Dec. 30 2005,08:33

I'm looking forward to your continuing of your geocentricism theory.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 03 2006,10:19

Steve and MidnightVoice, the more I think about it, the more I'm forced to embrace your opinions. Pathetic little whitebread culture, so very useless, maybe it's time we chucked it overboard. What else can be done with a culture so helpless in < math >, < physics >, < chemistry >, < medicine > < (who would ever take whitebread papers seriously?) >, < economics >, and < literature >. And the future is < especially > < barren. > And the less said about < whitebread athletes >, the < better >. And so many < wimps >! But what else < could be > < expected >? I think I'll see what's on TV.....
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 03 2006,10:25

And don't forget < molecular biology and genetics. Thanks for the heads up, Midnight. >
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Jan. 03 2006,12:05

Ignorance is bliss, oh uneducated one  :D
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 03 2006,12:24

I don't know, Bill. At your current rate of progress, I'm beginning to wonder if your Theory of Everything is really going to turn out to be a Theory of Nothing.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 04 2006,08:44

ericmurphy wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know, Bill. At your current rate of progress, I'm beginning to wonder if your Theory of Everything is really going to turn out to be a Theory of Nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Check back Friday after 3 : 00. I should have something then.

MidnightVoice wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ignorance is bliss, oh uneducated one  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where are my manners? Here's a more up-to-date < source >. And oh yeah, here's some < microbiology on the side >. Of course, whitebread culture is getting strong competition in < physics >, but more than holds its own in < chemistry > and < math >. For more depth, check < this site. > To see how countries rank, check < here >.

 Understand that I'm not denigrating the extensive contributions of other cultures. In fact, I suspect that we'll be seeing much more input from other civilisations as time passes. Just don't forget which culture laid the groundwork in most (all?) of the relevant fields. The truth is a bit different from what we see in the media, no? At least you now see why most movies and commercials put so much effort into portraying whites, Jews, and Asians as fools, criminals, and dweebs. As I've said before, the liberal mind truly loathes the successful.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 05 2006,00:33

Ahem,

gut to gametes, Mr P?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 05 2006,08:47

Yes. And physics.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 06 2006,05:04

I'm going to try and finish the new part today. My rough draft was deleted by accident, so it's going a little slower than normal. Eric, I'll try to answer at least one of your questions in this paper......
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 06 2006,06:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I've said before, the liberal mind truly loathes the successful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAhahahahaha! Disgusting. Your "knowledge" of the "liberal mind" is as accurate as your understanding of the moon landings. Why is it that YOU hate success?? After all, putting a man on the moon is one of mankind's crowning achievements to date, and it was white (Christian?) Americans that did it. And for some reason you deny that it happened.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 06 2006,06:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HAhahahahaha! Disgusting. Your "knowledge" of the "liberal mind" is as accurate as your understanding of the moon landings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks! Oh, that was meant to be an insult.

 My opinions on the liberal mindset could very well be wrong. Please understand, however, that they're not casually formed. I grew up in a very liberal neighborhood (yes, I'm a Southerner, but the neighborhood was Jewish), conversed with hundreds of liberals, read scores of books by and for liberals (favorite: Gore Vidal - great essays and fiction, although he has a problem with characterization), and, as previously noted, am a recovered one. Liberalism truly is a mental illness: it prevents its adherents from noticing the simplest things, or grasping the most declarative of sentences. I hope that one day you experience the fulfillment in leaving the Cargo Cult behind. Obviously, I can't speak for all conservatives, but I feel that I've reclaimed my humanity, as well as my rich, deep pitch (the result of inner confidence. That's why liberals often sound strangled without their voice coaches). I just couldn't see six fingers on demand any more.  ;)

Must..... continue.......with paper..............
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 06 2006,08:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks! Oh, that was meant to be an insult.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...just returning the favor. Anywho, sorry, don't let me keep you from your paper. Maybe after you get that done we can get into "what's wrong with Liberalism"

/end drive-by
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 06 2006,08:29

What are your views on meteor showers (snigger) 'Paley' (snigger)?

hhmmm??
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 06 2006,10:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What are your views on meteor showers (snigger) 'Paley' (snigger)?

hhmmm??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 Can someone help me out with this joke? I assume it's an effort to link me with Larry's (alleged) holocaust denial, or Larry in general. But with the Yenta, one can never be sure.....
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 06 2006,11:56

I should just ignore it Mr P. OTOH any progress on the Gut to Gametes paper?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 06 2006,14:57

Dean's content-less posts should be ignored by all.  Let's see some theories, Paley!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 07 2006,07:58

We've finally reached a point of agreement. Check back Monday - I won't let you down.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,07:26

As mentioned in previous essays, quintessence has the properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate and can thereby retard the velocity of light. In addition, since anything traveling in the quintessence medium can phase in and out of higher dimensions, this will explain the phenomenon of gravitational “lensing”.

The equation governing the group velocity of an electromagnetic pulse through a medium(1) is:









.


where c is the speed of light, omega is the pulse frequency, and n is the index of refraction. This equation can be used to describe the velocity of a laser through a Bose-Einstein condensate. Now, I suspect that Darwinists will maintain that even if this condensate exists, it will not slow starlight uniformly because starlight is not a laser, but rather a distribution of frequencies. This ignores the special properties of quintessence: In seven-dimensional space, all three-dimensional electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency, and hence, will be slowed down uniformly by the condensate.  This frequency will yield a value for n equivalent to the number of elementary charges in the Empyrean(2), or:



Since the frequency goes unchanged, it follows that the second term in the denominator of equation (1) equals zero. This suggests that light travels through quintessence space with the velocity of  

 
m/s

Given this velocity, it would take 9.6532X1045 years for light to travel through one millimeter of quintessence space. This implies an infinitesimally thin spherical shell, justifying my simplifying assumptions in the Gaussian model. Casmir ripples in the quintessence flux create the redshift phenomenon of stars, producing false correlations between redshift and stellar distance.  To repeat for the thick-headed, the sphere of the fixed stars is not exactly of uniform thickness, and these differences produce the illusions alluded to in this paragraph.

Now, the illusion of gravitational lensing is also explained by the multidimensional properties of quintessence. This comes from the fact that light is occasionally reflected across a mirror in higher-dimensional space and reflected back again, creating a second ghost image indistinguishable from the first.

1 < Light speed reduction >

2
< Authoritative source >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,07:33

Note to nutters: I edited the last post to remove a typo, changing "feflected" to "reflected".
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 09 2006,10:20

You should check your links too, Mr. P, i am not sure if anyone else has a Panthercard for Georgia State Uni. I don't
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,10:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I should just ignore it Mr P. OTOH any progress on the Gut to Gametes paper?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



On the subject of lateral gene transfer, it is important to realize the only evidence organisms have genes in common with other organisms is the fact that when you take some biological material from an organism--sometimes whipped through a centrifuge, somethimes not-- and run it through the gel electrophoresis gauntlet you have occasional similarities in which lanes win this electrostatic race. Who knows what this means. I could make one sample out of spit and the other out of pee and write one paper "proving" my kinship to monkeys and another "proving" my kinship to E. coli. What makes organisms "similar" in this sense is that we eat each other. Molecular fragments from ingestion can easily end up in the samples used for the static shock Nascar circuit. This is why anybody can construct any phylogenic tree he wishes based on whatever presuppositions tickle his fancy. Yeah Darwinists! Paley has exposed your tea-leaf reading charade for all the world to see!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,10:31

Here is a picture of this popular evolutionists' toy that allegedly "proves" their molecoles-to-man theory. Biological material is dissolved in colored goo and then electrodes are placed at each end of the apparatus and they have a race. The winner is in the one with the lowest mass-to-charge ratio.


Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 09 2006,10:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah Darwinists! Paley has exposed your tea-leaf reading charade for all the world to see!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I hope this is a rough draught, Mr P. Such unscholarly language may not be appreciated at peer review. i recall you suggested that DNA from ingested organisms could enter the germ line of the consuming (multicellular) organism. Now you seem to be suggesting that lab work is fraudulent. So far, I'm  disappointed. There must be more. Please take time to collect your thoughts.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,10:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You should check your links too, Mr. P, i am not sure if anyone else has a Panthercard for Georgia State Uni. I don't
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sorry. Here is the Citation:

Title: Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas. (cover story)
Subject(s): ATOMS; BOSE-Einstein condensation; COOLING; LIGHT -- Speed; LOW temperature research; MENSURATION; QUANTUM optics
Author(s): Hau, Lene Vestergaard; Harris, S.E.; Dutton, Zachary; Behroozi, Cyrus H.
Source: Nature, 2/18/99, Vol. 397 Issue 6720, p594, 5p, 4 graphs, 3bw
Abstract: Describes the use of sodium atoms at nanokelvin temperatures to observe light pulses travelling at velocities of only 17 meters per second. Process of loading and cooling atoms; Question of whether the atom cloud remains in the Bose-Einstein condensed state during the interaction with the probe; Proposal that with some technical improvements still lower velocities can be achieved; Observation of large optical non-linearities, in the form of an intensity-dependent refractive index.
AN: 1568994
ISSN: 0028-0836


Unfortunately, you will have to pay for this if you don't have access to a University library with a subscription.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,10:49

Alan Fox wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
hope this is a rough draught, Mr P. Such unscholarly language may not be appreciated at peer review. i recall you suggested that DNA from ingested organisms could enter the germ line of the consuming (multicellular) organism. Now you seem to be suggesting that lab work is fraudulent. So far, I'm  disappointed. There must be more. Please take time to collect your thoughts.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 Just some premature celebration; sorry again for the bad link. The failure of evo theory in no way impacts on my original hypothesis, which remains absolutely solid, and crucially depends on modern research into the immune system. You won't be disappointed, only frustrated that it took an outsider to put it all together.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,11:03

By the way, finding a possible source of contamination in trad evo research is but one prong of my theory, which does not rely on evo mistakes to make its case. My work's multifaceted nature resists facile pigeonholing. Much more later.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 09 2006,11:05

Mr P,

Disappoinment doesn't quite cover it, If you come up trumps, I'll be flabbergasted. Best of luck. :D
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2006,11:19

Inspired by our debate (not that he'd ever admit it), < John Derbyshire > has waded in with an opinion on Secular vs. Religious societies, as well as other topics. Worth reading.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 09 2006,11:28

Yes, amusing article Mr P.

The "discrepancy" between claimed and observed attendance at church made me chuckle. But can you afford these distractions, with your paper to hone into shape?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 09 2006,12:18

I must say, I do love when the under-educated nutjobs scan over the latest developments in the forefront of science, claim that they were right all along, and try to cram highly technical papers that they don't understand into their kludge of a theory.  The nutjobs that do this are dime a dozen, and unsuprisingly their theories never make it past the web or a self-published pamphlet.  It's great to be able to converse with one, and get an idea of what makes them tick.

Now to the latest questions for Paley's theory:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This ignores the special properties of quintessence: In seven-dimensional space, all three-dimensional electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency, and hence, will be slowed down uniformly by the condensate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Where does this come from?  I realize that you're making it up as you go along, but perhaps you can make up a more in depth description of the maths that support this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This frequency will yield a value for n equivalent to the number of elementary charges in the Empyrean(2)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why on a flat earth would the index of refraction follow the total amount of elementary charges in a structure?  I guess you don't feel you need to show any work to back this up either.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Casmir ripples in the quintessence flux create the redshift phenomenon of stars, producing false correlations between redshift and stellar distance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Casmir forces, another favorite for crackpots.  Let's see what we have so far: Dark Energy, BECs, Quintessence, Casmir forces, Quantum Mechanics, Super-fluidity, Perfect crystals, superfluid solids, multiple dimensions... Did I miss anything?  Most nutjobs stick to just a few of these per theory.  You are nothing if not ambitious.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 10 2006,00:50

Mr The Ghost of Paley

I just came across < This site > which seems perfect for you to enter your "dangerous questions" rather than waste your time with us peasants.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 10 2006,03:32

Wow!  Now I'm eager to get my hands on that cool multicolored gel-loading dye.  The stuff we use in my lab just separates into two comparatively boring shades of blue.

I'd be careful with that "toy", though.  Chances are, it's got ethidium bromide in it.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 10 2006,11:18

Hmm. I gotta say, Bill, the more I read, the more disappointed I become. So far you've claimed that your "quintessence" can slow down light, something any ordinary sheet of plate glass can do (albeit not to the point where light essentially stands still).

But I think we're still a few decades away from your proof that the cosmic abundances of protons, neutrons, hydrogen and helium nuclei, etc. which are so exquisitely related by the inflationary big bang theory to the temperature of the CMB in fact has some entirely different explanation. And then there's still the first one on my list from back in early November, i.e., the Hertzsprung-Russell relationship.

Should I just come back in, say, 2026?

Also, at risk of completely derailing a discourse that's already essentially plunged into the gorge, I suggest you give Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" a read. I think Mr. Diamond has some rather compelling ideas about the relative technological prowess of various cultures and why they might be that way.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 11 2006,05:10

ericmurphy wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Should I just come back in, say, 2026?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm planning on refining the redshift part of the theory, and I'd like your input on the proposed physical consequences (I already have Cogzie to quibble over the math  :) ). I agree that it would be couterproductive to develop a global theory before examining certain aspects of the model, so I'm going to stick with one piece for now. Hopefully this will restore your confidence. :D


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, at risk of completely derailing a discourse that's already essentially plunged into the gorge, I suggest you give Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" a read. I think Mr. Diamond has some rather compelling ideas about the relative technological prowess of various cultures and why they might be that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, this is an excellent book that occupies a prominent place on my bookshelf. In fact, if you want to discuss it further, one of us can create a new thread. Three things to remember:
1) I am not a racist, so most of his arguments are irrelevant to my political philosophy.
2) Just like his namesake, Mr. Diamond is a racist. He clearly advocates black supremacy in the prologue. I'll be happy to quote the relevant bits if you'd like.
3) Unfortunately, parts of his argument actually strengthen the position of white supremacists.

 I'll be happy to elaborate in another thread.

Julie Stahlhut wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow!  Now I'm eager to get my hands on that cool multicolored gel-loading dye.  The stuff we use in my lab just separates into two comparatively boring shades of blue.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you comment on my "guts to gamete" paper when I present it? If you have time, of course.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 11 2006,05:54

Mr P asks Ms Stahlhut



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you comment on my "guts to gamete" paper when I present it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mr P. I think you can be assured of many comments when the moment arises. My breath is well and truly bated :)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 11 2006,06:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr P. I think you can be assured of many comments when the moment arises. My breath is well and truly bated
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes, I know you'll have plenty to say, and I anticipate your response. But something tells me that Ms. Stahlhut would also like to reply, and I just wanted to make it clear that anyone's free to jump in (Ms. Smith, are you listening? I recall that your specialty involves immunology - don't be shy).  :D
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 11 2006,07:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Ghost of Paley:
I am not a racist, so most of his arguments are irrelevant to my political philosophy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In response to this - a 'content only' reply by myself:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote: Dean Morrison
You meet the OED definition of a racist because of your clear statements that you would discriminate on grounds of race ( in the case of immigration to the US for example).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote: Ghost of Paley :
Ummm, Yenta, Northeast Asians are not a race, the Jews are not a race, East Indians are not a race: they are ethnic groups, and each group is concentrated in a particular nation: China, Japan, Korea, India, Israel. If I wanted to use racial classifications, I would have used the terms "Asian" and "Caucasian". Yet I avoided the broader racial categories, choosing to focus on nationalities instead. Why? Because each of these groups assimilate into Western society. Many of their racial cohorts do not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote: Dean Morrison
You ran away from that challenge on the 'Pandas' site - so there it stands, unrefuted, and unrefutable - unless you are prepared to withdraw all the racist statements you have made?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote: Ghost of Paley:
What racist statements? That some nationalities assimilate better into Western society? That some cultures are not suited to developed societies? If that's racist, then the truth is racist (shrug).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



... go figure.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 11 2006,07:47

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 11 2006,11:10)
Just like his namesake, Mr. Diamond is a racist. He clearly advocates black supremacy in the prologue. I'll be happy to quote the relevant bits if you'd like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This should definitely go in a new thread, but at even greater risk to life and limb of the train passengers, I do want to take issue with your claim that Dr. Diamond is a "racist." By any conventional use of the term, he most certainly is not a racist. I know the passages you're going to quote, and I'm going to point out that Diamond's opinion is not with regard to any genetic or racial differential, but rather a difference in intelligence due to situation and circumstances, which is a very different thing. He certainly says nothing that would lead one to believe he is advocating black (New Guineans are not racially black, for one thing) supremacy, or any supremacy, for that matter.

Anyone who discusses race or culture is obviously treading very treacherous waters, as you, Mr. Paley, are certainly aware. Diamond himself is very aware of how his dicussion of race and culture can be misinterpreted by those with a desire to misinterpret, and he says so in the book. But the truth of the matter is that a dispassionate reading of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" will provide no comfort to those who think that any particular race has any intellectual advantage over any other race, nor to those who think that any particular civilization's successes are due to the inherent superiority of its members.

And the truth of the matter, Bill, is even if there were provable, consistent differences in intelligence, fitness, propensity to crime, etc. among races or cultural groups, that would provide no ethical support for discriminatory practices. It would still be the case that each person should be judged based on his or her own personal merits, and not by the racial or cultural group to which he or she belongs. Human beings are individuals, not statistics. Even if you could prove that, e.g. caucasians were 50% more likely to commit crimes than, e.g., asians, would that mean laws should be enforced more diligently against caucasians?

In a word: no.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 11 2006,08:17

< Scroll down > to the first Jan. 9th post to see why the Yenta's lying (again).
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 11 2006,08:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This should definitely go in a new thread, but at even greater risk to life and limb of the train passengers, I do want to take issue with your claim that Dr. Diamond is a "racist."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O.K., I'll start a new thread. Actually, this book deserves its own space for many reasons, not the least being the author himself (who's an evo biologist). I don't even mind if others jump in. But it's your call here.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 11 2006,09:24

Yet another distraction that keeps Paley from answering my questions.  (sigh)  Showing the inanity of your theory is only fun if you actually respond to my statements.

Maybe it's best this way actually, I'm much more productive when I ignore the silly online debates.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 11 2006,09:45

Quote (cogzoid @ Jan. 11 2006,15:24)
Yet another distraction that keeps Paley from answering my questions.  (sigh)  Showing the inanity of your theory is only fun if you actually respond to my statements.

Maybe it's best this way actually, I'm much more productive when I ignore the silly online debates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, and that's why I hesitated even to bring up any other topic. I couldn't let the accusation leveled at Dr. Diamond to go unanswered, but even moving that discussion to a different thread is still going to slow down Mr. Paley's progress in even presenting evidence that his "quintessence" exists. Developing an internally-consistent mathematical model describing such a substance doesn't even begin to demonstrate that it actually exists, and if Bill's model cannot provide at least an equally compelling accounting for the vast range of phenomena that the current theories of cosmology, astrophysics, general relativity and quantum physics already account for, it will be what we've suspected all along: a waste of time.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 11 2006,10:05

Cogzoid wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another distraction that keeps Paley from answering my questions.  (sigh)  Showing the inanity of your theory is only fun if you actually respond to my statements.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, give Eric some credit: he's forcing me to dwell on one aspect of my model at a time, which improves everyone's focus. And I've been working on a reply to you. But my mind is modular, so our side debate over G,G, and S doesn't really slow me down - it just goes in a different box; in fact, it may speed up my reply since I can let my subconscious (or whatever) take over.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 11 2006,15:50

What is this "guts to gametes" of which we speak?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 12 2006,02:59

Julie

In response to a question by ericmurphy way back on page 3 of this thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Ghost of Paley
Would you care to elaborate on your hypothesis that DNA ingested, and subsequently digested, by one organism somehow ends up in the germ cells of that organism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paley wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lynn Margulis (wife of Satan.....err....Sagan) has proposed the endosymbiotic theory to account for new genes/functions. This a just one germ digesting another. My theory, which proposes RNA transfer from digestive enzymes to germ cells via RAG recombination, is merely an extention of Margulis's concept. Granted, there are some minor details to be worked out, but that's why ID research is so crucial for the progress of science.
My application of her concept to multicellular organisms reveals my willingness to seek truth wherever it might be - even from the wife of a Marxist
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And we've been waiting for him to elaborate ever since.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 12 2006,11:37

For any thread participants who are not familiar with Margulis's endosymbiont model:  In this model, one prokaryotic (bacterial) cell engulfs another, but the engulfed cell is not "digested" at all.  Rather, it persists, the association benefits one or both cells, and the ability to maintain an endosymbiont gives a selective advantage to the host.   Margulis's hypothesis was not taken seriously when she proposed it in the 1960s, but in the ensuing years, genetic tools were developed to test it.  It turns out that mitochondria and plastids contain their own DNA, and have considerable structural and biochemical similarities to bacterial cells.  

Incidentally, I work with a different kind of endosymbiont -- Wolbachia, a group of bacteria adapted to persist and reproduce within the cells of arthropod and nematode reproductive tissues, and to be transmitted from mother to offspring. Wolbachia is very good at "manipulating" host reproduction to make more copies of itself, usually by biasing a female's reproductive output towards making more daughters.  (Males either don't transmit it, or else transmit it much less efficiently than females.) In some cases, Wolbachia infection comes with considerable cost to the host, but in others, its presence has become important to host survival or reproduction.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 12 2006,12:07

Julie - thats actually interesting - I'm interested in the 'manipulation of host reproduction' and the game theory surrounding this. How host-specific are Wolbachia and is there a scale of host-endosymbiont interdependence between different species?
Any snappy references?
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 12 2006,13:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Julie - thats actually interesting - I'm interested in the 'manipulation of host reproduction' and the game theory surrounding this. How host-specific are Wolbachia and is there a scale of host-endosymbiont interdependence between different species?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting that you should ask that.  In just about every species that harbors a persistent Wolbachia infection, there seems to be a unique sequence at an easily amplifiable Wolbachia surface protein gene.  We do know that horizontal transmission is possible, even though most transmission is vertical.  For one thing, the most closely related infected insect species don't normally carry the most closely related bacterial strains.  Wolbachia infections have been experimentally introgressed into new species; sometimes a "hybrid" between two closely related animal species is fertile if backcrossed to one of the parent species, and that's the way it's been done.  There's also some evidence that parasitoids may be able to pick up the infection from their hosts, since they develop in close contact with host body tissues and fluids.  Infections have also been experimentally established in insect embryos via microinjection.

There are four primary ways in which Wolbachia biases host reproduction towards making lots of infected daughters:

Feminization (F).  Infected genetic males develop as females.  This one's known only from some terrestrial crustaceans, and probably depends on a bacterial effect on ZW sex determination pathways.  (ZW sex determination is sort of the opposite of XY.  Females in these species are ZW, and males are ZZ.)

Parthenogenesis induction (PI):  Infected females can produce daughters by gamete duplication, without having to mate.  This is best characterized in some parasitoid wasps.  Interestingly, the true wasps,  bees, and ants have a sex-determination system with which classic PI just can't work.  (This is another field of research for me, but I'll control myself.)  :-)

Cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI):  Infected females can mate successfully with any male, but if an uninfected female mates with an infected male, her embryos won't develop.  This means that infected females have better mating prospects, and thus higher reproductive success.  This is known in many insects, especially in numerous Drosophila species.  

Male-killing (MK): Some or all male embryos of infected mothers die, so that their daughters get more resources.  Since this doesn't imply parthenogenesis, MK infections tends to exist at intermediate frequencies in a trade-off situation; if it swept completely through the population, an MK infection would cause host extinction through loss of mating opportunities.

There are other adaptations known, though, too numerous to list here. There's no easy way to correlate related strains with reproductive effects; the infection "phenotype" seems to be a product of the host-symbiont interaction rather than of the bacteria themselves.  Incidentally, different Wolbachia strains infect nematodes, and in this phylum, the host and symbiont phylogenies match up pretty well!  

I can go on about this for hours, so I'll quit before everyone is completely reeling ....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any snappy references?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm really an applied molecular ecologist rather than a theoretical type, so I don't have an at-my-figurative-fingertips list, but a quick web search turned up this one that at least mentions Wolbachia dynamics:

Hammerstein, Peter.  2005.  Strategic analysis in evolutionary genetics and the theory of games.  Journal of Genetics 84: 7-12.

Hope this helps,
-- Julie
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 12 2006,23:54

Thanks, Julie, that was most informative. You should contact Dr Elsberry about doing a guest contribution on PT.

BTW would lack of vulnerability to PI in bees and wasps due to (presumably) haplo-diploid sex determination have had an effect on its evolutionary appearance or development?
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 13 2006,00:24

Wow Julie,

the cool thing about that stuff is that it can be used to make a whole raft of evolutionary predictions that can be tested.
I'm a long way from a decent library, but I'll check out the paper when I can.

Your enthusiasm for the subject shines through - isn't nature great? (although not wonderful from the point of view of an infected organism).

I agree with Alan- this deserves a guest contribution on PT.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 13 2006,03:38

Alan wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW would lack of vulnerability to PI in bees and wasps due to (presumably) haplo-diploid sex determination have had an effect on its evolutionary appearance or development?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is something that's not well-characterized yet, and in fact it's a path I'd like to pursue.  It turns out that not all haplodiploid sex determination systems are alike; the underlying pathways differ, and there seem to have been multiple and diverse responses to selection on sex determination mechanisms.  

Brief oversimplification:  Most bees, ants, and true wasps have a single sex-determining locus (no sex chromosomes) with many alleles.  Haploids are male, and diploids are almost always heterozygous at the sex locus and become female.  Homozygous diploids develop as males, and these diploid males are usually inviable or infertile. This is called single-locus complementary sex determination, or sl-CSD (or just CSD).  Just a few years ago, the sex locus of the honeybee was definitively identified by Martin Beye and co-workers.

Since inbreeding produces more homozygotes, homozygotes become diploid males, and diploid males tend not to reproduce, we'd predict:

1. Species with CSD should avoid inbreeding.

Support: Most species with CSD have inbreeding avoidance behaviors.  For example, many bees and ants have "nuptial flights" and mate far from their natal nests.  Many solitary wasp species also disperse before mating.

2.  Species whose life histories promote inbreeding should have a different sex-determination system.

Support:  Parasitoid wasps that tend to mate with siblings after emerging from a host usually don't have CSD; breeding experiments support this.  The overall pattern, when mapped onto hymenopteran phylogeny, suggests ancestral CSD that was secondarily lost in many parasitoid lineages.  However, the latter is still a topic for conjecture, because we don't have enough information to be sure.

My own dissertation research, BTW, uncovered a bizarre exception.  One solitary, predatory wasp common in the U.S. has CSD (breeding experiments clinched this), often mates with siblings (about two-thirds of matings in the population I studied, based on genetic data), produces diploid males under inbreeding (confirmed by genetic markers) -- and these diploid males are fertile, fathering normal daughters (confirmed by breeding experiments and genetic markers). So, they've "found" another way around the CSD vs. inbreeding dilemma!

3.  Only those hymenopterans that lack CSD should have Wolbachia-induced parthenogenesis (PI), because otherwise the gamete duplication process would produce diploid males, not daughters.

Support:  To date, PI has been found only in non-CSD, parasitoid Hymenoptera.  However, this doesn't rule out different, unknown mechanisms for parthenogenesis induction in CSD species; we just haven't really looked yet.  It also doesn't rule out male-killing or cytoplasmic incompatibility; the latter (CI) may yet turn out to be a considerable player in hymenopteran biology.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You should contact Dr Elsberry about doing a guest contribution on PT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll put that on my list of things to do.  :-) Gotta get a manuscript revised first, but it would be fun to do a Wolbachia essay!

Dean wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your enthusiasm for the subject shines through - isn't nature great?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, y'know, I just love my bugs!  Started getting interested at age 7, but didn't do anything about it for entirely too long (finally got my Ph.D. at age 46).  I try to do my best to get younger people started on what they like rather than what they think they're supposed to like.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 13 2006,06:32

Hope you do find time, Julie, and thanks again.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 13 2006,12:28

I'm seriously considering starting up my own entomologically-oriented blog.   I'll keep people posted if that actually comes about.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 14 2006,08:31

I look forward to your blog and comments.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 14 2006,09:55

See part one of my < response > to Mr. Brazeau.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 14 2006,10:21

Mt P,

I think you are spreading yourself a bit thinly, you are becoming positively wraith-like. Not to nag or anything, But...

Gut to ganetes...?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 14 2006,10:24

Or, even...

Gut to gametes.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 14 2006,13:38

Paley,

I understand that you are spreading yourself a little thin.  I'm going to regroup some of my questions regarding your ToE so you don't have to ferry through pages of this thread to try to find questions to answer.  These are remotely in chronological order.  And I'm only asking the ones that you should be able to answer quickly.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why seven?  Did you just pick that out of your hat?

You have claimed multiple times that your ether/quintessence is a crystal.  What is the structure of this crystal?  If you are going to claim that since it is constantly changing (and hence can't be pigeon-holed) then it is no longer a crystal.  It's more like glass, which, while hard, does not have a crystalline structure.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of "nothingness¨ allows you to believe in a "vacuum.¨
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given this velocity, it would take 9.6532X1045 years for light to travel through one millimeter of quintessence space. This implies an infinitesimally thin spherical shell, justifying my simplifying assumptions in the Gaussian model.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So, first the ether takes up all of space and vacuum doesn't exist.  Now, the ether is just an infinitesimally thin spherical shell.  I guess that's not a contradiction for you, eh Paley?

And more recent questions:  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This ignores the special properties of quintessence: In seven-dimensional space, all three-dimensional electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency, and hence, will be slowed down uniformly by the condensate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where does this come from?  I realize that you're making it up as you go along, but perhaps you can make up a more in depth description of the maths that support this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This frequency will yield a value for n equivalent to the number of elementary charges in the Empyrean(2)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why on a flat earth would the index of refraction follow the total amount of elementary charges in a structure?  I guess you don't feel you need to show any work to back this up either.

When you get time away from your Guts to Gametes diatribe, perhaps you can answer these questions.  To be honest it looks like you've realized that you're painting yourself into a corner, and rather than finishing the work, you're setting down the brush.  I'm a tad dissappointed, but not surprised in the least.  You'd rather argue with people that don't require as much proof or on topics that are unprovable.

-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 14 2006,16:40

And Bill, I think it might be the case that my questions (with all due respect to Dan's fine work in this area) might be even harder and more time-consuming to answer, because they involve more complex phenomena with more detailed explanations under the standard theories (quantum theory, general relativity).

I understand you don't really believe the earth is the center of the universe and that everything else revolves around it, and that this is all an exercise in intellectual virtuosity. But that doesn't change the fact that these are all questions that need answers. And I haven't even begun to run out of questions yet. I suspect that Mr. C has plenty of his own as well.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 15 2006,11:02

ericmurphy wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I understand you don't really believe the earth is the center of the universe and that everything else revolves around it, and that this is all an exercise in intellectual virtuosity. But that doesn't change the fact that these are all questions that need answers. And I haven't even begun to run out of questions yet. I suspect that Mr. C has plenty of his own as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I realise I could use a little more focus, but I'm working on answers......promise. By the way guys, continually questioning someone's sincerity and using terms like "nutjob" aren't the best motivational strategies.  :D   I'll try to develop my redshift theory more in the near future. Eric, could you cut and paste your questions as well? Thanks.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 15 2006,12:58

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 14 2006,15:55)
See part one of my < response > to Mr. Brazeau.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


.. checked this out - seems that the scientists working in that field have noticed your propensity to cut and paste stuff you don't understand, and/or have never read.

The 'papers' you work on seem to consist of whatever you can find that you think might be contentious; then cutting and pasting in a scattergun approach, in the hope that people might take you seriously.

You really are a transparent Ghost Paley.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 15 2006,13:05

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 15 2006,17:0)
I realise I could use a little more focus, but I'm working on answers......promise. By the way guys, continually questioning someone's sincerity and using terms like "nutjob" aren't the best motivational strategies.  <!--emo&:D   I'll try to develop my redshift theory more in the near future. Eric, could you cut and paste your questions as well? Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not really questioning your sincerity, Bill. At least from my end, you seem far too intelligent a guy to really believe that the earth is the center of the universe when the uncontroversial evidence points entirely in the other direction. If anything, I'm complimenting you by assuming that what you're really doing here is setting yourself an intellectual task to see if you can bring it off. After all, as I've said before, you're trying single-handedly to overturn the bulk of scientific knowledge slowly and painfully accumulated over the last 500 years or so, and speaking for myself, I wouldn't think less of you if you couldn't pull it off.

In any event, to save you the trouble of wading back through almost 20 pages of previous messages, I'll repost my questions to you here:

The Hertzsprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship. According to your model, all stars (with minor exceptions) are at the same distance from earth: 4.5 ly. This means that all stars' apparent magnitude is equal to their absolute magnitude, and therefore their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity. This means that the Hertzprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship is broken, and there is therefore no relationship between a star's mass and its luminosity, or between its temperature and its luminosity. Therefore some other explanation is necessary for the different temperatures of stars. What is that explanation?

Galaxies. Since galaxies are all the same distance from the earth as the stars are (4.5 ly), either they're not made of stars at all (and hence are "nebulae"?), or they're made of extremely non-luminous stars. But stars have been resolved in some nearby galaxies, e.g., the Magellanic clouds. Presumably these are really tiny stars? Since their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity…

Cosmic elemental abundances. (Is evopeach out there somewhere?). Presumably Bill's geocentric universe precludes a big bang, and therefore precludes primordial nucleosynthesis. Therefore, one needs some other explanation for the eerie concordance between the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the predicted abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium, which are exquisitely sensitive to the temperature of that radiation. Of course, we also need an explanation for the existence of the CMB in the first place, since the Big Bang evidently didn't happen in Bill's world.

Existence of metals. (Of course, I mean metals in the sense that astrophysicists use the term). I assume that supernovae don't happen in Bill's world, since a supernova occurring 4.5 ly away would preclude the existence of the earth. So, Bill—how did metals get here? I'm assuming since there was no big bang, they've always been here, but I'm hoping your answer is a little more entertaining than "I don't need to explain how metals got here, because they've always been here."

Cosmic redshift. Obviously, neither stars nor galaxies have a recession velocity, since they're all at the same distance from the earth (4.5 ly), and presumably always have been. So what accounts for the observed redshift? Tired light? Intervening dust? God playing tricks on us?

Distance to the celestial sphere. Bill, you say you know the distance to the A Centauri system. But how did you derive that distance? By its parallax? Even if, as WKV points out, parallax could be due to a wobbly cosmic sphere, you wouldn't be able to determine the sphere's distance that way. The reason we know the distance to A Centauri is because we know the diameter of the earth's orbit around the— oh, wait. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun. So what's the base of the triangle that allows us to compute the distance to the celestial sphere?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 16 2006,19:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way guys, continually questioning someone's sincerity and using terms like "nutjob" aren't the best motivational strategies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I humbly apologize for insulting you for attempting to rewrite the bulk of astronomy and biology in one thread.

Quote-mined from the first few pages of this thread:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinism is a bloated corpse floating in the aether, another failed "enlightenment" idea destined to be parroted in Feminist Studies workshops, and ignored by those who matter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The stories I could tell of the horrors Evilution has wrought on people's lives!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember, I'm interested in data, not the tap-dancing of evolutionists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's nice to know that some scientists are using their grant money on serious research rather than the usual allotment of beer, crank, and hookers
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No rino, I'm 100% Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian man! I have not been "diluted" with the moral poison of evolutionism as you have!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps I can learn something about civil discourse from your examples.  
-Dan
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 17 2006,07:33

Paley's theory is that all of the stars we see are imbedded in a spherical shell of quintessence that has a radius of ~4.5LY?

Seriously??
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 17 2006,08:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps I can learn something about civil discourse from your examples.  
-Dan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhhh, don't worry - Paley wouldn't dish it out unless he could take it. I just find your motivational strategies counterintuitive.  :)
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 18 2006,08:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just find your motivational strategies counterintuitive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Who says I'm trying to motivate you?

I've been thinking about your theory and my arguing about it.  I've also been thinking about why I'm bothering at all.  Why should I waste my time to pick apart one of the most convoluted theories I've ever heard.  I've certainly read my share of nutjob theories.  But, this is the first time where I've been in discourse with the guy trying to sell the theory.  I was wondering how far you could get before trapping yourself.  Seeing as you haven't been able to answer some of the basic questions concerning your theory, I think we've found your stopping point.  Now, I do find it fun to point out the inconsistancies of your theory and watch as you invoke more convoluted mechanisms to support it.  But, eventually you'll reach an impasse.  It might as well be earlier than later.  That way you can say "Gee, that was a foolish theory." and move on with your life.  I have a feeling that this won't be the case though.  You'll maintain that you're just not done with it yet, or that it's a work in progress, or that you just need some grad students to help you work out the details.  I think you're going to say that because all nutjobs eventually say that.  Part of being a nutjob is that you can never admit defeat.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I haven't backed out of a challenge yet, and I'm not going to now............
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And I think this problem is exacerbated by the fact that you have spiritual capital invested:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as your inquiry concerning whther Jesus gave me the answer to these questions, the answer is a qualified yes. All knowledge claims ultimately depend upon presuppositions, and only Biblical presuppositions can ground authentic knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ball is in your court, Paley.  You can either continue on with your theory, answer some questions and make some predictions, or admit that this whole tirade is foolish.  I'll be waiting either way.  And I've made my predictions.
-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 18 2006,11:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ball is in your court, Paley.  You can either continue on with your theory, answer some questions and make some predictions, or admit that this whole tirade is foolish.  I'll be waiting either way.  And I've made my predictions.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh don't worry - I ain't licked yet. I didn't want to mention this before, but I've been having sinus troubles lately that have affected my concentration and contributed to my tardiness (yeah, boo-hoo right?). Plus, I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff. I know you and Eric want answers and I'm working on them, but I must continue to beg for your patience. Mods willing, I'm not going anywhere so you'll have me to kick around for a while. I find our dialogue fascinating and I'm trying to get Eric involved too. But hey, ya got Larry to punt around in the meantime, plus Evopeach is still around from what I hear. Plenty of "trolls" to thump.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 18 2006,11:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
, I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



lol.  no kidding.  I think the good doctor just removed one of your kidneys on that thread.

one does begin to wonder how many times you can be eviscerated and still have some "guts" left for your "guts to gametes" drivel.

I'm beginning to think you closely related to holothuroids.

do you know what sea cucumbers do when frightened?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 18 2006,14:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh don't worry - I ain't licked yet. I didn't want to mention this before, but I've been having sinus troubles lately that have affected my concentration and contributed to my tardiness (yeah, boo-hoo right?). Plus, I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff. I know you and Eric want answers and I'm working on them, but I must continue to beg for your patience. Mods willing, I'm not going anywhere so you'll have me to kick around for a while. I find our dialogue fascinating and I'm trying to get Eric involved too. But hey, ya got Larry to punt around in the meantime, plus Evopeach is still around from what I hear. Plenty of "trolls" to thump.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I know how pain can sap your energy.  I hope you feel better soon.  Thanks for the suggestion to go beat up on other trolls, but frankly, they aren't as much fun.  It took weeks of beatings for EvoPeach to understand that Hydrogen was around before Helium.  I need a little more rationality in my discourse for it to be pleasurable.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 18 2006,14:57

.. sorry by the way if you interpret this as a 'content free post'.

'Ghost of Paley’ has been full of beans of late at the:  105 post; 11 page; "Guns   Germs and Steel" thread, that he started a week ago to talk about his favourite topic.

I've even suggested that he get back to his paper on 'Guts to Gametes' that you guys are waiting for but it seems he just can't help "spreading himself thin".

Focus! Paley Focus!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 18 2006,15:00

Cogzoid wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know how pain can sap your energy.  I hope you feel better soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks. Actually, the discomfort's not too bad, but these problems leave me rather spacey (yeah, I know, how can one tell, etc, etc.). Fortunately the fish research was previously completed, or else I'd look even worse.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I need a little more rationality in my discourse for it to be pleasurable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Peach is not without his charm, but he doesn't take to being contradicted, does he?

Sir Wiggles wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lol.  no kidding.  I think the good doctor just removed one of your kidneys on that thread.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I've just replied to "Ripper" Brazeau, not that anyone's gonna read it.... ;)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
do you know what sea cucumbers do when frightened?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Post scandalous cartoons? <shrug>
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 18 2006,15:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, I've just replied to "Ripper" Brazeau, not that anyone's gonna read it....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



oh, i read it..

*snicker*

do you really value your opinions that much?

as to sea cucumbers, when they feel threatened, they spew their digestive tract out which become sticky strands hopefully meant to dismay or tangle a potential predator.

remarkably, they manage to regrow their enitre digestive tract after a couple of weeks.

sea cucs are mostly bottom feeders; collecting and processing detritus via long feathery arms.

gee, sounds like you more and more now that i think about it.

good luck with that "guts to gametes" thing, if it's anything close to being as ridiculous as your cladistics arguments, I'm sure I'll get a laugh or two out of it.

Why DO you hang around here anyway?  for the snappy political reparte?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 18 2006,16:05

Re "do you know what sea cucumbers do when frightened?"

They get pickled?

(Yeah, I know I should've resisted, but that was too good a straight line to pass up... )

Henry
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 19 2006,06:49

Cogzie -

I still feel bleh, but look for a response tonight. I hope to justify:

1)My choice of dimensions (hint:think about permutation theory)

2)How my model relates the index of refraction to "the total amount of elementary charges in a structure"

3)my position on redshifts
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 19 2006,11:36

Not to Bleh to spout off on your favourite topic over at the 'Guns, Germs and Steel' thread you started Ghostey..

You are seriously selling these guys short......
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 19 2006,11:48

Yes, Dean, we realize that there were other threads in this forum and that Paley is posting in them.  I understand that you want to keep hounding Paley, wherever he goes.  But, please, stop making this thread longer than it has to be with your contentless posts.  We all know how you feel about GoP.  By all means, though, add content if you wish.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 19 2006,14:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cosmic redshift. Obviously, neither stars nor galaxies have a recession velocity, since they're all at the same distance from the earth (4.5 ly), and presumably always have been. So what accounts for the observed redshift? Tired light? Intervening dust? God playing tricks on us?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I explained this in my last post1. The redshift comes from the stars wobbling in the crystal sphere. Since the speed of light is greatly reduced in qunitessence, small changes in distance due to wobbling will cause frequency shifts in light that would make objects appear to have large recessional velocities assuming a uniform speed of light c. In addition, why should recessional velocity have anything to do with distance anyway? If a chicken in India is moving away from me at whatever speeds chickens move, does that mean it is closer to me than a jet plane taking off from Hartsfield-Jackson airport located a whisker south of where I live? Even evolutionists can probably admit, chicken velocity is much smaller than jet plane velocity. Hence, according to the evolutionists and their Big Clang theory, the chickens on the Ganges are closer to me than the airplanes buzzing outside my apartment! I love the accuracy of the predictions of evolutionism! Talk about an absolute confirmation of Romans 1:22! The stupidity of evolutionists is exceeded only by their immorality!

1< Authoritative Source >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 19 2006,14:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid.
Why seven?  Did you just pick that out of your hat?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, In our creators' infinite wisdom and grace, seven happens to be the integer that maximizes the surface area of an n-sphere of n-dimensions. He created the geometry based on his perfect number. This number of dimensions allows the widest topological latitude and hence enables quintessence to have all of the special properties it possesses.

< Here is the math. >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of "nothingness¨ allows you to believe in a "vacuum.¨

Quote  
Given this velocity, it would take 9.6532X1045 years for light to travel through one millimeter of quintessence space. This implies an infinitesimally thin spherical shell, justifying my simplifying assumptions in the Gaussian model.
So, first the ether takes up all of space and vacuum doesn't exist.  Now, the ether is just an infinitesimally thin spherical shell.  I guess that's not a contradiction for you, eh Paley?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cogzoid, quintessence exists throughout all of space. Indeed, the properties of this medium determine c, contrary to the commie evolutionist Einstein and his theory of relativity. Quintessence is far denser in the sphere of the fixed stars than at the surface, and that is what enables it to slow light and hold the stars!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 19 2006,14:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why on a flat earth would the index of refraction follow the total amount of elementary charges in a structure?  I guess you don't feel you need to show any work to back this up either.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A 1969 paper describes the refractive indices of both Lithium Niobate and Lithium Tantalate and shows, by shining a laser, how these materials can have these measures 1. This is how quintessence works. The charge in the Empyrean is used as an infinite energy supply to generate light, which raises the refractive index of the already dense quintessence. The supply of unpaired negative charges ensures energy will never run out. As previously explained, while light might not be a laser, in seven-dimensions it behaves as one, for all electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency in hyperspace.

1
< Read this and be enlightened! >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 19 2006,15:28

I told you I was under the weather! I recently edited the last three posts to reduce typos and fix the grammar. Get over it, Yenta.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 19 2006,16:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The redshift comes from the stars wobbling in the crystal sphere. Since the speed of light is greatly reduced in qunitessence, small changes in distance due to wobbling will cause frequency shifts in light that would make objects appear to have large recessional velocities assuming a uniform speed of light c.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sure, as the star traveled in one direction, there would be our normal doppler red shift.  But, as the star traveled back (to complete the wobble) it would have a blue-shift.  But, the stars never change their red/blue-shift (except binary stars in small amounts), only an extremely tiny handful of stars are coming towards us, and they are in our galaxy.  So, it's almost as if the stars are all moving away from us, constantly, and never wobbling back.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In addition, why should recessional velocity have anything to do with distance anyway? If a chicken in India is moving away from me at whatever speeds chickens move, does that mean it is closer to me than a jet plane taking off from Hartsfield-Jackson airport located a whisker south of where I live? Even evolutionists can probably admit, chicken velocity is much smaller than jet plane velocity. Hence, according to the evolutionists and their Big Clang theory, the chickens on the Ganges are closer to me than the airplanes buzzing outside my apartment! I love the accuracy of the predictions of evolutionism! Talk about an absolute confirmation of Romans 1:22! The stupidity of evolutionists is exceeded only by their immorality!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Recessional velocity is not inferred by measuring the distance.  Recessional velocity is measured as well as distance.  < And they seem to be proportional to each other. >  Your chicken-jet analogy is simply ridiculous.  That farther objects are moving away at a faster rate than closer objects is a measured effect, not an inferred one.  The stupidity of creationists is not exceeded by anything.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, In our creators' infinite wisdom and grace, seven happens to be the integer that maximizes the surface area of an n-sphere of n-dimensions. He created the geometry based on his perfect number. This number of dimensions allows the widest topological latitude and hence enables quintessence to have all of the special properties it possesses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I love how you make an assertion, that the hyperstructure of quintessence is in 7 dimensions, then you go out and find a math article that deals with hyperdimensions and the "perfect number 7" (well, close enough to 7.257...) and  you post it in here as justification.  Yet, you haven't shown what the surface area of your hyperspheres has to do with the special properties of your quintessence.  Which is more than a small gap in your explanation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cogzoid, quintessence exists throughout all of space. Indeed, the properties of this medium determine c, contrary to the commie evolutionist Einstein and his theory of relativity. Quintessence is far denser in the sphere of the fixed stars than at the surface, and that is what enables it to slow light and hold the stars!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

First off, when did Einstein and his theory of relativity determine that properties of media don't affect the speed of light?  I really take offense to your mischaracterization of Einstein's theories.  I expected better from you.  More and more you demonstrate that you are as ignorant as the rest of the trolls.  How does quintessence hold the stars when:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it doesn't have the requisite quark structure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

??



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A 1969 paper describes the refractive indices of both Lithium Niobate and Lithium Tantalate and shows, by shining a laser, how these materials can have these measures 1. This is how quintessence works. The charge in the Empyrean is used as an infinite energy supply to generate light, which raises the refractive index of the already dense quintessence. The supply of unpaired negative charges ensures energy will never run out. As previously explained, while light might not be a laser, in seven-dimensions it behaves as one, for all electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency in hyperspace.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Charge used as an infinite energy supplyl?!?!  Paley, you just may have solved all or our energy problems with a few strokes of your keyboard!!  Quick, tell us, how do we get energy out of electrons?!?!
You need to explain why light in 7 dimensions has the same frequency.  (By the way, what frequency is that?)  Lasers aren't just light of the same frequency, the bigger importance is that they are coherent.  So you'll need to explain how light becomes coherent and singular in frequency in 7 dimensions.

Finding the stupidities of your posts is becoming easier, but somehow it's more fun.  You're like the little kid who gets caught in a lie and has to keep stretching the truth to explain himself (...and then Aliens took Billy's baseball and threw it through the window).  I'm glad you're planning on continuing with the theory.

-Dan
Posted by: zilch on Jan. 19 2006,22:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure, as the star traveled in one direction, there would be our normal doppler red shift.  But, as the star traveled back (to complete the wobble) it would have a blue-shift.  But, the stars never change their red/blue-shift (except binary stars in small amounts), only an extremely tiny handful of stars are coming towards us, and they are in our galaxy.  So, it's almost as if the stars are all moving away from us, constantly, and never wobbling back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, now, cogzoid- obviously, the stars are all (with the exception of a few liberal binaries) wobbling away from us at the moment, because they are appalled at our evil rejection of Christ's truth.  As soon as the Antichrist is deposed, they will wobble back, and be appropriately blueshifted.

After slogging through this thread, I am amazed at the patient dissection of this patent nonsense.  But I must also express my admiration for the creative wriggling of GoP- he should be in politics.  Or maybe not.

And the delicate sphere of Bose-Einstein condensate, the seven dimensions- the guts.  Pure poetry, this refraction of hand-picked scientistic tidbits through the strait lens of Biblical truth.  An admirable creation, a sweet gossamer of cotton candy.  Kudos, GoP.

But as has already been demonstrated here ad nauseum, it is not science.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 20 2006,06:08

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 19 2006,20<!--emo&:0)


I explained this in my last post1. The redshift comes from the stars wobbling in the crystal sphere. Since the speed of light is greatly reduced in qunitessence, small changes in distance due to wobbling will cause frequency shifts in light that would make objects appear to have large recessional velocities assuming a uniform speed of light c. In addition, why should recessional velocity have anything to do with distance anyway?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Bill, your explanation doesn't work. For one thing, if redshift was coming from stars wobbling in the crystal sphere (which sounds like kind of sloppy divine workmanship to me), we'd expect to see a cyclic variation between redshifts and blueshifts, unless you're claiming the celestial sphere is slowly getting larger (maybe the quintessence is getting fatigued from exerting that immense centripetal force?). We do, in fact, often see blueshifts from objects within the Milky Way, consistent with objects moving more or less uniformly, but with measurable variation, around the galaxy's center of mass (and not around the center of the earth).

For cosmological objects, we do see predominantly redshifts, especially for objects outside the local group. We also notice that in general, the higher the redshift, the dimmer the object. Why might that be? Well, take the standard image of dots on an inflating balloon. All the dots are moving away from each other, and the further away two dots are, the faster they move away from each other. The same is true of any two particles in an explosion.

What is the simplest explanation for this observation? Why, that would be that the entire universe is expanding. If that were so, we would expect to see what we do in fact see: that the further two objects are away from each other, the higher their recessional velocity.

What do we have for confirmatory evidence? Well, Cepheid variables, for one thing. The mechanism of Cepheids is relatively well-understood, which is why we have confidence in the posited relationship between period and absolute magnitude. Therefore, Cepheids make an ideal "standard candle," and because they are generally very luminous stars, they are visible out to cosmological distances. Therefore, to within observational limits, we can use Cepheids to determine the absolute distance to galaxies within which Cepheids can be resolved. And guess what? We find that the further a Cepheid is away (assuming our relationship between period and luminosity is valid), the higher its redshift.

Type I supernovae have a similar utility, in that since we know the mechanisms in some detail, we have confidence in our belief that they all have similar luminosity. Supernovae have the added benefit of having extremely large luminosity (at some wavelengths they can been seen out to billions of light years). And what do we see? Again, the same thing. The further away a Type I supernova is, the higher the redshift. Which again is consistent with objects all moving away from each other. Of course, it's also consistent with the entire universe exploding away from the earth itself, but if you trace all those trajectories back, you find that 13.7 billion years ago, 10 ^ 60 Kg or so of galaxies and other assorted extremely heavy objects must have exploded away from the earth. Let's just say that sounds pretty unlikely.

The problem with your quintessence theory, Bill, is that it doesn't really explain anything. It does account, in a desultory fashion, for some phenomena, i.e., doppler shift in light quanta, but only in a simplistic fashion that doesn't explain very much else. Cosmological redshift, of course, explains a much broader range of phenomena, is consistent with virtually all observables (which your quintessence theory is already having difficulty with), and accounts for a broad range of phenomena, including things like the cosmic microwave background, the relative abundances of light elements, the shape of Einsteinian space, and the age of the universe. Your quintessence theory not only doesn't actually explain any of these phenomena or allow us to predict what they might be, it also explicitly excludes most of them (unless your geocentric theory allows for a big bang somehow).

Now, your hypothesis about quintessence's insanely high refactive index might change Hubbell's constant, but it would be inconsistent with other observations, and again, fails to explain a broad range of phenomena a much simpler theory already explains very well, and this simpler theory has the added advantage of not being contradicted (so far) by observation.

So far, I can only say I fail to be persuaded. Shall we move on to the next phenomenon in need of explanation, courtesy of Mssrs. Hertzsprung and Russell?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 20 2006,07:57

So far, the only thing Paley has demonstrated is just how much a fundamentalist is willing to delude himself to protect a fragile worldview.  If you take his words at face value (that he actually believes this stuff, and isn't just making a point) then that delusion must run pretty deep in other areas of his life.  Sad, really.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 22 2006,11:52

Cogzoid, could you please state why the digamma function is inappropriate for my model? Please include as much detail as possible. Thanks.

By the way, I just < replied > to Mr. Brazeau.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 22 2006,12:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cogzoid, could you please state why the digamma function is inappropriate for my model? Please include as much detail as possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What does this question even mean?  Why would a mathematical concept be inappropriate for your model?  You might as well be asking: "Show me how the sine function is inapporpriate for my model."  I guess it takes more than vocabulary to discuss mathematics.

Eric and I have given you plenty of problems with your model to address.  Perhaps you can spend your time addressing them.

-Dan
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 22 2006,15:36

Could I point out that on the Mr Brazeau's thread Gop has been rumbled as a 'Google trawler'?

I'm afraid that he's the one that wishes to waste your time with 'content-less' posts. He thinks that if he can assemble a lot of words and a few links he might pass as some kind of authority. I see you are very patient with him, despite his phoney excuses, and the way he changes the subject when things get tough for him...

Paley has no 'model', no 'paper' - and not even a name that he's proud enough to attach to his ideas.

Content possibly - if 'Google-trawled' cut and paste stuff counts.

I would have thought it was pretty clear to you whether GOP can back up his assertions or not
Posted by: zilch on Jan. 22 2006,21:18

When my kids were small, they enjoyed cutting out pictures from old magazines, choosing them for color and form rather than content.  They pasted them onto paper in the shape of animals, buildings, spaceships, etc.  Thus, they could make, say, a cat out of pictures of dogs, or fashion models, or churches.

Of course, the snipped-out pictures did not cohere naturally- they did not refer to one another, except accidentally, and they did not start out fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle which was already designed and must merely be assembled correctly.  No, my kids had a preconceived idea of what they wanted to create, and chose and snipped and fit the pieces together to suit their fancy.

By the way, Mr. Ghost has "replied" to Mr. Brazeau over at PT in the same sense that an airplane "replies" to an incoming missile by throwing out metallic chaff.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 23 2006,04:49

quoth the zilch:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When my kids were small, they enjoyed cutting out pictures from old magazines, choosing them for color and form rather than content.  They pasted them onto paper in the shape of animals, buildings, spaceships, etc.  Thus, they could make, say, a cat out of pictures of dogs, or fashion models, or churches.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given my love affair with the hyperlink, I can see why you think I'm doing a "Gish gallop", but I've also been trying to summarise my position periodically. I also try to ask good questions when I'm confused about the professor's point of view. You may be painting with too broad a brush...........
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 23 2006,05:38

Perhaps I should break it down a little. Let's start with just the Cepheid variables. Where do they fit into your model, Bill? They fit really well into standard astrophysical and cosmological models; I'd be curious to see where they fit into your model.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 23 2006,06:36

ericmurphy wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps I should break it down a little. Let's start with just the Cepheid variables. Where do they fit into your model, Bill? They fit really well into standard astrophysical and cosmological models; I'd be curious to see where they fit into your model.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First I need to explain the discrepancy between predicted and observed blueshifts. Give me time and I'll detail it tonight.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 23 2006,06:46

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 23 2006,12:36)
First I need to explain the discrepancy between predicted and observed blueshifts. Give me time and I'll detail it tonight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was under the impression that your model didn't predict blueshifts at all. Or perhaps it predicted stars that oscillate between redshift and blueshift with a 24-hour cycle?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 23 2006,07:12

ericmurphy said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was under the impression that your model didn't predict blueshifts at all. Or perhaps it predicted stars that oscillate between redshift and blueshift with a 24-hour cycle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the part I'll address tonight.

And Cogzie, you claimed that I made an ad hoc adjustment to my model when I used the digamma function to justify my choice of dimensions (or should it be dimentias?). This implies a misuse of the underlying math. If so, could you please explain your objection, or describe exactly where you need more detail? Thanks.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 23 2006,08:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Cogzie, you claimed that I made an ad hoc adjustment to my model when I used the digamma function to justify my choice of dimensions (or should it be dimentias?). This implies a misuse of the underlying math. If so, could you please explain your objection, or describe exactly where you need more detail? Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's what I said, with the complaint emboldened:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love how you make an assertion, that the hyperstructure of quintessence is in 7 dimensions, then you go out and find a math article that deals with hyperdimensions and the "perfect number 7" (well, close enough to 7.257...) and  you post it in here as justification.  Yet, you haven't shown what the surface area of your hyperspheres has to do with the special properties of your quintessence.  Which is more than a small gap in your explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 24 2006,09:18

I hate to nag, but…

I've been re-reading this thread, and noted that Bill originally promised his model for November 18. (Of 2005, not 2006, I believe, although he was never explicit about that.)

I've granted him several extensions since then, but only up through the end of November, as far as I can tell. He can only feel fortunate he doesn't have a Federal District Court judge breathing down his neck with an Order to Show Cause. :-)

Not trying to give you a hard time, Mr. G. But I would like to see your model a little more fleshed out before we all grow old and die. So far we've sort of, in a way, established the number of dimensions informing the cosmos (although according to the paper you cited the actual number should be a rational number, not an integer, which I'm having a hard time picturing), but I've got a list of observations in need of explanation stacked up like 747s above O'Hare on a snowy Thanksgiving...

Time to hit the No-Doz, Bill, and make like an undergraduate during finals week.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 25 2006,07:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I hate to nag, but…
I've been re-reading this thread, and noted that Bill originally promised his model for November 18. (Of 2005, not 2006, I believe, although he was never explicit about that.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't realise that the entire model was due by Nov. 18. In my defense, the time machine is broken, so I couldn't get all of your ojections ahead of schedule. :p
Eric, you just have to accept that I'm very deliberate, and prefer a good answer to a quick one. Sorry. But I should have a reply soon.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 25 2006,09:02

I also understand that you're attempting single-handedly to overturn 500 years of well-settled physics. Obviously this isn't something that can be done in a few months (or a lifetime, for that matter). So I'm not expecting a finished model. But you've got to toss us a few bones to gnaw on now and then, just so we know you're still working on it.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 25 2006,09:54

Would this be an appropriate moment to ask what progress with your "guts to gametes" paper, Mr. P.

You seem to have been distracted by Mr. Brazeau. If you want to give up on the enterprise and admit defeat, we'll all understand.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 25 2006,14:56

Yes, I'm still working on both papers; when I've given up I'll let you know. My work schedule and sinuses have conspired against me lately, plus you wouldn't want me to shortchange Mr. Brazeau? That would be selfish, and I know you guys aren't that. Hopelessly deluded: yes. Selfish: no. I do appreciate your continued patience. Take my thoughtful intervals as a commentary on your scientific insight.  ;)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 25 2006,15:49

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 25 2006,20:56)
That would be selfish, and I know you guys aren't that. Hopelessly deluded: yes. Selfish: no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm…this coming from a guy who insists the entire cosmos revolves around the earth…

BTW, I saw something recently about ice storms in Georgia and immediately thought of the Rev. Paley. But then I remembered there's that other Georgia.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 26 2006,15:53

Must.....concentrate......on paper.....
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 26 2006,16:04

You can do it, Paley.  I'm rooting for ya.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 27 2006,08:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure, as the star traveled in one direction, there would be our normal doppler red shift.  But, as the star traveled back (to complete the wobble) it would have a blue-shift.  But, the stars never change their red/blue-shift (except binary stars in small amounts), only an extremely tiny handful of stars are coming towards us, and they are in our galaxy.  So, it's almost as if the stars are all moving away from us, constantly, and never wobbling back.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have forgotten to consider the vibrational frequency of the quintessence sphere.  This frequency is approximately 2 Pi/24000 years, and hence makes the period about four times the true age of the universe. At the moment of creation the intelligent designer compressed it, and then let it go. Hence, at this time in history the sphere is experiencing its maximum acceleration. One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate.  This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide. However, the quintessence sphere models this acceleration perfectly. The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to

some members of the ACLU! I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 27 2006,09:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Charge used as an infinite energy supplyl?!?!  Paley, you just may have solved all or our energy problems with a few strokes of your keyboard!!  Quick, tell us, how do we get energy out of electrons?!?!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cogzie, check out < this website > for a good introduction on how this can work.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 27 2006,09:46

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 27 2006,14:54)

You have forgotten to consider the vibrational frequency of the quintessence sphere.  This frequency is approximately 2 Pi/24000 years, and hence makes the period about four times the true age of the universe. At the moment of creation the intelligent designer compressed it, and then let it go. Hence, at this time in history the sphere is experiencing its maximum acceleration. One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate.  This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide. However, the quintessence sphere models this acceleration perfectly. The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to

some members of the ACLU! I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait a minute. I know I'm not a mathematician, but what does a frequency of 2 Pi/24,000 years mean? That sounds more like a period to me. A frequency should be expressed in Hz, or cycles per minute/hour/year/century or whatever unit you want to deal with. What's the frequency or period in units we can use? A perriod of 2 PI/24,000 years is a lot less than a year; it's on the order of two hours.

And furthermore, where do you derive this frequency from in the first place? Where do you see observational evidence that the universe is in fact vibrating? If the period is, as you claim, greater than the age of the universe, then how do you know that there's even a period at all? What if current trends continue without ever reversing?

And how does this model explain differing recession rates? If everything is the same distance from the earth, shouldn't the recession frequencies be the same, and more to the point, all in the same direction? Why do we see some blueshifts?

Also, your claim that the observation that the universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate is hardly a "big hole" in the inflationary big bang theory. Granted, it's not clear exactly what is driving the expansion, but it's not like the theory is in danger of being scrapped. For one thing, strong evidence in favor of increasing expansion is only 8 years old. But already several hypotheses are on the table accounting for observation, and none of them involve positing a crystalline sphere 4.5 ly in diamter comprising the entire universe.
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 27 2006,10:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I'm convinced (not), but WTF does it have to do with evolution?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The mathematics behind this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What math? Where?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ACLU
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


F U
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 27 2006,10:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You haven't proved a single thing yet, Paley.  Where did this 2pi/24,000 year frequency come from?  Was there a measurement made to support this number?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate.  This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, Paley, the "big clang theory" allows for a cosmological constant, which takes the shape of Dark Energy.  This Dark Energy is sometimes called < Quintessence >.  So, you have the nerve to steal a concept from another theory, then claim that that theory doesn't contain your concept.  How could a strong Christian such as yourself be so dishonest?  You can take your bald faced lies and misrepresentations to < more receptive sites >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to some members of the ACLU!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, I'm not a member of the ACLU, so you can give me a shot.  Where are these mathematics that you speak of?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cogzie, check out < this website > for a good introduction on how this can work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't understand crank-speak very well.  Can you translate?  I skimmed the site and couldn't find anything about electrons being an infinite source of energy.  Perhaps you can fill in the relevant details or highlight the parts of the theory that are relevant.

There are plenty of questions you haven't addressed in pages 40-41.

I must say, I'm perplexed at why it takes you so long to produce the maths that support your theories.  You've already reached your conclusions, you consider your theory proved, yet you can't produce the math to justify any of your claims?  Simply amazing.

-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 27 2006,11:42

Bill, I was wondering if I could possibly, respectfully make some suggestions for your model. Generally, astronomy and cosmology are observational sciences. In other words, for the most part, astronomical and cosmological models are constrained by observation.

But so far, it doesn't seem that your model takes observation into account at all. I understand that you're trying to achieve mathematical consistency in your model, but the history of astronomy is littered with internally consistent models which fail to comport with observation.

It might be a good idea to leave off the math and physics sites for a while, and spend some time perusing the astronomical sites. Your latest post claims to have "conclusively proven" your model, and yet you have not yet accounted for a simple fact of observational life: many astronomical objects out there demonstrate blueshift. So far your model seems to have ignored this stumbling block. I don't think your model can progress (let alone be said to be "proven") until it overcomes this relatively glaring shortcoming.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 27 2006,11:54

The talkorigins site just added an article about < the the Big Bang > to its FAQ list.

Henry
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 27 2006,12:27

Warning- practically content free post follows-

nice to see youve got yourself an Avatar sorted out Gop old boy - glad to see I've been an inspiration to you. Nice try at the 'Socratic Irony' but never mind; the Panda is cute anyway - and a picture of a bloke covered in a sheet could be open to misinterpretation I suppose.


Now tell me - do you think this stuff up when you're on: or off: the medication?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have forgotten to consider the vibrational frequency of the quintessence sphere.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps these guys had 'forgotten to consider' this because they didn't know you were going to make it up at the time.?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 27 2006,13:58

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 27 2006,14:54)
One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate.  This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I followed the link Henry provided, and came across the following:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Taking this as an indicator that this sort of energy exists, we can explore what effect this might have from a cosmological standpoint. Regardless of the expansion of the universe, the zero-point energy density remains constant and positive. This leads to the rather curious (and non-intuitive) conclusion that the pressure associated with dark energy is negative. If one plugs a component like this into the standard BBT equations, the effect of the negative pressure is larger than that of the positive energy density. As a result, in a universe driven by dark energy, the effect of its gravity is to accelerate the expansion of the universe, instead of slowing it down (as one would expect for a universe with just matter in it).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems the "evolutionists" have anticipated your problem with their theory, Bill.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 27 2006,18:53

For those keeping track at home:

The good reverend's last substantive post before today's was on January 19th, eight days ago. The last substantive post before that was on January 9th, eighteen days ago. Given that so far we haven't been blessed with a coherent accounting for doppler blueshift, let alone cosmological redshift, it's going to be a long, long time before we get an actual coherent, well-integrated cosmological model.

I know it sounds like I'm harping, but I've never really believed the Rev. would be able to overturn 500 years of well-settled, thoroughly confirmed astrophysics and cosmology (to put it mildly). Nevetheless I'm dying to see what he comes up with. My guess is that I'll be able to throw up objections to his theory for basically the next 200 hundred years, if I live that long.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 28 2006,10:19

Cogzie wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, Paley, the "big clang theory" allows for a cosmological constant, which takes the shape of Dark Energy.  This Dark Energy is sometimes called Quintessence.  So, you have the nerve to steal a concept from another theory, then claim that that theory doesn't contain your concept.  How could a strong Christian such as yourself be so dishonest?  You can take your bald faced lies and misrepresentations to more receptive sites.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No dishonesty - just a lack of respect for the evidence supporting Dark Energy. After further review of the SDSS data confirming the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, I concede that researchers have found positive evidence for Dark Energy at last. I shouldn't have ignored this part of the Big Clang model and I apologise for my carelessness. However, my model will explain the source of Dark energy.

ericmurphy wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wait a minute. I know I'm not a mathematician, but what does a frequency of 2 Pi/24,000 years mean? That sounds more like a period to me. A frequency should be expressed in Hz, or cycles per minute/hour/year/century or whatever unit you want to deal with. What's the frequency or period in units we can use? A perriod of 2 PI/24,000 years is a lot less than a year; it's on the order of two hours.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The number should read: (2Pi)/(24,000 years). Sorry for not making this clear before. And yes, I will include the derivation of this figure in a future post. The equation is a simple ODE. I suspect you'll be disappointed Cogzie.

More later.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 28 2006,10:26

Mr The Ghost of Paley wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Would "more" involve guts and gametes, and would "later" suggest within my lifetime? :D
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 28 2006,11:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would "more" involve guts and gametes, and would "later" suggest within my lifetime?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But aren't you enjoying my debate with Mr. Brazeau? And I am contributing (albeit slowly) to my geocentric model. Actually, I'm happy about being wrong about the level of evidence for Dark Energy. Along with the Redshift, this is the first observation that my model will explain.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 28 2006,11:23

Too technical for me. And I am deaf to the music of the spheres. Biochemistry was my field, so I hope to be able to follow your argument better with HGT.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 28 2006,12:32

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 28 2006,16:19)

The number should read: (2Pi)/(24,000 years). Sorry for not making this clear before. And yes, I will include the derivation of this figure in a future post. The equation is a simple ODE. I suspect you'll be disappointed Cogzie.

More later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. 2 Pi/24,000 years means to me the same thing as (2Pi)/(24,000 years). Which works out to approximately 2.29 hours. Unless it's supposed to be a frequency (which is what you implied in your original post), but a frequency is customarily expressed as so many oscillations per unit of time, e.g., 10.48 oscillations per day (which appears to be what (2Pi)/(24,000 years) is equal to).

In any event, period and frequency are essentially the same thing presented in different units. I can't think of how I would interpret (2Pi)/(24,000 years) as being anything other than a period of a bit less than two and a half hours, which I think we can all agree is quite a bit less than the true age of the universe, and not four times the age of the universe, which is what the Rev. stated in his earlier post.

That being the case, we wouldn't expect to see stars oscillating between redshift and blueshift every 24 hours; we'd expect to see it every couple of hours. Since this doesn't happen, I think we can essentially rule out Bill's model as contradicted by observation. Unless I'm completely misinterpreting Bill's language, but regardless of where he derives (2Pi)/(24,000 years), it doesn't appear he's any closer to accounting for doppler shift, or cosmological redshift, than he was back two and a half weeks ago.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 28 2006,15:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2 Pi/24,000 years means to me the same thing as (2Pi)/(24,000 years). Which works out to approximately 2.29 hours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Eric, you are quite wrong here.  1/time has the same meaning as a frequency.  You're getting confused because you're not realizing that the unit "years" is in the parentheses.  He left it in this form so it would be easy to see the period, which is, indeed, 24,000 years.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 28 2006,18:26

Quote (cogzoid @ Jan. 28 2006,21:39)
Eric, you are quite wrong here.  1/time has the same meaning as a frequency.  You're getting confused because you're not realizing that the unit "years" is in the parentheses.  He left it in this form so it would be easy to see the period, which is, indeed, 24,000 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, I guess I am confused. So is he saying that the unit is whatever one wants to call a slice of time of 24,000 years' duration? It's been a long time since pre-calculus, and longer since trig, but doesn't 2Pi basically mean one cycle? In which case he's saying one cycle per 24,000 years? I guess I still don't see how the period of oscillation is four times the true age of the universe, unless the good reverend thinks the universe is only 6,000 years old.

In any event, I'll leave the hard math questions to you, Dan, and I'll ask the easy non-math ones, like how does Bill believe astronomers are right about dark energy, but wrong about comparatively simple things like stars with a parallax of more than a parsec and a half or so, and where does parallax come from in the first place?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 29 2006,09:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any event, I'll leave the hard math questions to you, Dan, and I'll ask the easy non-math ones, like how does Bill believe astronomers are right about dark energy, but wrong about comparatively simple things like stars with a parallax of more than a parsec and a half or so, and where does parallax come from in the first place?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You're asking great questions, keep it up.  I just wanted to keep you from wrongly hammering on a point for too long.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 29 2006,11:08

In the future I'll rely more on standard units and less on dimensional analysis.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 29 2006,14:45

Quote (cogzoid @ Jan. 29 2006,15:31)
You're asking great questions, keep it up.  I just wanted to keep you from wrongly hammering on a point for too long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I appreciate the correction, Dan. But the funny thing is, despite being off by a factor of either ~16 orders of magnitude (for the real age of the universe) or ~8 orders of magnitude or so (for Bill's age of the universe), all my other objections stand.

So, Bill, where does the blueshift come from?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 30 2006,05:19

Re "where does the blueshift come from?"

Maybe it got washed with the jeans in hot water?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 30 2006,09:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What math? Where?
Quote  
ACLU

F U
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My dear Ved,

Is the phrase "F U" part of the liturgy of the mother church of evolutionism referred to in my post? It wouldn't surprise me, for the linguistic performance of members of that group tends to be stunted at that vocabulary level.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 30 2006,10:05

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 30 2006,15:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What math? Where?
Quote  
ACLU

F U
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My dear Ved,

Is the phrase "F U" part of the liturgy of the mother church of evolutionism referred to in my post? It wouldn't surprise me, for the linguistic performance of members of that group tends to be stunted at that vocabulary level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill, I'd be careful about slinging arrows at the scientific community, when doing so will provoke easy comparison to the linguistic performance of members of the various fundamentalist churches, especially those in the American "Bible Belt" (and I'm talking about English and other natural languages, not glossolalia).

Now, about them blueshifts...
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 30 2006,10:39

Nah, me know other words.

Me just didn't feel the need to use any others. It seemed appropriate at the time (sorry mods) to counter yet another of your cheap shots. What more is there to say about it? You don't admire the elegant simplicity of my intelligently designed reply?

I'm starting to think that all of your so-called theories are nothing more than a springboard from which you can rail against all your percieved enemies. What kind of scientist mentions, in the middle of his discourse, that people in the ACLU are stupid? What on earth does the ACLU have to do with your quintessence sphere?

I'm not a scientist. I don't even pretend to be one. ;) But you don't find me on this board saying that cranks or conservatives or theists are stupid. Heck, I even like some of your prose, your way with words sometimes gives me a chuckle. Granted, it's usually because you're weaving insults into your theories... though the comment I was responding to was just dumb. Not your best work.
Posted by: MDPotter on Jan. 30 2006,10:39

GoP babbled:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the future I'll rely more on standard units and less on delusional analysis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fixed that for ya.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 30 2006,11:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, about them blueshifts...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







Now, this equation governs the angle-independent motion of quintessence and explains the redshift. However, there are blueshift anomalies that need to be explained. They are explained by the fact that r(0) and r'(0) are functions of the polar and azimuthal angles of the sphere of the fixed stars. Hence, the entire sphere is not all vibrating simultaneously. Therefore, there are some stars that have blueshifts.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 30 2006,12:25

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 30 2006,17:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, about them blueshifts...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, this equation governs the angle-independent motion of quintessence and explains the redshift. However, there are blueshift anomalies that need to be explained. They are explained by the fact that r(0) and r'(0) are functions of the polar and azimuthal angles of the sphere of the fixed stars. Hence, the entire sphere is not all vibrating simultaneously. Therefore, there are some stars that have blueshifts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, how does it explain differing redshifts, which range from z=~0 to z > 3? And how does it explain the fact that different ranges of redshifts also correspond to different categories of astronomical and cosmological objects? I.e., redshifts > 0.1 are rare for intragalactic objects, redshifts > 1 are rare for anything other than extremely energetic galaxies and quasars, and redshifts > 3 are almost unheard of for anything other than quasars.

And as for blueshifts, there is no obvious correspondence between azimuth/right ascension and approach/recession velocity. If the sphere is vibrating with harmonics (I'm assuming that's what you mean when you say it's not vibrating simultaneously), there should be some fairly straighforward pattern of red- and blueshifts.

The patterns of red- and blueshift, are well-accounted for, however, by reference to the dynamics of stellar orbits around the galaxy's center of mass and to the large-scale structure of the galaxy.

Further, extremely high blueshifts are extremely rare, but extremely high redshifts are extremely common. What up with that?

Also, your implied age of the cosmos (~6,000 years) is plainly wrong. The evidence that the earth is ~4.5 E 9 years old and that the universe is 1.37 E 10 years old is essentially unassailable. In other words, for you to be right about the age of the earth, we'd have to jettison virtually everything we know about astronomy, geology, chemistry, paleontology, biology, cosmology, relativity, and quantum physics. In other words, we'd have to jettison virtually all of science.

I think there's the same problem here there was with your misunderstandings of phylogentic relationships among taxa, Bill. You seem to have a blind spot when it comes to how evidence from very different and independent lines of reasoning can all converge on the same answers. You spent a lot of time arguing about discordant results obtained from gene and protein analysis, while completely disregarding an immense body of evidence derived from totally separate lines of inquiry, like morphological comparisons, the fossil record, plate tectonics, and cladistics.

I was recently reading this < article > on TalkOrigins about various YEC claims. One thing that jumped out at me was that the various methods the YECs used to estimate the age of the earth varied over an enormous range of dates, from ~100 years to about 260 million years. Didn't that give the YEC guys pause as to the validity of their methods? All the various methods--stratigraphy, paleontology, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, paleomagnetics, theories about planetary formation--converge on one value: ~4.5E9 years. The YECs' methods generated estimates all over the map. The only thing they had in common was that they were all at least an order of magnitude lower than the accepted value.

That should have set off some warning bells, I would have thought...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 30 2006,12:28

Mr. Potty wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
GoP babbled:
Quote  
In the future I'll rely more on standard units and less on delusional analysis.


Fixed that for ya.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mr. Potty appears highly skilled at the art of character interchange via keyboard. Perhaps we need to recruit him in a "man-vs.-machine" showdown against Dawkins' weasel program on who can write the works of Shakespeare the fastest. However, this might be too much trouble on a first try. Instead, he could compete with < his perceived ancestors > in a race for the holy grail of literary greatness via keyboard plonking.
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 30 2006,13:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Also, your implied age of the cosmos (~6,000 years) is plainly wrong. The evidence that the earth is ~4.5 E 9 years old and that the universe is 1.37 E 10 years old is essentially unassailable.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ >
< http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/ >
< http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Redshift >
< http://tinyurl.com/bo7a7 >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 30 2006,13:10

46 pages for someone to propose the age of the earth is ~6,000 years?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 30 2006,13:27

Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 30 2006,19<!--emo&:0)
< http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ >
< http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/ >
< http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Redshift >
< http://tinyurl.com/bo7a7 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Evidence for the Big Bang >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 30 2006,15:27

Martin wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Secondly, the phrase ‘all three fish classes’ is simply Arnason et al.’s mistake re-stated. It assumes the correctness of the ‘fish typology’ as a natural group. However, there is ample evidence that tetrapods are descended from some ‘fish’ and that taxa of interest to us here belong along that branch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And maybe one day Arnason will find it. Let's review some complaints of the < original  Arnason study: >

1) No tetrapods
2) Not enough lungfish/coelacanth species
3) Bad root, partly due to 1)

Let's take the last part first. < Here's an unrooted tree > from < from an earlier study. > As one can see, the lamprey creates trouble when used as an outgroup, because of the tendency of its mitochondrial DNA to cluster with tetrapods (I can cite other sources for this claim). On the other hand, its nuclear DNA behaves better under the evolutionary whip. So should this organism be used? Depends on the researcher's presuppositions.
To address the first two points, let's examine fresh studies. After making the very adjustments that Martin et al. demand, our dear Aranson finds that the results don't < improve: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(1) Morphological and molecular trees of gnathostome relationships commonly depict lungfishes and tetrapods as sister groups. However, in many cases, the placement of the rooting point of these trees has depended on arbitrary assumptions. Traditionally, these trees show Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) as the sister group of remaining gnathostomes, a position that is inconsistent with the palaeontological age of the Chondrichthyes, which is younger than that of bony fishes.

(2) Analyses of mt data sets do not identify the commonly accepted gnathostome tree. Instead, when the tree is rooted with a non-gnathostome outgroup it splits into one tetrapod and one piscine branch. Chondrichthyes fall among other lineages on the piscine branch. The mt tree is inconsistent with the common notion of evolution from cartilaginous fishes to ray-finned fishes and from here to lobe-finned fishes (lungfishes and coelacanths) and tetrapods

(3) Gnathostome mt distances are consistent with a basal split between tetrapods and all gnathostomous fishes. The distances do not suggest that the evolutionary rates of the chondrichthyan mt genomes are anomalous compared to other mt genomes.

(4) The mt tree suggests that lungs and air breathing are ‘‘primitive’’ conditions among extant gnathostomes. If so, tetrapods and basal lineages on the piscine branch have retained this condition, while the swim bladder and the absence of this organ in some piscine lineages, constitute derived conditions.

(5) Some nuclear data sets favour the mt tree, while others don’t. The correct tree of basal gnathostome relationships is not known, but the mt trees are reproduced by currently acknowledged phylogenetic approaches. The amount of data that can be extracted from mt genomes is finite. Therefore, by necessity, extended analyses of deep gnathostome relationships must be based on the establishment of larger nuclear data sets and a more comprehensive taxon sampling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the way, Bichirs and ropefish were the basal piscines, leading to the oddly creationist mantra: "a tetrapod is a tetrapod, and a fish, a fish".
Hey guys, take a look at Table One: I think you'll find enough Dipnoids and 4pods to keep you occupied. And finally, another  < side of Brinkmann. >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The gene order of the mitochondrial genomes of the South American and Australian lungfish conforms to the consensus gene order among gnathostome vertebrates. The phylogenetic analyses of the complete set of mitochondrial proteins (without ND6) suggest that the lungfish are the closest relatives of the tetrapods, although the support in favor of this scenario is not statistically significant. The two other smaller data sets (tRNA and rRNA genes) give inconsistent results depending on the different reconstruction methods applied and cannot significantly rule out any of the three alternative hypotheses. Nuclear protein-coding genes, which might be better phylogenetic markers for this question, support the lungfish–tetrapod sister-group relationship (Brinkmann et al. 2004). [Paley's emphasis]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While Arnason may be sliding over to the dark side, ya'll still have Brinkmann, at least. Heat therapy, anyone?
Posted by: zilch on Jan. 30 2006,15:37

Disclaimer: the following post is partially content-free.

Not that I want to prolong the agony here, but perhaps Mr. Ghost is unaware that the distance to relatively nearby stars (within about 100 light years) can be measured without recourse to redshift: directly, by parallax, using the ~300 million kilometer diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun as the base of the triangle.

Of course, I suppose that these apparently nearby stars are vibrating in the celestial sphere too, sideways, with a period of one year.  Yes, that must be the explanation.  Funny that the stars that seem nearer, based on type and redshift, are the ones with this wiggle.

In fact, this celestial sphere must be a-wigglin' and a-jigglin' like jello!  Maybe my brother was too pessimistic when he said:

I don't know but I been told
Can't get to heaven in a jello mold

All this celestial jiggling, in just the right places and frequencies and quantities to simulate the observations made by scientists unencumbered by empyreae, freefloating Bose-Einstein condensate, and cramped timetables, can only mean one thing: magic.  And that means God.

Where is Occam when we need him?
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 30 2006,15:56

Flippin' Heck!

looks like Gop's gone back to Googletrawling for fish again - at least the formatting in of his last post shows his method. <ah! - sorted now I see - appears that Gop couldn't post at the Panda's Thumb - what is it with Trolls and technology?>

And Gop's invention of the wobbly 'quintessance' to fudge a set of data consistant with a much simpler explanation reminds me of the old argument that fossils were laid down in a nice orderly way by the devil to make us all doubt the existence of the creator.

Any doubts that Gop is totally bonkers should have been laid to rest by now.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 30 2006,17:15

Re "estimate the age of the earth varied over an enormous range of dates, from ~100 years to about 260 million years."

Wonder if one of their "estimates" came from the gravitational-collapse theory of solar power that was around before nuclear fusion was understood.

Henry
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 30 2006,20:38

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 30 2006,23:15)
Wonder if one of their "estimates" came from the gravitational-collapse theory of solar power that was around before nuclear fusion was understood.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Lord Kelvin figured prominently in their arguments:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This age is attributed to Barnes (14). Barnes (14) summarizes and supports the arguments developed first in 1862 by Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), who calculated that the Earth could be no less than 20 million and no more than 400 million years old (127). Kelvin’s calculations were based on the presumption that the Earth was cooling from an initial white-hot molten state, and his calculations determined how long it would take for the observed geothermal gradient to reach its present configuration. Kelvin also calculated that the Sun is probably no more than 100 million years old and almost certainly no more than 500 million years old (126). These upper limits for the age of the Sun were based on his estimate of the available supply of gravitational energy, which, he concluded, would not last many millions of years longer. Nuclear reactions, which we now know are responsible for the Sun’s fires, were unknown in Kelvin’s time. The value of 24 million years, preferred by Barnes (14) and listed by Morris and Parker (97) as the age of the Earth, is attributed by Barnes to Kelvin but was, in fact, first published by King (73). Lord Kelvin (82), however, agreed with King’s value and adopted it as a likely upper limit for the age of the Earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(< Dalrymple >, internal citations omitted)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 30 2006,20:43

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 30 2006,21:27)
And maybe one day Arnason will find it. Let's review some complaints of the < original  Arnason study: >

1) No tetrapods
2) Not enough lungfish/coelacanth species
3) Bad root, partly due to 1)

etc. etc. etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the point of your post is that portions of the phylogenetic tree are controversial, you'll get no argument from me (or from any evolutionary biologist, either).

If your point is that the phylogenetic tree is completely wrong, well, all I can say is…you're completely wrong.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 31 2006,05:57

ericmurphy:

This was finally explained to me, because I couldn't understand what Ghost was trying to say either.

Nobody is contending that phylogenetic trees are easy to construct or not subject to dispute. There is a great deal of controversy.

What Ghost is saying is, at the cutting edge of science, you would expect this sort of debate - very few of the results have come in yet, and those that have come in aren't particularly reliable, so there's lots of scope for debate.

Ghost's point is that over the last decade or so, a very large amount of additional results have become available, adding a wealth of genetic and molecular analysis evidence to the existing morphological evidence. And yet these trees are NO CLOSER to resolved than they were before. Which lineages are included in the sample change the apparent relationships among other lineages. Different analytical techniques using the same data produce very different trees.

Ghost's argument is that when a wealth of additional information becomes available, and when that information is a great deal more reliable, and we STILL can't build trees any more robust than ever, maybe the problem is that our assumption of trees is wrong in the first place. We can't produce good reliable trees because there are no trees to produce - the data stubbornly refuse to fit our wrong assumption.

To which two counter-arguments have been presented over at PT. First, that there has indeed been a trend toward a solid consensus as more information comes in; the tree model seems to be working just fine. And second, that EVEN IF the tree model is wrong, this lends absolutely no positive support to the 'poof' model.

Ghost has at this point been reduced to claiming the consensus as to phylogenetic trees isn't very solid, and for the good reason that God didn't do it that way. Instead, God created 'kinds' that have been generally milling around their Platonic centers. And therefore attempts to find that one 'kind' evolved out of another is doomed to the kinds of problems cladists are suffering; they're looking for what didn't happen.

Now, if only we'd read the freepin' BIBLE, we'd have known this all along and saved ourselves all this confusion and heartburn.
Posted by: MDPotter on Jan. 31 2006,06:29

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 30 2006,18:28)
The Gibbering Puddler babbled:
Mr. Potty appears highly skilled at the art of character interchange via keyboard. Perhaps we need to recruit him in a "man-vs.-machine" showdown against Dawkins' weasel program on who can write the works of Shakespeare the fastest. However, this might be too much trouble on a first try. Instead, he could compete with < his perceived ancestors > in a race for the holy grail of literary greatness via keyboard plonking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mr Potty, lol, ever clever!
Right back at ya Gobbler.
However, chimps are not my 'perceived ancestors', (although I'm willing to believe they could be yours), but that is a common misunderstanding among people who don't know what they're talking about.
And how could I ever compete with 46 pages of your ill-conceived idiocy? It's you who is in willing competition with the chimps to tap out something intelligent -- Shakespearean, even -- through deliberate keyboard poking.
Poke... here I refute physics... poke ... and biology ... poke .. and astronomy...
Babbling puddles of ghostly gibberish, quinitessential spheres of bullshit with a pale white glow.

Babble on Paleface.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 31 2006,07:03

Quote (Flint @ Jan. 31 2006,11:57)
ericmurphy:

This was finally explained to me, because I couldn't understand what Ghost was trying to say either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I've explained this at great length to the good reverend previously. While there's a great deal of controversy as to the root of the tree (we're talking organisms that diverged a billion and a half years ago or more), and there's plenty of controversy about various twigs and leaves, huge portions of the tree are very well established. Bill seems to have a huge hangup about where, e.g., lampreys and hagfishes fit at the base of the craniata clade, but he doesn't seem to understand that lampreys are more closely related to humans than 97% of the organisms out there.

There's not much controversy in the field that hagfishes are more closely related to humans than either are to, say, digger wasps. And all three are more closely related to each other than any are to mushrooms. In broad outline, the phylogenetic tree is well established in < this form >. Bill seems to be hung up on the indisputable fact that sometimes the genetic and protein evidence is difficult to figure out, and uses those difficulties to argue that there is no phylogenetic tree at all. Which is clearly wrong.

Further, as Dr. Theobald has pointed out, given the astronomical number of phylogenetic trees that could be constructed, the fact that two trees derived from different lines of evidence converge at all is strong evidence that common descent with modification is a fact in need of explanation, not a hypothesis in need of evidence.

It's like arguing that because scientists don't have a clear understanding of the interpretation of quantum physics, that quantum physics must be completely wrong.
Posted by: zilch on Jan. 31 2006,07:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Gop's invention of the wobbly 'quintessance' to fudge a set of data consistant with a much simpler explanation reminds me of the old argument that fossils were laid down in a nice orderly way by the devil to make us all doubt the existence of the creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heck's bells, Mr. Morrison,  I thought the same thing.  But then I realized, why stop there?  This is God we're talking about, and He can do Anything.

So why should He settle for a jiggly jello data tweaker with all those pesky observational and logical unpleasantries?  No, there's a much simpler explanation, which not only overturns five hundred years of physics, but millenia of philosophy:  God is beaming all this stuff directly into our brains.  Whether our brains exist in a "real" world or in a big Vat in God's Basement is immaterial.  This explanation neatly takes care of any conceivable objection, and is free of fiddly mathematics.

Mr. Ghost, I'll mention you in my Nobel acceptance speech.  Before I do, however, maybe you can explain to me why God would mess with our minds like that.  Thank you.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 01 2006,07:01

Zilch wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So why should He settle for a jiggly jello data tweaker with all those pesky observational and logical unpleasantries?  No, there's a much simpler explanation, which not only overturns five hundred years of physics, but millenia of philosophy:  God is beaming all this stuff directly into our brains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, metaphysical assumptions drive my model...so what? Every hypothesis resides in a philosophical matrix, including those derived from a naturalistic point of view. One can't test a piece of a theory without implicitly probing the rest. That's how the model becomes consistent not only with itself, but with the rest of the universe. Which is pretty much science's goal.  ;)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 01 2006,09:00

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 01 2006,13:0)


Yes, metaphysical assumptions drive my model...so what? Every hypothesis resides in a philosophical matrix, including those derived from a naturalistic point of view. One can't test a piece of a theory without implicitly probing the rest. That's how the model becomes consistent not only with itself, but with the rest of the universe. Which is pretty much science's goal.  <!--emo&;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The philosophical assumptions of your model are pretty clear, in the same way that Einstein's assumption of  a static universe led to his insertion of the Cosmological Constant (which, no matter how hard we try, won't seem to go away).

But the other half of the equation is in two parts: 1) the model must match observation; and 2) the model must in some way provide a conceptual framework for the range of phenomena it seeks to explain.

So far, your model isn't doing so well on 1), and I'm pretty sure it will never be able to achieve a better framework under 2) than currently exists under less, shall we say, outlandish models (although the existing models are certainly not slouches in the outlandishness sweepstakes).
Posted by: zilch on Feb. 01 2006,10:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So far, your model isn't doing so well on 1), and I'm pretty sure it will never be able to achieve a better framework under 2) than currently exists under less, shall we say, outlandish models
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ericmurphy- On point 1), I must disagree.  The advantage of having a model created by magic is that it can match any observation without even breaking a sweat.  To wit: it was objected that some stars are blueshifted.  The ghost model complied with observation by developing wobbles, presumably in just the right directions and velocities to match the observations.  Other, as yet unanswered objections will find their proper wobbles in the fullness of time, I'm sure.
On point 2), I agree.  I assume by "framework" you mean something like "a theory which fits observations and explains them coherently".  Here the ghost model fails dismally.  The presumed wobbles that result in what we observe have no theoretical explanation in the ghost model.  The formulae presented so far are cherrypicked puzzle pieces, not ramifications of a central naturalistic theory.  "Naturalistic" is necessary, because of course if magic is invoked, there are no holds barred, and my "God is beaming everything" theory is superior because it's simpler and accounts for everything better.

In other words, the ghost model is jello. But real jello is governed by physics, and wobbles the way it does because it's all connected together, in fact and in theory, and the theory explains the jiggles in a coherent way.  Empyreal jello is not all connected together in theory- its jiggles and twitches are governed by a magical String Puller, and the explanations for each twitch (when proffered at all) are simply googletrawled to match the observations.

And even though it's moderately entertaining to take Bishop Ussher's age of the Earth as a piece of hard data, and come up with a magic filter that tweaks the physical data just right so that it fits, I see no reason to prefer a 4.5 lightyear empyreum over, say, one 100 lightyears across, with no jiggling, but whose light is distorted by a field just outside the Kuiper Belt.  Fishing for formulae to fit any fantasy is rather like proving that the Bible is true, or false, through numerology: with a bit of ingenuity, it can be done; but it proves nothing.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 01 2006,11:03

Quote (zilch @ Feb. 01 2006,16:14)
ericmurphy- On point 1), I must disagree.  The advantage of having a model created by magic is that it can match any observation without even breaking a sweat.  To wit: it was objected that some stars are blueshifted.  The ghost model complied with observation by developing wobbles, presumably in just the right directions and velocities to match the observations.  Other, as yet unanswered objections will find their proper wobbles in the fullness of time, I'm sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I suppose if your standards are low enough, you can always come up with a model that will fit some observation. But I'm willing to bet that Bill will never be able to come up with a model that will fit some observations without being contradicted by others. It's just too big of a tap-dance, too much like a game of Wack-a-Mole.

But it will be entertaining to watch him try.

And as for the blueshift, his model no more accounts for actual observed blueshifts than ID "accounts" for bacterial flagella by claiming they were designed by a designer.
Posted by: zilch on Feb. 01 2006,11:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I'm willing to bet that Bill will never be able to come up with a model that will fit some observations without being contradicted by others. It's just too big of a tap-dance, too much like a game of Wack-a-Mole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric, you might well be right that the tap-dancers in any such model would be stepping on each other's toes constantly, if they were constrained by coherency.  But if the formulae don't have to fit together, they can overlap and contradict one another, so that the dancers can simply, magically, dance through one another like so many ghosts.  I imagine that's no problem for the denizens of empyreae.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 03 2006,08:21

HET - ÃOBOPÈTÜ writes:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric, you might well be right that the tap-dancers in any such model would be stepping on each other's toes constantly, if they were constrained by coherency.  But if the formulae don't have to fit together, they can overlap and contradict one another, so that the dancers can simply, magically, dance through one another like so many ghosts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not if the formulae are being picked apart by specialists and knowledgeable amateurs.
Posted by: cogzoid on Feb. 03 2006,11:25

Picked apart is right.  I'm hoping to see you try to answer some questions in the future.

-Dan
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 03 2006,11:52

I'd like to get the doppler blueshift/redshift and cosmological redshift stuff out of the way so we can move on to the rest of my questions. At this rate, it's going to be ten years before I need to think of any new ones…
Posted by: cogzoid on Feb. 06 2006,13:30

Paley,

How long must we wait for answers before we accept your inability to answer questions as a concession?  Are you waiting for scientific papers on tachyons so you can kludge that into your theory?

Certainly you should be able to address the questions that deal with showing your work.  Unless, of course, you skipped all the work and jumped straight to the conclusion!

-Dan
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 06 2006,13:50

I've been busy lately, sorry...I've also been trying to integrate dirichlet functions into my model, and it's taking longer than I thought. I'm still working on it.....
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 06 2006,16:39

Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 06 2006,19:30)
Certainly you should be able to address the questions that deal with showing your work.  Unless, of course, you skipped all the work and jumped straight to the conclusion!

-Dan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's pretty clear by now—isn't it?—that that's exactly what's happened. Mr. Bill has obviously reached the conclusion—geocentrism—first, and now is trying to develop a model that will justify that conclusion.

Does this remind you of any other group of "theorists"?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 07 2006,12:52

Sorry for the delay, but I'm trying to wed several portions of my earlier theory with newer parts, all while anticipating possible objections.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Feb. 07 2006,17:26

Every time someone points out a huge leak in Gops Googletrawler he has to go and fish for more patches. He seems to think that if he can find an obscure enough term it might frighten you guys off:

< Dirichelt functions indeed >

Sticking plasters on wobbly jello an elegant model does not make GoP. I suppose when you've left a great big pile of obscure Googletrawled references on the floor you'll want to stand back and say ha! - understand that!

Why do you bother when your first principle is that you know about the position of the world is from Scripture? Don't tell me you worked out your Geocentresm from Dirichlet functions backwards through wobbly jello and whatever else you've been entertaining these guys with back to the inescapable conclusion that the Earth is at the centre of the universe? How could you - you're still making it up as you go along for Chrissake! ;)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"If your worldview starts with a problematic origin story, everything else is going to be infected," he said...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now guess who said that Gop ?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 10 2006,13:31

In order to keep this thread from scrolling right off the first page of ATBC, I thought I'd ask the good Rev. for a status update on his attempt to explain the various lengthenings and shortenings of wavelengths out there.

It would be great to get that stuff out of the way, so we can move on to a brand new theory of nucleosynthesis, since the old one obviously isn't going to work in a cosmos nine light years wide.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 13 2006,10:45

So Bill—is it time to shut this thread down? Your posts are getting further and further apart, and your substantive posts are down to barely one a month.

Again, I understand that overturning half a millennium of science takes time. But I think we were all under the impression that you already had at least the framework of a theory already put together. Your piece-meal attempts to address our objections to your theory (none of which, I might add, have been adequately addressed yet), leaves one with the impression that you're just starting to come up with the bare outlines of a theory attempting to reach a preset conclusion.

All in all, the more we look at it, the less any of it looks like actual science.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 13 2006,12:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So Bill—is it time to shut this thread down? Your posts are getting further and further apart, and your substantive posts are down to barely one a month.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My job (you know, the place I go to every morning after I stagger out of the nearest trash can) has been killing me lately. So I might need to shut things down for a while. Don't worry, I'm still working on it -  I just don't want to give a deadline I can't keep. I'll bump the thread up when I have new material....
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Feb. 14 2006,06:56

So the answer to the original question is....

after 16 - odd pages .....

Ghost of Paley can't back up his assertions.......

as you're so busy Gop - I won't be expecting you to be spreading your objectionable opinions elsewhere will I now???
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 14 2006,07:53

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 13 2006,18:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So Bill—is it time to shut this thread down? Your posts are getting further and further apart, and your substantive posts are down to barely one a month.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My job (you know, the place I go to every morning after I stagger out of the nearest trash can) has been killing me lately. So I might need to shut things down for a while. Don't worry, I'm still working on it -  I just don't want to give a deadline I can't keep. I'll bump the thread up when I have new material....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. Why not just admit that this is one assertion that you can't argue to completion?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 14 2006,11:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ghost of Paley can't back up his assertions.......

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL. Why not just admit that this is one assertion that you can't argue to completion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



.....and people wonder why I'm so unrelenting - look what happens when I drop my guard.


:p
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Feb. 15 2006,01:51

So what was it that made you decide to throw the towel in GOP?
Couldn't find a way to cobble together Dirichelt functions onto your model?
Or just out of your depth?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 15 2006,16:05

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 14 2006,17:23)
.....and people wonder why I'm so unrelenting - look what happens when I drop my guard.


:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill, here's the problem: you come out with guns blazing, trashing not only evolutionary biology but basically all of physics (or at least, astronomy, cosmology, and astrophysics). You claim that evolutionary biologists are cretins, you unaccountably lump astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists—basically anyone who believes the earth goes around the sun rather than the other way around—in with biologists by referring to them as "evolutionists," and then claim to not only be able to debunk their theories, but also to be able to blow away the scientific community with your own virtuoso performances in mathematics, physics, astronomy, and biology.

Then, when you're called upon to back up your assertions, it turns out you don't actually have a theory of biology or astronomy, but rather are trying to cobble both together after the fact, and appear to be essentially forcing the observations to fit your theory, rather than the other way around, which is exactly the sin of which you accuse about half the scientific community of being guilty.

Is it any wonder that you're the recipient of a certain amount of skepticism and hostility?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 15 2006,20:56

Quote (ericmurphy @ Feb. 15 2006,22:05)
Bill, here's the problem: you come out with guns blazing, trashing not only evolutionary biology but basically all of physics (or at least, astronomy, cosmology, and astrophysics). ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What he said.

I was guessing GoP was just having fun, maybe setting himself a challenge.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 16 2006,04:53

ericmurphy wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bill, here's the problem: you come out with guns blazing, trashing not only evolutionary biology but basically all of physics (or at least, astronomy, cosmology, and astrophysics). You claim that evolutionary biologists are cretins, you unaccountably lump astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists—basically anyone who believes the earth goes around the sun rather than the other way around—in with biologists by referring to them as "evolutionists," and then claim to not only be able to debunk their theories, but also to be able to blow away the scientific community with your own virtuoso performances in mathematics, physics, astronomy, and biology.
Then, when you're called upon to back up your assertions, it turns out you don't actually have a theory of biology or astronomy, but rather are trying to cobble both together after the fact, and appear to be essentially forcing the observations to fit your theory, rather than the other way around, which is exactly the sin of which you accuse about half the scientific community of being guilty.

Is it any wonder that you're the recipient of a certain amount of skepticism and hostility?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True enough, but what I'm complaining about is people confusing fact with speculation. Everyone assumes that I'm simply ducking out of an argument (which is OK), and then uses that assumption to trash me. But nobody can possibly know my motives; all that's available is the circumstantial evidence of my actions. Not that this really bothers me, and I actually like most of you guys. But what about someone with a thinner skin? I've seen too many gang-ups on this site (present company excluded).
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 16 2006,06:03

Mr the ghost of Paley

Work is a bugger. I have hardly had time to lurk lately.

I guess "guts to gametes" is not even on the back burner, now.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 16 2006,06:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess "guts to gametes" is not even on the back burner, now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Naw, I'm working on that as well - I just can't give a deadline right now. But it should be worth waiting for.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 16 2006,06:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But it should be worth waiting for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you post it on a new thread, I will look out for it.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 16 2006,08:27

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 16 2006,10:53)
True enough, but what I'm complaining about is people confusing fact with speculation. Everyone assumes that I'm simply ducking out of an argument (which is OK), and then uses that assumption to trash me. But nobody can possibly know my motives; all that's available is the circumstantial evidence of my actions. Not that this really bothers me, and I actually like most of you guys. But what about someone with a thinner skin? I've seen too many gang-ups on this site (present company excluded).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not assuming you're backing out or giving up. But I do think (well, to be honest, I'm damned near certain) you've bitten off more than you can chew, and frankly I'd be surprised if you could back up your assertions in less than five lifetimes of work.

I'm hoping you're not ducking out, because I honestly am curious to see what you come up with. It should be fun to see if I can come up with objections to your theory as fast as you can propose it. So far, I'd have to say I'm way ahead of you in that game.

But as far as "ganging up" goes: well, Bill, that's basically how science works. When someone comes up with a wildly novel theory, everyone else in the field piles on with objections. No doubt sometimes it feels personal. But given your well-known contempt for "evolutionists," "liberals" (i.e., "traitors" in current parlance) and other assorted evildoers, it can't surprise you that you're getting some push-back from other posters here. Right?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 16 2006,09:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It should be fun to see if I can come up with objections to your theory as fast as you can propose it. So far, I'd have to say I'm way ahead of you in that game.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True enough, which is one reason for the slowdown.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When someone comes up with a wildly novel theory, everyone else in the field piles on with objections. No doubt sometimes it feels personal. But given your well-known contempt for "evolutionists," "liberals" (i.e., "traitors" in current parlance) and other assorted evildoers, it can't surprise you that you're getting some push-back from other posters here. Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your point remains valid. So does mine. I don't take the criticisms personally, even when they're a little south of the beltline: after all, I've landed a few netherly shots of my own. But what about the more delicate types who dislike the insinuations about their motives? It seems like many posters here treat every evo skeptic as a manipulative liar. This doesn't sell your movement well...
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 16 2006,10:17

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 16 2006,15:19)
But what about the more delicate types who dislike the insinuations about their motives? It seems like many posters here treat every evo skeptic as a manipulative liar. This doesn't sell your movement well...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, obviously I can't speak for anyone other than myself, and in any event generalizations are always hazardous. Likewise, not every evolution skeptic is a manipulative liar. But, as luck would have it, many (Dembski, Ken Ham, Jonathan Wells) are. So it's not entirely surprising that many evolutionary biologists see all evolution deniers as manipulative liars.

And you don't actually have to lie to deceive. For example, you just referred to evolutionary biology as a "movement" (specifically, my movement). This is actually a pretty deceptive characterization. Evolutionary biology is not a "movement," it's a discipline. The theory is sufficiently well-established that no one with adequate understanding of the theory to have a legitimate opinion of it doubts its correctness, in the generality if not in the specifics. Evolution happens; there's no reasonable or credible doubt about that. The exact mechanisms are of course open to dispute, and the relative importance of various mechanisms is even more open to dispute.

But given the disingenuous tactics used by many high-profile evolution deniers, it's unsurprising that many scientists in the field get defensive and suspicious when confronted by someone who claims that, e.g., the consensus phylogenetic tree is a sham. I haven't seen you personally, Bill, come out with an out-and-out lie yet, but I do think some of your statements tend to mislead, intentionally or not. It may be due to an insufficient understanding of the theory (that's my guess), but given your occasionally inflammatory comments in the past, I can understand why someone might suspect the worst of you.
Posted by: Steverino on Feb. 18 2006,03:19

I haven't been out here in some time...are we all still waiting for GOP to post his "check back on Monday" theory?

Dude, I know the urge to please others is great but, pick a realistic date and then meet it. ???
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 18 2006,18:43

Quote (Steverino @ Feb. 18 2006,09:19)
I haven't been out here in some time...are we all still waiting for GOP to post his "check back on Monday" theory?

Dude, I know the urge to please others is great but, pick a realistic date and then meet it. ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd estimate that a realistic date for Bill's cosmological theory is probably somewhere in the 35th century (given how long it took to get from Galileo to Guth et. al., and Bill's working solo).

"Guts to Gametes" might only take a hundred years or so, but if he works on both simultaneously, that might push out the geocentrism thing another couple of centuries.
Posted by: Jay Ray on Feb. 18 2006,22:25

I don't know how many times I've set out upon an ambitious project, only to drop it when the scope of the thing set in.

And I've NEVER attempted anything as ambitious as Ghosty has: to singlehandedly overturn several centuries of successful hard science, in at least two major disciplines, against a backdrop of intelligent critics.  I don't blame him for quitting.

Plus, c'mon.  We all know that Ghosty doesn't believe any of the stuff he's saying.  He's actually one of us, just having a little harmless fun.  Geek entertainment.  And I don't know about any of you, but sometimes I need a break from entertainment to go out and be productive.  

Ghosty has reached his limit.  He's realized the scope, and can't justify the time.  It was still fun while it lasted. :)  Thanks, G, for the chuckles.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Feb. 27 2006,13:11

I guess that Fields Medal will have to wait until next year. Or am I being optimistic?
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Feb. 28 2006,13:00

Don't bother waiting - the ridiculous GOP has realised himself he's not so smart after all.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 28 2006,13:22

[add shot of tumbleweeds bouncing past and sound of wind blowing here]
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Mar. 01 2006,09:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess that Fields Medal will have to wait until next year. Or am I being optimistic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm still tied up with work, but I should be able to do something next week. The fact that I've completely stopped posting should indicate how busy I've been. What else could silence me?
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Mar. 02 2006,16:47

- the sudden realisation that that your' jello and sticky tape' world-view was a load of bollocks all along GOP?

This is far too easy! - come out fighting with the racism like you used to GOP!

- or was this just a timewasteing 'drive-by'?
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Mar. 02 2006,17:12

can I dangle this post of cogzoids to attract your interest you boring old clueless racist, GOP?





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
cogzoid



Posts: 121
Joined: Sep. 2005

Posted: Jan. 06 2006,20:57  
Dean's content-less posts should be ignored by all.  Let's see some theories, Paley!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



.. or do you have something meaningful to add in your next drive by?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on Mar. 07 2006,05:18

Sorry, I know this is responding to a five week old post, but I just saw it and realized no one had made the refuttal that was immediately apparent to me



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have forgotten to consider the vibrational frequency of the quintessence sphere.  This frequency is approximately 2 Pi/24000 years, and hence makes the period about four times the true age of the universe. At the moment of creation the intelligent designer compressed it, and then let it go. Hence, at this time in history the sphere is experiencing its maximum acceleration. One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate.  This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide. However, the quintessence sphere models this acceleration perfectly. The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to
some members of the ACLU! I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry, GoP, you need to review your trigonometry and calculus.  If the sphere starts out compressed at t=0, then the equation for its radius is r(t) = R + Asin(theta - pi/2), where R is the uncompressed (steady-state) radius, A is the amplitude of the oscillation, and theta is t/T, and (theta - pi/2) indicates that the oscillation is beginning from a minimum value of r as sin(-pi/2)=-1.  If we are currently one quarter through the cycle, then t=1/4 T, or theta=pi/2, and (theta-pi/2)=0.

Now, on to the calculus.  Just to review, r(t) is the radius at a given time, r'(t) is the velocity of the radius (and therefore, the velocity of any point on the sphere), r"(t) is the acceleration, and the positive direction for r' and r" is away from the center.  For clarity, I'm dropping (t) and substituting (x) for (theta - pi/2).  Lets run through the calculus:

r = R + Asin(x)
r' = Acos(x)
r" = -Asin(x)

If we substitute for (x) with the present time value (theta - pi/2) = 0, the values above become:

r = R
r' = A
r" = 0

In other words, if we are at the quarter point of the period, we should have maximum velocity (redshift) but zero accelleration.  Similarly, at maximum accelleration, there would be no Doppler shift.  In fact, for there to be maximum accelleration, the frequency must be a harmonic of the age of the universe.  For there to be positive (and increasing) red-shift and positive (but decreasing) accelleration, the current time must be at some point between the start and the quarter-point of the cycle.  It is impossible for a sinusoid to have increasing velocity and increasing accelleration simultaneously.

I'm presuming a perfectly elastic sphere, correct?  If it's not perfectly elastic, my argument still holds, but the details are more complicated (essentially, A becomes an inverse exponential function of time and the radius decays to a steady-state value of R).
Posted by: ericmurphy on Mar. 07 2006,12:25

Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ Mar. 07 2006,11:18)
Sorry, I know this is responding to a five week old post, but I just saw it and realized no one had made the rebuttal that was immediately apparent to me
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to say, it's been amusing to watch how Rev. Bill will post some snippet of his slowly-evolving theory, maybe a couple of hundred words, and then he'll get maybe ten times as many words back in objections to his theory. It seems that in many ways, the harder he works, the less progress he makes. And he's only dealing, so far, with one objection, of the six objections to his theory (which evidently didn't actually exist at the time) I originally raised four months ago.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Mar. 07 2006,16:45

Yup - the language is truly GOPish.

W. Kevin Vicklund?

I don't intend to say that out loud! - Whiter Shade of Paley will do.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on Mar. 07 2006,18:16

Um, Dean, did you actually read my post?  I thoroughly trashed GoP's claim that an oscillating crystalline sphere with a period of 24,000 years could produce the current observations of accellerating redshift.

I may be pedantic, but I sure as #### ain't the Ghost.

(I apologize if I misread your post - it looks like you're accusing me of being GoP)
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Mar. 08 2006,02:30

Sorry W Kevin - up far too late - too many equations - Brian Hurts
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Mar. 08 2006,07:33

Quote (Dean Morrison @ Mar. 08 2006,08:30)
Sorry W Kevin - up far too late - too many equations - Brian Hurts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes,
He should have spoken up sooner and gotten cut down from the cross.

Oh well, always look on the bright side of life.

(You lucky lucky bastards).
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Mar. 11 2006,05:40

Ah well - My Brian has time for recovery now we have banished the noisome GOP
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Mar. 13 2006,06:06

Wally writes:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry, I know this is responding to a five week old post, but I just saw it and realized no one had made the refuttal that was immediately apparent to me

Quote  
You have forgotten to consider the vibrational frequency of the quintessence sphere.  This frequency is approximately 2 Pi/24000 years, and hence makes the period about four times the true age of the universe. At the moment of creation the intelligent designer compressed it, and then let it go. Hence, at this time in history the sphere is experiencing its maximum acceleration. One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate.  This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide. However, the quintessence sphere models this acceleration perfectly. The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to
some members of the ACLU! I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.


Sorry, GoP, you need to review your trigonometry and calculus.  If the sphere starts out compressed at t=0, then the equation for its radius is r(t) = R + Asin(theta - pi/2), where R is the uncompressed (steady-state) radius, A is the amplitude of the oscillation, and theta is t/T, and (theta - pi/2) indicates that the oscillation is beginning from a minimum value of r as sin(-pi/2)=-1.  If we are currently one quarter through the cycle, then t=1/4 T, or theta=pi/2, and (theta-pi/2)=0.

Now, on to the calculus.  Just to review, r(t) is the radius at a given time, r'(t) is the velocity of the radius (and therefore, the velocity of any point on the sphere), r"(t) is the acceleration, and the positive direction for r' and r" is away from the center.  For clarity, I'm dropping (t) and substituting (x) for (theta - pi/2).  Lets run through the calculus:

r = R + Asin(x)
r' = Acos(x)
r" = -Asin(x)

If we substitute for (x) with the present time value (theta - pi/2) = 0, the values above become:

r = R
r' = A
r" = 0

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry - Wally world is closed: The moose outside should have told you how to plug numbers into your own formulae. At this time we are around theta=Pi/2. Now, this gives a value r''=-A, consistent with an accelerating universe the big clang theory doesn't predict (at least without recourse to other phenomena).


That having been said, there is still some explaining to do. Wally mentioned that without zero velocity there is no Doppler effect. Given his formulae, but not his plug-ins, that is what we would have for r'=0. Now, if you would only scroll down to my follow-up post you would find that my quinitessence sphere has a non-zero initial velocity (the derivation will appear shortly), so Wally's objection is moot, and the Doppler shift remains to bedevil the evo community.

In light of the fact that Wally is one of the brightest evolutionists here, and the best he can do is botched calculations grounded in poor reading comprehension and quote-mining, this bespeaks poorly of the Darwinist community in general!
Posted by: avocationist on Mar. 13 2006,07:54

I know this is a lot of fun for those who can keep up, but I wish paley would go back to refuting evolution like he did in the first several pages of this thread.

Plus, he's probably not too serious about the cosmology, whereas I think he is serious about his antidarwinism.
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 13 2006,09:10

Well, if he's serious about his "gut to gametes" theory, I'm eager to see it exposed here (like others).  ;)
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 13 2006,10:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, if he's serious about his "gut to gametes" theory, I'm eager to see it exposed here (like others).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes I hope it will appear soon and be very diverting. I could do with being diverted.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Mar. 13 2006,13:47

Sorry for the typos. Due to time constraints, I didn't have time to edit. Hopefully I communicated the important part....

[addendum: I just edited the post. Hopefully it's a little clearer now.]
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on Mar. 13 2006,17:40

Warning!  Math ahead!

The Ghost wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry - Wally world is closed. The moose outside should have told you how to plug numbers into your own formulae! At this time we are around theta=Pi/2. Now, this gives a value r''=-A, consistent with the accelerating universe the big clang theory fails to explain


That having been said, there is still some explaining to do. Wally mentioned is there is zero velocity there is no Doppler effect. Given his formulae, but not his plug-ins, that is what we would have r'=0. Now, if you would only scroll down to my follow-up post you would be aware that this quinitessence sphere has an intial velocity that I will derive shortly, so, no, the velocity is not zero at this point, and we have a Doppler shift!

In light of the fact that Wally is one of  the brightest evolutionists here, and the best he can do is botched calculations grounded in poor reading comprehension and quote-mining. No wonder ordinary people don't take your religion seriously!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gee, you don't even make it one paragraph without an egregious math error.  Please review your math.  After substituting for x in my original post, the relevant equation should read

r" = -Asin(theta-pi/2)

As indicated, currently theta should equal approximately pi/2.  So if we substitute for theta, we get the following:

r" = -Asin(pi/2-pi/2)
r" = -Asin(0)
r" = 0

When castigating someone for poor math skills, GoP, make sure that your corrections are in fact correct!  Perhaps you don't understand the concept of phase shifting - that's the reason I included the -pi/2 factor in my original calculations.  As an electrical engineer, I like to put everything in terms of sin and let phase shifts take care of the rest.

Now, I did make two minor mistakes in my original post which I noticed later that day.  I wondered if GoP would catch them, so I let them stand (they didn't alter my point).  First, I incorrectly defined theta as t/T, when it should be (2pi/T)t.  Second, the derivations should properly read:

r = R + Asin(x)
r' = Ax'cos(x)
r" = -Ax'x'sin(x)

and x' is 2pi/T.  Turns out that GoP completely overlooked the actual errors and invented one instead.  Finally, I did manage to miss GoP's second post where he talks about there being an initial velocity - I am fully responsible for any misunderstandings that arose as a result.  So let's do a quick revision in light of that.  First, I want to point out that my original equation is equivalent to GoP's equation when the sphere is compressed and released from rest, allowing for sign conventions, phase shifts, and axis shifts.  So let's rework my equation to account for an initial velocity.  Since I found how to get iB to use Symbol font, I will use the greek letters instead of spelling them out.

First, the definitions.  Instead of using theta, I will use wt, where w is 2p/T, or the frequency in radians.  f is the phase shift.  If your computer does not have Symbol font installed, my post will likely not show up properly.  A is the amplitude of the vibration.

My revised equations are now:

r = R - Asin(wt+f)
r' = -Awcos(wt+f)
r" = Awwsin(wt+f)

So how does this compare with GoP's final equation?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
r(t)=r(0)cos(wt)+r'(0)/w*sin(wt)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I introduce the constant R to accomodate the observer at the center of the sphere-GoP's observer is instead located on the radius about which the sphere is oscillating (the steady-state value).  Strictly speaking, his ODE solution should have included this factor (or rather, he assigned the constant a value of zero, I assigned it a value of R - there are an infinite number of possibilities, each corresponding to an observer's position).  So that leaves my sin and his cos+sin functions.  (Note: I use a negative value for the amplitude because the system is starting from compression)

First, the trivial case where the initial velocity r'(0)=0 and the initial state is compression.  In this case, our functions become (mine first, GoP's second)

r = R - Asin(wt+f)
r = r(0)cos(wt)

Now, I can convert cos(wt) into -sin(wt-p/2).  This gives me

r = R - Asin(wt+f)
r = -r(0)sin(wt-p/2)

Thus, if we set A=-r(0) (because our sign conventions are opposite) and f=-p/2, my original equation is shown to be equivalent to his equation.

Now for the case if there is initial velocity r'(0) and an initial compressed state.  We note that GoP's cos and sin functions have the same frequency w, which allows us to perform a phasor analysis.  Since this involves imaginary numbers, I'll just give the results - I don't want ectoplasm oozing out of the computer as Paley tries to grasp the concepts involved.  What a phasor analysis does is permit us to convert two sinusoids with the same frequency into a single sinusoid of the form Bsin(wt+q).  The variables are determined as follows

B^2 = r(0)^2 +(r'(0)/w)^2
q = arctan((r'(0)/w)/r(0))

(For those familiar with phasors r = r'(0)/w + jr(0))

Our equations as modified:

r = R - Asin(wt+f)
r = Bsin(wt+q)

Again, if A=-B (difference in sign convention) and f=q, the equations are equivalent.

So what we see is that by having an initial velocity, we merely introduce a phase shift and an increase in amplitude to the oscillation (ie, A>r(0) for non-zero r'(0)).  This does not violate the fundamental relationship I earlier elucidated, the point of which GoP seemed to miss.  If accelleration is near the maximum, velocity is near zero.  If velocity is near maximum, accelleration is near zero.  Velocity and accelleration can not simultaneously be both positive and increasing.  In his original post, GoP said that the accelleration is at a maximum, which would imply that velocity should be near zero.  Obviously, that is wrong, and that is what I was pointing out.  To rephrase what I also said, if GoP's model is true, given current observations, we must currently be in the first quadrant of the rebound from compression.  If GoP is correct about initial velocity, compression, and the time spans involved, that implies that the initial velocity must have been towards compression.

In short, GoP's model has some contradictions between what he has said about it and what it actually implies.  The most likely scenario (if the model was correct) given current observations is that we are almost at maximum red-shift and at nearly zero accelleration (incidentally, that puts r(t) near the steady-state point).  That accelleration should therefore soon become negative.  Values for r(0), r'(0), and w should let us determine how soon we should expect to see this change-over.

So who exactly has "botched calculations grounded in poor reading comprehension and quote-mining" Ghosty?  BTW, your speculation about my first name is incorrect, though if you play around with the Wally World phrase long enough you might get the right one.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on Mar. 13 2006,17:56

My quote of GoP is the original version.  His modification merely clarifies what he was saying, and I don't think quoting the original makes any qualitative difference to my response, so I'm just going to let my quote stand (it's what I was responding to, anyway).

Primarily, he didn't moot the point I was attempting to make in the original (whether I successfully communicated that point is another matter, of course).
Posted by: ericmurphy on Mar. 14 2006,13:12

One other point. The rev. is mistaken in attributing cosmological redshift to the Doppler effect. This is a common misapprehension. Cosmological redshift is due to the expansion of space, not to the kind of velocity differences that, e.g., change the pitch of a siren as it goes by the observer.

And more generally, Mr. Bill seems to be mostly talking about the redshift of intra-galactic objects, which has an entirely separate cause from the cosmological redshift induced by the Hubble Flow.

Of course, given that in Bill's world, there is no meaningful distinction between intra- and extragalactic objects, I doubt his theory distinguishes between the two phenomena anyway.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Mar. 14 2006,13:20

And all this, to account for an phenomenon that has a perfectly straightforward explanation with no recourse to unobservable "quintessences," the invisible hand of god, or even to much in the way of math. And Bill's model, by the way, flies in the fact of all kinds of other phenomena (i.e., my other objections to his hypothesis) which essentially completely invalidate his model in the first place. (So far, Bill's model doesn't even really address the issue of differing parallax for different nearby objects, let alone the various forms of redshift.)

So much for Occam's razor.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund on Mar. 14 2006,13:31

Actually, eric, my understanding is that the red-shift is still a Doppler effect (certainly the language used at some sites I visited the other day would indicate so), but the cause is different.  GoP is combining the intra- and extra-galactic causes (gravity and expansion, respectively) into a single cause to explain the same effect.

I don't claim any authority on the subject, though.  And my post is probably rather simplistic in regards to the causes.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Mar. 14 2006,20:32

WKV—

Cosmological redshift really shouldn't be referred to as a Doppler shift because the cause is very < different. > Cosmological redshift is technically caused by the stretching of photons' wavelengths as space itself expands. Therefore, for cosmological redshift, the amount of redshift of a given photon varies (i.e., increases) as the universe ages. Doppler shift is due exclusively to velocity differences, and therefore will not change once the photons are emitted. It's a fine distinction, but a distinction nevertheless.

But as you point out, Bill seems to be hopelessly lost when it comes to the subject. His oscillating quintessence seems to be an attempt to accommodate the fact that some stars' radiation is redshifted and some is blueshifted, but if he actually reads the literature, he's going to find it basically impossible to come up with any combination of oscillation modes that will fit the pattern of red- and blueshifts observed. For one thing, there are certainly astronomical objects with arbitrarily-close angular separations from each other with radically different redshifts or a combination of red- and blueshifts, which even if his jello-mold quintessence shimmies like a Daytona Beach pole-dancer, will never fit observation.

And believe me, accounting for redshift is the least of his model's problems.
Posted by: cogzoid on Mar. 15 2006,07:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But as you point out, Bill seems to be hopelessly lost when it comes to the subject. His oscillating quintessence seems to be an attempt to accommodate the fact that some stars' radiation is redshifted and some is blueshifted, but if he actually reads the literature, he's going to find it basically impossible to come up with any combination of oscillation modes that will fit the pattern of red- and blueshifts observed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just to play devil's advocate: In general there is always a combination of oscillating modes that can produce a particular pattern of redshifting and blueshifting.  It's just a matter of how ridiculously complicated it has to be.  But, Paley's theory is impervious to complexity, naturally.  He'll have to argue that God worked very hard in trying to deceive us.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Mar. 15 2006,07:55

Quote (cogzoid @ Mar. 15 2006,13:12)
Just to play devil's advocate: In general there is always a combination of oscillating modes that can produce a particular pattern of redshifting and blueshifting.  It's just a matter of how ridiculously complicated it has to be.  But, Paley's theory is impervious to complexity, naturally.  He'll have to argue that God worked very hard in trying to deceive us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe. But here's a hypothetical that probably actually exists out there: a local planetary nebula with a z=.001 or something, through which shines the light of a hi-z (say, 3.5, 4, 4.5) quasar. Good luck trying to get the quintessence jiggling in the right direction to account for that.
Posted by: ericmurphy on April 05 2006,06:55

Here you go, Bill:

"For that matter, it is possible to model a wholly geocentric view of the universe -- but it is so complicated to include the retrograde movements of planets and so devoid of coherence and mathematical elegance that no one with any sense would insist on using that model. We'd much rather use Kepler's laws than have to deal with the innumerable and pointless complexities that would result from a geocentric model."

—from < Talk Reason >

Are you you there, Bill? Rev. Paley? Anyone home?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on April 05 2006,07:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"For that matter, it is possible to model a wholly geocentric view of the universe -- but it is so complicated to include the retrograde movements of planets and so devoid of coherence and mathematical elegance that no one with any sense would insist on using that model. We'd much rather use Kepler's laws than have to deal with the innumerable and pointless complexities that would result from a geocentric model."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope to refute this statement eventually. Obviously I've got a lot of work to do, and my regular job isn't helping matters any. Please notice, however, that the belt that cinches this argument is rather circular - remove it at your peril. For now it's enough to see one of the Master's minions giving this board a much-needed biochemistry < lesson: > just be thankful that the Master's occupied elsewhere. Evos remind me of that hapless guy in Porky's that would keep running to the pigman looking for a fight, only to stagger back half-conscious to his friends. When will you guys ever learn? Berlinkski is one of the most profound intellects of this century, and has a specialist's grasp of biology, chemistry, mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and physics (although Dembski's creative flame flickers a little more brightly in information theory, IMHO). See this as A Learning Opportunity and you'll be better off. Darwin's domain is the Land of Ice Cream. The future belongs to us.
Posted by: ericmurphy on April 05 2006,08:12

…and, until two days ago, Tom Delay thought he was the future, too.

Bill, it's really getting to be time to put your money where your mouth is. The weeks have long since stretched into months, and the months will soon enough become years.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on April 05 2006,12:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The weeks have long since stretched into months, and the months will soon enough become years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's a few years to an evo?  ;)
Posted by: ericmurphy on April 05 2006,13:04

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 05 2006,17:48)
What's a few years to an evo?  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'd like to see at least an outline before I grow old and die.

After all, even the universe probably isn't eternal...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on April 06 2006,06:41

I'll have some time to work on it this weekend. Look for an outline soon. I can't commit to anything more specific than that....
Posted by: Dean Morrison on April 07 2006,13:46

Well Gop now has yet another topic he has to stall on - after being torn to shreds by Martin Brazeau over the transtional fossil fish he said:

"More later."

- now where have we heard that before?
Posted by: stevestory on April 08 2006,08:47

I think he's going to have to stall. A geocentric view is the wrong way to go about that. It would be like using polar coordinates to explain the geometry of a pool game. You could do it, but it'll be ugly, and there's a much better choice available. Of course, if their bible told them to do it, they probably would.
Posted by: stevestory on April 08 2006,09:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Paley's Ghost can back up his assertions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't read 97% of this thread, but as far as the title goes, has Paley backed up anything here? In the 97% of the posts I didn't read, did he accomplish anything? Would anyone be nice enough to give me a rundown of that's happened?
Posted by: jeannot on April 08 2006,10:30

Well, he hasn't backed up his assertions regarding gene transfers from food to progeny. Yet.

I consider his whole geocentric drivel model off topic.
Posted by: Seven Popes on April 24 2006,08:22

I'm not giving up on you yet, Paley.  But I am ready to see the outline you have been working on.  If you aren't done, just post what you have manage to peck out so far...
Posted by: cogzoid on April 24 2006,10:28

The only thing Paley has shown on this thread is just how much he  is willing to twist, contort, make-up stuff, and attempt intimidation to show that his badly flawed ideas have merit.  As a physicist, I truly enjoyed his explanations of how the quintessence that holds heavenly bodies has imaginary spin, and is vibrating at exactly the correct frequency to simulate redshifts of the actually equidistant stars.  Of course, he was never able to back up any of these assertions.  This thread shows just how delusional GoP can be.  Especially when he's out of his element.

I get the impression that GoP is the smartest and loudest person in his bible study group.  His bragadaccio holds no water here however.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on April 24 2006,11:18

Always nice to hear from an old friend.
Posted by: jeannot on April 24 2006,11:31

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 06 2006,11:41)
I'll have some time to work on it this weekend. Look for an outline soon...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Bill?
Posted by: Seven Popes on May 01 2006,13:50

I'm not giving up on you yet, Paley.  But I am ready to see the outline you have been working on.  If you aren't done, just post what you have manage to peck out so far...
+1 week... Still waiting.  Care to admit defeat?
Posted by: stevestory on May 01 2006,13:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
I'm not giving up on you yet, Paley.  But I am ready to see the outline you have been working on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ditto. And that scale-free model.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on May 01 2006,15:56

Last thing first, guys.... ;)
Posted by: Dean Morrison on May 25 2006,03:37

Seem that the old racist Paley is on more comfortable ground when he is parading his prejudices than he is making up new physics and biology.

(Actually he got caught with his trousers down and waddled off into the distance.)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on May 25 2006,10:34

Dean! You're back!

OK - I'm continuing to make progress on the model, and I should be ready to present part of it after the Memorial Day weekend. Some aspects of my previous model will remain, but there will be lots of changes. Cogzoid, would you mind starting the geocentric debate thread when I give the signal (a large, blocky man with a Brooklyn accent). Please don't open it now, because it will just fill up with junk & insults. The signal will be in this thread. Thanks.
Posted by: Faid on May 25 2006,10:45

Um... Why do you want others to start the thread for you?
???
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on May 25 2006,11:09

Faid:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Um... Why do you want others to start the thread for you?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because I don't want to bring the wrath of Wes for starting "too many" threads. And Cogzoid rarely (never?) starts any, so he's safe. But I don't mind starting it if Wes or another moderator gives it the OK.
Posted by: Faid on May 25 2006,11:20

If I'm not mistaken, the only thread you started in a long time is your "poll" thread. And of course, there's always this one...

But OK, you know, whatever.
Posted by: cogzoid on May 25 2006,11:22

I was about to start a thread soon anyway.  But, I'll wait till I get the signal.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on May 25 2006,13:27

So you have nothing of substance to add GOP?

- no change there then.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on May 25 2006,13:31

And it's going to be good! Part of the delay is due to arguing with Deep Mind on a few of the details - he doesn't care for some of the math, but hasn't given a good reason why - but I knows what I want, and I ain't changing it without cause. All I'll say for now is that I'm planning on keeping the seven dimensions and answering the Foucault's Pendulum objection somewhere during the debate. Oh, by the way -- I am obligated to answer only those arguments put forth by Cogzoid, Murphy, and Vicklund. That doesn't mean I'll completely ignore other people's commentary, but I'm not going snipe hunting on behalf of SteveStory or anyone else. They had their chance, and punted it away. Besides, I'd like to keep some semblance of order during the debate. So anyone's free to contribute, but I'm not obligated to respond. You've been warned.

[Although I do have some gratitude for those who actually voted - so if I might make an occasional exception for one of them.]
Posted by: ericmurphy on May 25 2006,13:41

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 25 2006,18:31)
I am obligated to answer only those arguments put forth by Cogzoid, Murphy, and Vicklund.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope you still have my questions for your theory handy, because it's been so long I can barely remember what they were. I know they're on this thread somewhere, but can't remember which page. They're posted twice, so hopefully they won't be too hard to find.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on May 25 2006,13:52

eric:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
hope you still have my questions for your theory handy, because it's been so long I can barely remember what they were. I know they're on this thread somewhere, but can't remember which page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll paste them on the new thread. I can't promise detailed answers right away, but my new model should incorporate some of your objections.
Posted by: stevestory on May 25 2006,13:56

Paley, if you answered this question somewhere I missed it--is it going to be "No translational movement" (bok bok bok chicken bok bok bok) or "No translational movement, no rotational movement" (Holy crap, somebody put on some popcorn!;)?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on May 25 2006,14:27

stevestory wrote:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley, if you answered this question somewhere I missed it--is it going to be "No translational movement" (bok bok bok chicken bok bok bok) or "No translational movement, no rotational movement" (Holy crap, somebody put on some popcorn!?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess you'll have to wait with the rest of the nonvoters, punk.  ;)
Posted by: stevestory on May 25 2006,14:51

If you're going to try to explain the noninertial reference frame terms without rotating the earth, I will put some popcorn in the microwave and some beer in the fridge. That'll be the most entertaining flameout to ever grace Antievolution.org. I'm not even going to tell you some of the other problems you'll have. I'll wait til the model's out there, and then stick them in like shivs.
Posted by: jeannot on May 26 2006,09:46

Oh GoP, I hope you're working on your gut to gamete model.
Your latest thoughts regarding the genetic similarities between humans and guinea pigs through bananas seemed pretty promising.

I can't wait!  :)
Posted by: sir_toejam on May 26 2006,16:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but I knows what I want, and I ain't changing it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



prepare to be attacked by the "Popeye" segment of the culture.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on May 27 2006,10:23

....and I've been eating my spinach.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on May 27 2006,21:45

...in the hope that some plant DNA will increase your intelligence perhaps??
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 28 2006,05:16

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 27 2006,10:23)
....and I've been eating my spinach.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watch out, Mr the Ghost of Paley,

That spinach DNA could end up in your gametes!!! :D
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on May 30 2006,06:07

[note to self--paste Eric's, Fractatious's, and Deadman's objections to new thread, and renew apol.]
Posted by: Faid on May 30 2006,13:51

So Ghost, if a tree falls in the forest when there's noone around, does God say "hey, what's that racket"?

(This is no sarcasm, believe me; I'm still trying to figure out if you lean towards Solipsism, Berkeley's empiricism, or if you're really a Tlönist...)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on May 31 2006,07:24

Ok, I've got some, but not all, of the model finished. So would you like to see what I've done so far, or wait for more? It really doesn't matter -- the uncompleted portions shouldn't affect what I display. Eric, I plan on addressing Cepheid variable stars before your other objections. And Foucault's Pendulum as well. If you guys want what I've done, then I guess...


It's Clobberin' Time!!!!!!


If not, then let me know.
Posted by: ericmurphy on May 31 2006,07:29

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 31 2006,12:24)
Ok, I've got some, but not all, of the model finished. So would you like to see what I've done so far, or wait for more?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, given the thin gruel we've been served since November, I'll definitely take half (or a quarter, or a hundredth) of a theory rather than nothing.

I honestly think you should probably start with the easier ones, though, like parallax. Cepheids are probably pretty hard to explain, given their phenomenology is dependent on huge swaths of science, including not just observational astronomy but quantum physics.

But hey, you can tackle these in any order you want.
Posted by: stevestory on May 31 2006,07:37

Don't forget the Coriolis force terms.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on May 31 2006,07:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cepheids are probably pretty hard to explain, given their phenomenology is dependent on huge swaths of science, including not just observational astronomy but quantum physics.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cepheids seem more organic to my model; I might as well stick with those. But parallax will probably be next.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on June 11 2006,03:46

While you're cobbling that lot together you might as well make a new pair of boots.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 19 2006,14:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1122
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,16:07  
Wow, you guys really like to poison the well, dontcha? I assure you that my ideas are mine alone. No cribbing off ARN, kibitzing at I.D. conferences, or piloting black helicopters. Just a David armed with the slingshot of Truth, with a smattering of Dembski's sublime maths. As for my beliefs, I pretty much see it as the Bible calls it: geocentric special creation. None of that cheap Hollywood special effects for me - man on the moon my arse!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paley, we're coming up on the one-year anniversary of you declaring your rejection of heliocentrism and yet utterly failing to provide an alternative model.

We should bake you a cake. It could have an image of the world on it, and it would be flat.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Sep. 23 2006,05:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley, we're coming up on the one-year anniversary of you declaring your rejection of heliocentrism and yet utterly failing to provide an alternative model.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't confuse a failure to understand with a failure to demonstrate.  :p

Contrary to popular wisdom, much of the former difficulty rests with this board.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2006,06:08

If you've got a model, we'd love to hear it.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Sep. 23 2006,06:14

Hey Steve,

Scale invariance might play a role in my geocentric theory after all. I'd like your <cough> intelligent commentary when I incorporate this concept into my model.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2006,06:21

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,12:14)
Hey Steve,

Scale invariance might play a role in my geocentric theory after all. I'd like your <cough> intelligent commentary when I incorporate this concept into my model.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I'll be there. I can't wait to see how the Coriolis force terms derive naturally from your model.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2006,06:37

(drifts off into sleep...dreams of a future, 50 years hence...)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

sonofstevestory   Posted on Sep. 23 2056,12:21
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey Steve,

Witten's Ultrarelativity might play a role in my geocentric theory after all. I'd like your <cough> intelligent commentary when I incorporate this concept into my model.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, I'll be there. I can't wait to see how the virtual photons derive naturally from your model.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Son of the Ghost of Paley Posted on Sep. 23 2056,12:14
Hey Steve,
I'm gonna post dad's model any day now!



It's clobberin time!!!!!!!!!11111oneoneone

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Eric Murphy's Kid   Posted on Sept 23 2056,12:51

SoGoP: It's been 32 years since your dad died from that tragic Enzyte overdose. Give us the Frakin model already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The Son of the Ghost of Paley   Posted on Sept 23 2056,12:52

I'm kind of busy today...maybe I'll have it ready by Thursday...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 02 2006,07:22

*** THIS IS FOR A CERTAIN FOX WHO KEEPS BITING MY ANKLE! ***



Based on their codon-counting methodology, evolutionists concluded the worm Xenoturbella "evolved" from molluscs. These creatures look nothing like each other, but since evolutionary doctrine predicts anything can evolve into anything else, they found nothing wrong with this classification.

Now, a < paper in Nature >published in 2003 reveals that this worm is a worm of the worm kind (apologies to Ms. Stein, whose Rose was a rose, but of a different species all together). Granted, the evolutionists want to call it a new phylum of deuterosomes to avoid embarassment, but it is obviously of the worm-kind. (See Genesis 1).

What makes this so interesting is that the source of the confusion seems to be our anus-first friend dined on two different molluscs-- N. tenuis and N. Sulcata. From the paper,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems unlikely that Xenoturbella, with no molluscan features, could be this genetically similar to a bivalve mollusc. The result echoed by analyses of a section of SSU (corresponding to positions 1500-1850 in Homo Sapiens SSU) where we found two molluscan sequences, one identical to the published Xenoturbella sequence, the second identical to the N. Sulcata SSU. The most plausible explanation fro these different sequences is that they derive from bivalve molluscs that have been ingested by Xenoturbella as embryos or larvae
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Look, not only do we have evolutionists stymied by the fact that a creature's food can show up in its genomic sequence, we have found that even evolutionists admit that gross morphology (kindness) can be used as evidence this is going on, raising implicit skepticism of the infinite capacity of Darwinian mechanisms to change body plans. Now, this is no different that the chimp-human discussion. Since both chimps and humans eat similar foods such as bananas, it is reasonable to conclude that any similarities in codon-counting comes from whatever foods they happen to eat in common.

The inanity of evolutionists on this point is bottomless. They classify humans and mushrooms together in the group called "opisthokonts" while sticking green plants in another group based entirely on counting codons. In their ever-increasing intellectual and moral vapidity, they think humans are more like mushrooms than trees are like mushrooms. (Granted, trees and mushrooms are very different, but they certainly look and behave in ways more similar to each other than either does to Arfin.)
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Oct. 02 2006,07:31

THIS is your idea of "cloberin' time"???
Sheesh, Paley you are pathetic.

I can't *WAIT* to see what kind of nonsense you eventually pull out of an orifice as the next stage in your Geocentric Universe thread -- surely you have not forgotten all your many commitments there?

And we're supposed to believe that you are the result of centuries of Christian superiority in culture and science, and  yet here you you are , a moon-landing-denialist, evolution-denialist, physics-denialist, and semi-literate fool.  Did the movement of your lips while looking at the pictures in comic books *completely* dull both of your brain cells to the meanings of the few words therein?  Apparently so...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,11:29

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 02 2006,12:22)
Based on their codon-counting methodology, evolutionists concluded the worm Xenoturbella "evolved" from molluscs. These creatures look nothing like each other, but since evolutionary doctrine predicts anything can evolve into anything else [my emph.—em], they found nothing wrong with this classification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really, Bill? Can a fly evolve into a horse? How would it do so, according to current evolutionary theory? Could it somehow "devolve," back to the split between protostomes and deterostomes, and then back up the phylogenetic tree towards amniote-hood?

Perhaps you should learn some of the basics of evolutionary theory, Bill, before you start trying to criticize it. Statements like this imply an utter, screaming lack of familiarity with the most basic tenets of the theory. You're getting dangerously close to AFDave territory with statements like this.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 02 2006,13:41

ericmurphy:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really, Bill? Can a fly evolve into a horse?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why not? Evos have suggested this general scenario < on occasion. > Remember your Gould.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps you should learn some of the basics of evolutionary theory, Bill, before you start trying to criticize it. Statements like this imply an utter, screaming lack of familiarity with the most basic tenets of the theory. You're getting dangerously close to AFDave territory with statements like this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So the authors of the above are hopelessly ignorant? Good to know.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,13:55

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 02 2006,18:41)
ericmurphy:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really, Bill? Can a fly evolve into a horse?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why not? Evos have suggested this general scenario < on occasion. > Remember your Gould.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Bill, a fly cannot evolve into a horse. Insects are proterostomes, and for architectural reasons that cannot be reversed under evolutionary theory, it is simply impossible for a proterostome to evolve into something the size of a horse. A fly evolving into a horse would disconfirm evolutionary theory.

The article doesn't help you, Bill. A deuterostome simply cannot "devolve" back into a protostome and then back up the other side of the tree. The authors of the article aren't wrong; you are.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 02 2006,15:53

eric:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, Bill, a fly cannot evolve into a horse. Insects are proterostomes, and for architectural reasons that cannot be reversed under evolutionary theory, it is simply impossible for a proterostome to evolve into something the size of a horse. A fly evolving into a horse would disconfirm evolutionary theory.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Any quantifiable predictions in this regard? I'm not arguing that a fly would specifically evolve into a horse, only that there's nothing in evolution that would forbid such changes, especially if the evolutionist's imagination is allowed free reign. Prove me wrong by citing the specific predictions, especially since I've cited a specific paper that admits that some evos posited a "flip" in the chordate axis as opposed to divergence from a common ancestor. By the way, I'm not claiming that a fly in its current exoskeleton could become as large as a horse.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,16:42

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 02 2006,20:53)
Any quantifiable predictions in this regard? I'm not arguing that a fly would specifically evolve into a horse, only that there's nothing in evolution that would forbid such changes, especially if the evolutionist's imagination is allowed free reign.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


…in that case, what more do I need to demonstrate? You claimed the theory of evolution contends that anything could evolve into anything. Do you still maintain that claim, or do you withdraw it?

And besides, I can and have already  < provided > exactly this sort of prediction in our earlier conversation on this thread on phylogenetic trees. You will never, ever see a mammal with feathers. You will never, ever see an insect with a placenta.

It's one thing to talk about extremely controversial topics like the initial mutations that caused the divergence between deuterostomes and proterostomes. We've been here before, when discussing controversial placements of particular organisms on the full phylogenetic tree. It's another to claim that these sorts of controversies overturn all of evolutionary biology. It would be like claiming that controversies as to the exact height of the earth's equatorial bulge throw into doubt the theory that the earth rotates about its axis.

Oh, wait. You do think that, don't you?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 03 2006,02:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*** THIS IS FOR A CERTAIN FOX WHO KEEPS BITING MY ANKLE! ***

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is mildly irritating that I can't locate your original assertion about DNA being combined into the germ line via ingestion in multicellular animals.

Anyway, from the abstract:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Xenoturbella bocki, first described in 1949 (ref. 1), is a delicate, ciliated, marine worm with a simple body plan: it lacks a through gut, organized gonads, excretory structures and coelomic cavities. Its nervous system is a diffuse nerve net with no brain. Xenoturbella's affinities have long been obscure and it was initially linked to turbellarian flatworms1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I seem to recall, that the issue was how on earth DNA could be transferred from ingested material in a gut to an organism's gonads, and, more specifically, into its gametes. As the organism in the paper you cite appears to have neither proper gut nor differentiated gonads, it does not seem relevant to the original claim.

Unfortunately (or maybe not), I no longer have the enthusiasm to debate you, mainly because I perceive it as a monumental waste of time, and as your ideas are so, well, singularly, your own individual musings, unlikely to cause any ripples in the real world, I am happy to withdraw from the field.

< Farewell, folks. >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 03 2006,02:46

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 02 2006,20:53)
eric:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, Bill, a fly cannot evolve into a horse. Insects are proterostomes, and for architectural reasons that cannot be reversed under evolutionary theory, it is simply impossible for a proterostome to evolve into something the size of a horse. A fly evolving into a horse would disconfirm evolutionary theory.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Any quantifiable predictions in this regard? I'm not arguing that a fly would specifically evolve into a horse, only that there's nothing in evolution that would forbid such changes, especially if the evolutionist's imagination is allowed free reign. Prove me wrong by citing the specific predictions, especially since I've cited a specific paper that admits that some evos posited a "flip" in the chordate axis as opposed to divergence from a common ancestor. By the way, I'm not claiming that a fly in its current exoskeleton could become as large as a horse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


heh, they do exist already - < horsefly >

So, i guess that makes you right GOP!

Now, about the earth and sun again, lol, still cant believe you even tried to make that case...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 03 2006,08:52

Fox:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unfortunately (or maybe not), I no longer have the enthusiasm to debate you, mainly because I perceive it as a monumental waste of time, and as your ideas are so, well, singularly, your own individual musings, unlikely to cause any ripples in the real world, I am happy to withdraw from the field.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why the nagging, then?.....oh well, enjoy your family. To be honest, if there's no one interested in this claim, I might abandon it myself (Fox rubs his hands together at his successful strategy). I'll let the thread fall off the page and use it for sources on my geocentric claims.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 03 2006,11:48

Im confused, either you have a mechanism wherby DNA ingested by humans can be passed to the gametes or you don't.
Posted by: qetzal on Oct. 04 2006,13:51

Perhaps this is a mistake, but....

Re: Paley's claims of guts to gametes, Walter Doerfler has published a fair number of papers claiming that you can administer large amounts of DNA to mice, and subsequently detect said DNA in the bloodstream, spleen, & some other tissues, that it can become integrated into mouse DNA, and can even be transmitted to fetuses.

See the first 6 or 7 references < here. >

Not that this provides any support for acqusition of new traits via ingestion of foreign DNA. I'm not aware that anyone other than Doerfler has confirmed these findings. And even if they're true, only small fragments are typically observed in these mice, and only after adminstering quite large amounts of a relatively short DNA sequence. Also, I don't think Doerfler has ever shown DNA transfer to gametes. Finally, folks interested in gene therapy have looked for possible vertical transmission of exogenous DNA administered IV and subQ. AFAIK, it's never been observed. (You can certainly detect such DNA in gonads, but it appears not to reach the gametes themselves.)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 04 2006,14:48

Thanks for the references. This thread might have some life after all.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 04 2006,15:08

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Oct. 03 2006,16:48)
Im confused, either you have a mechanism wherby DNA ingested by humans can be passed to the gametes or you don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This has always been a strawman version of my glorious hypothesis that discredits what remains of the evidence for the amoral ontology of evolutionism. In short, I do not or never have claimed that organisms can acquire the characteristics of other organisms from eating them. I merely claim genetic testing results proving that chimpanzees or mushrooms are my distant cousins are confounded by DNA coming from food, like what happened in the case of our slimy, Scandanavian friend I discussed a couple of posts ago. Since the Xenoturbella worm dined on only two kinds of molluscs, the evolutionists eventually caught on and were able to separate them. Humans eat all sorts of things. How many alien DNA fragments are picked up by the Gel electrophoresis machine? The thing is only capable of separating them, and not telling us exactly from whence they came. Heck, you would have to unravel the diet of every human tested through cross-checking with all the possible things she could eat!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 04 2006,15:18

Quote (qetzal @ Oct. 04 2006,18:51)
Perhaps this is a mistake, but....

Re: Paley's claims of guts to gametes, Walter Doerfler has published a fair number of papers claiming that you can administer large amounts of DNA to mice, and subsequently detect said DNA in the bloodstream, spleen, & some other tissues, that it can become integrated into mouse DNA, and can even be transmitted to fetuses.

See the first 6 or 7 references < here. >

Not that this provides any support for acqusition of new traits via ingestion of foreign DNA. I'm not aware that anyone other than Doerfler has confirmed these findings. And even if they're true, only small fragments are typically observed in these mice, and only after adminstering quite large amounts of a relatively short DNA sequence. Also, I don't think Doerfler has ever shown DNA transfer to gametes. Finally, folks interested in gene therapy have looked for possible vertical transmission of exogenous DNA administered IV and subQ. AFAIK, it's never been observed. (You can certainly detect such DNA in gonads, but it appears not to reach the gametes themselves.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, this is very interesting. I must peruse Doerfer's work this weekend. It seems very germane to my model. Thanks for the link. In addition, the idea that food winds up in gametes sounds like one of the magical "explanations" an evolutionist would invoke whenever Darwinian mechanisms just can't fill the gap--along the lines of Gould's punctuated equilibrium or Goldschmidt's hopeful monster. My theories are not ridiculous like that.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 05 2006,09:47

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 04 2006,20:18)
My theories are not ridiculous like that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In your "theories," do you include your geocentric "theory"?
Posted by: qetzal on Oct. 05 2006,15:06

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 04 2006,20:08)
 
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Oct. 03 2006,16:48)
Im confused, either you have a mechanism wherby DNA ingested by humans can be passed to the gametes or you don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This has always been a strawman version of my glorious hypothesis that discredits what remains of the evidence for the amoral ontology of evolutionism. In short, I do not or never have claimed that organisms can acquire the characteristics of other organisms from eating them. I merely claim genetic testing results proving that chimpanzees or mushrooms are my distant cousins are confounded by DNA coming from food, like what happened in the case of our slimy, Scandanavian friend I discussed a couple of posts ago. Since the Xenoturbella worm dined on only two kinds of molluscs, the evolutionists eventually caught on and were able to separate them. Humans eat all sorts of things. How many alien DNA fragments are picked up by the Gel electrophoresis machine? The thing is only capable of separating them, and not telling us exactly from whence they came. Heck, you would have to unravel the diet of every human tested through cross-checking with all the possible things she could eat!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, Paley. I haven't read much of this thread, so if you aren't claiming "guts to gametes," fair enough.

Unfortunately, your idea that ingested DNA confounds our ability to discern genetic relationships is quite wrong.

Are you aware that we have essentially complete sequence info for humans and chimps? For ingested DNA from food to confound things, it would have to be integrated into the human or chimp DNA. It would be really easy to identify these foreign sequence by simple comparison of the human and chimp sequences. They're just not there. Not to any significant degree.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 13 2006,06:55

OK, it's almost one year to the day when I started this character, so the time has come to fess up....the Ghost is a creation of an evo-loving Deist. It was fun while it lasted, but I'd like to post as a "regular, evolution-supporting guy" from now on. Sorry for any hostility that I've created, and I wouldn't blame a lot of posters for still hating my guts, but trolling is as trolling does, and ya gotta go where the market is. I plan on keeping this moniker, though I'll probably change the avatar when I get a chance.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 13 2006,07:05

You did a pretty good job. I can only recall one comment wherein I speculated that you might not be authentic.

I think it's funny that your made up bumbling creationist still came off as a lot smarter than AFDave.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 13 2006,07:20

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 13 2006,11:55)
OK, it's almost one year to the day when I started this character, so the time has come to fess up....the Ghost is a creation of an evo-loving Deist. It was fun while it lasted, but I'd like to post as a "regular, evolution-supporting guy" from now on. Sorry for any hostility that I've created, and I wouldn't blame a lot of posters for still hating my guts, but trolling is as trolling does, and ya gotta go where the market is. I plan on keeping this moniker, though I'll probably change the avatar when I get a chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, but just so we're all on the same page, Bill, please place check marks next to the positions you actually do not agree with:

[ ] The entire universe revolves around the earth.

[ ] The earth is six thousand years old.

[ ] The Bible is literally inerrant.

[ ] The Bible meta-justifies all human knowledge.

[ ] Charles Darwin was a brain-damaged idiot.

Please note that I'll hold you to whatever positions you now claim to disagree with. And, as you can imagine, I'll have a few minor trust issues with respect to what you claim you believe for quite some time. But I think it will be interesting to see you argue the other side of the fence for a while, something I imagine you will view as another intellectual exercise.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 13 2006,07:29

The last post was not quite accurate. The Ghost was actually a tag team. The last post was written by the nice, jolly part of his personality. The fire-and-brimstone part was me. I guess we all have trouble "owning our own shadow" as Carl Jung would put it.

There were several speculations wondering how the Ghost was able "to keep his act up." Now you know. All of the stratospheric brain activity on this board, yet nobody figured it out---Hmmmmm.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 13 2006,07:31

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 13 2006,12:20)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 13 2006,11:55)
OK, it's almost one year to the day when I started this character, so the time has come to fess up....the Ghost is a creation of an evo-loving Deist. It was fun while it lasted, but I'd like to post as a "regular, evolution-supporting guy" from now on. Sorry for any hostility that I've created, and I wouldn't blame a lot of posters for still hating my guts, but trolling is as trolling does, and ya gotta go where the market is. I plan on keeping this moniker, though I'll probably change the avatar when I get a chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, but just so we're all on the same page, Bill, please place check marks next to the positions you actually do not agree with:

[ ] The entire universe revolves around the earth.

[ ] The earth is six thousand years old.

[ ] The Bible is literally inerrant.

[ ] The Bible meta-justifies all human knowledge.

[ ] Charles Darwin was a brain-damaged idiot.

Please note that I'll hold you to whatever positions you now claim to disagree with. And, as you can imagine, I'll have a few minor trust issues with respect to what you claim you believe for quite some time. But I think it will be interesting to see you argue the other side of the fence for a while, something I imagine you will view as another intellectual exercise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Neither of us really believe in any of those things.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 13 2006,07:42

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 13 2006,12:29)
The last post was not quite accurate. The Ghost was actually a tag team. The last post was written by the nice, jolly part of his personality. The fire-and-brimstone part was me. I guess we all have trouble "owning our own shadow" as Carl Jung would put it.

There were several speculations wondering how the Ghost was able "to keep his act up." Now you know. All of the stratospheric brain activity on this board, yet nobody figured it out---Hmmmmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, several times people have asked you if your opinions were all a put on and you said no.

So it's really more a case that people believed you when you lied about yourself.

(Provided you're telling the truth now.)

I hope you didn't expend TOO much brain power on this, it seems like a vast amount of mental energy to produce something of no lasting value.
Posted by: Russell on Oct. 13 2006,07:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There were several speculations wondering how the Ghost was able "to keep his act up." Now you know. All of the stratospheric brain activity on this board, yet nobody figured it out---Hmmmmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But then, how would you know whether anyone "figured it out"?

I, for one, suggested early on that you were Dave Cerrutti (sp?), who pulled a similar stunt as "admonitus" a few years ago. While it seemed pretty improbable that a functional person in the 21st century could argue for geocentrism, or think that AFDave had a point, I've always said that it is impossible to tell the difference between a prankster and a true creationist. You've massively proved my point.

I am truly impressed with your ability to dredge up the most outrageous right-wing lunacy and defend it as if it's defensible. (Please tell me that part was a prank, too). But there again, I'm not so sure Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter aren't secretly sane (but somewhat perverse) pranksters themselves.

What made this act particularly believable was the occasional ownership of a sane position (e.g. you expressed disdain for the Bush crowd; you stated a sincere sounding acceptance of global climate change science.)

All in all, a pretty impressive act.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 13 2006,07:56

I suppose this is as good an example of someone < hedging their bets > as you're likely to find on this site:

Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 05 2005,23:07)
 
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 05 2005,20<!--emo&:0)
Nooooooo!!!!!! Not this crap again. Eric, please don't play games like Hyperion. Just say what you mean - I promise I won't get offended.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying exactly what I mean. I don't think you're a parody (i.e., someone who believes evolution is a broadly accurate description of reality who is pretending to be a creationist, and someone who claims to be a geocentrist just to goad the scientists on this site), but I do think you're only claiming to believe the universe is centered on the earth, and you're using arguments supporting that belief as a stalking horse for another point entirely, i.e., that evolution is not as well-supported as, e.g., modern astrophysics and cosmology.

In other words, I don't think you're a parody, but I don't think you're necessarily being completely up-front about your beliefs. Which is fine; not intended as a criticism. I just think at times you're pulling our collective leg, as it were.

But I still want to hear your explanations for the various phenomena I pointed out. I see it as an exercise for your ingenuity. :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Russell on Oct. 13 2006,08:00

So now I'm wondering anew: Is "afdave" real? The only thing that makes me think so is this Dave Hawkins person on a fundy website that is way too much effort to have faked. But then, any mischievous prankster could simply hijack the identity of a real fundy and run with it.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 13 2006,08:09

I think AFDave is for real. Several of you were rightly suspicious about Ghost, some of the things he said indicated more intelligence than your typical geocentrist creationist nutjob. But AFDave has never said anything which indicates any such intelligence. He's homogeneously clueless.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 13 2006,08:57

This guy, whoever he is, has been excessively annoying.  ???


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, it's almost one year to the day when I started this character, so the time has come to fess up....the Ghost is a creation of an evo-loving Deist. It was fun while it lasted, but I'd like to post as a "regular, evolution-supporting guy" from now on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 13 2006,09:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But then, how would you know whether anyone "figured it out"?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll let the F&B Paley speak for himself, but my impression was that most of you guys had pretty strong suspicions. The only thing I find surprising was that nobody publicly sussed that Paley was a joint effort. I mean, I even suggested the possibility in my "Documentary Hypothesis" spoof. I thought Arden would tip to the different writing styles (he's a linguist after all, and apparently a good one), so I tried to rework several of the posts to smooth the discrepancies. Turns out I had little to worry about.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am truly impressed with your ability to dredge up the most outrageous right-wing lunacy and defend it as if it's defensible. (Please tell me that part was a prank, too). But there again, I'm not so sure Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter aren't secretly sane (but somewhat perverse) pranksters themselves.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Like I said before, it's not a matter of what I really believe, but what the market would bear. Here's my real philosophy, should you choose to accept it:

1) Politics: mostly libertarian, with a sprinkling of religious conservatism (i.e. too much garbage on Prime Time television, we need to clean up some of the sex and violence there, while letting adult media -- books, the internet, R-rated films -- be as unrestricted as possible). I think we should ease up on immigration for a while so that our current newcomers may have time to assimilate. I dislike the neocon agenda to obliterate the nation. Europe needs to have higher standards for their immigrants, especially if they're Muslim. I really do dislike government interference in the market and people's private lives. So some of Paley's views are trollish distortions of my own.

2) Science: I pretty much accept mainstream science as is, with the caveat that some of what we "know" will inevitably turn out to be wrong. Not only do I believe that Evolution is true, I think we've got a pretty good handle on most of its mechanisms.

3) Religion: My suspicion is that the Universe is just a little too fine-tuned for comfort: in other words, I believe in a God that seeded the universe with the right conditions for intelligent life.* He's a good Guy, but he wants us to work out our own problems as much as possible. I pray every once in a while, don't know if it does any good, but since I feel better, it serves a purpose.



* Yes, I've read the counterarguments. I remain unimpressed with atheism. But feel free to show me what ya got, punks!  :D
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 13 2006,09:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think AFDave is for real.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes. If he's a work he's the best I've ever seen.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 13 2006,09:33

Before I go:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please note that I'll hold you to whatever positions you now claim to disagree with. And, as you can imagine, I'll have a few minor trust issues with respect to what you claim you believe for quite some time. But I think it will be interesting to see you argue the other side of the fence for a while, something I imagine you will view as another intellectual exercise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Naah, the reason I gave up the parody was so I can be straightforward. I understand you're skeptical, but in a way that's good, because it will let my ideas stand on their own. Or at least that's what I'll tell myself.  ;)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 13 2006,09:35

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 13 2006,14:08)
3) Religion: My suspicion is that the Universe is just a little too fine-tuned for comfort: in other words, I believe in a God that seeded the universe with the right conditions for intelligent life.* He's a good Guy, but he wants us to work out our own problems as much as possible. I pray every once in a while, don't know if it does any good, but since I feel better, it serves a purpose.



* Yes, I've read the counterarguments. I remain unimpressed with atheism. But feel free to show me what ya got, punks!  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's my take on the "fine-tuning" argument. I agree that there are a lot of puzzling coincidences about the values of certain physical constants that are difficult to account for in terms of chance. The cosmological constant is, of course, the big one.

But here's why I think it's a mistake to assume, a priori, intentional fine tuning: the assumption makes it difficult to advance the current state of knowledge. If one assumes that the cosmological constant takes the value it has because no other value is compatible with life (or even a universe remotely similar to the one we inhabit), where's the motivation for further investigation into the reasons it has the value it has? The whole motivation for cosmic inflation, which has been an incredibly fertile area of inquiry (whether or not it ultimately turns out to be correct) was to explain the value of the cosmological constant. If Guth had assumed it had the observed value was because it was "designed" that way, or because the strong anthropic principle is correct, then he never would have bothered coming up with cosmic inflation, and whole swaths of scientific inquiry would have been poorer for it.

I think this is why scientists instinctively shy away from supernatural appeals as explanations for observation. It's not because they think god is an impossibility. It's because, historically, as soon as one allows supernatural explanations into science, progress skids to a halt and a lot of wrong work gets done.

So it may be true that some sort of creator intelligence "seeded the universe with the right conditions for life," and that at some point further investigation will determine that. But presently it's vastly premature to use that as a working hypothesis, and if one were to do so, I think it becomes unclear what one's next move should be, if one were to attempt to understand the underlying causes for why the universe is the way it is. Maybe "goddidit" really is the answer. But if we assume it's the answer right now, we'll never find out one way or another, will we?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 13 2006,09:46

Heh, I just came back to change my avatar and I saw your post. Well, let me put it like this: my Deism isn't scientific and I accept that. In a way it's a good thing that scientists are so committed to methodological naturalism cause it Gets Things Done. But for know, I think the evidence favors Deism, and it makes me feel better to embrace some sort of caring God, so that's where I'm at. But I respect your position.


I hope that there's a God and that he cares for us.

I hope that people are as good as I've been told.

I hope that Heaven is as wonderful as I've imagined it to be.

I hope.


(Apologies to Stephen King and diabetics everywhere).
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 13 2006,10:07

I never understood the fine-tuning argument. Pardon me but I find it just stupid. As if someone winning at the lottery were claiming "man, this lottery was fined-tuned!".

The universe cannot be "badly-tuned" (if that's the correct term). If it were, there would be no one to qualify it this way.
It's not inherently fine-tuned. Another universe could be better tuned for hydrogen clouds or whatever, if such things were conscious.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 13 2006,10:13

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 13 2006,14:46)
Deism isn't scientific and I accept that.
...
I think the evidence favors Deism...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't this contradictory?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 13 2006,10:31

jeannot:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I never understood the fine-tuning argument. Pardon me but I find it just stupid. As if someone winning at the lottery were claiming "man, this lottery was fined-tuned!".

The universe cannot be "badly-tuned" (if that's the correct term). If it were, there would be no one to qualify it this way.
It's not inherently fine-tuned. Another universe could be better tuned for hydrogen clouds or whatever, if such things were conscious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Grrrrr....I was trying to beat the traffic but here goes:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The universe cannot be "badly-tuned" (if that's the correct term). If it were, there would be no one to qualify it this way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've never cared for this argument because it implicitly confuses what must be true with what we observe. The brittleness of the parameters is an empirical observation; we could very well have existed in a "life friendly" universe that accepted broad changes to the constants. Apparently, we don't exist in such a universe. Therefore, the fact that the constants are just right for the evolution of life gives pause to an admittedly anthropocentric SOB like myself. Of course, modern inflation theory as such doesn't forbid the budding of multiverses; in fact it predicts it. Forgive me, however, if I wait for verification of this hypothesis before signing on.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not inherently fine-tuned. Another universe could be better tuned for hydrogen clouds or whatever, if such things were conscious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I've seen Stenger's models. But if you want a realistic timeframe for the development of life then you need the constants pretty much the way they are. Recent developments have cast doubt on a cyclic universe, and there's not a whisker of evidence for multiple universes, so I lean toward the God Hypothesis.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 13 2006,14:46)
Deism isn't scientific and I accept that.
...
I think the evidence favors Deism...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Isn't this contradictory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not if you believe that some difficult-to-falsify ideas can be positively affirmed, as I do.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 13 2006,11:19

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 13 2006,15:31)
I've never cared for this argument because it implicitly confuses what must be true with what we observe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing is "true" beyond what we observe. Trueness is a human concept. I fail to see your point.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The brittleness of the parameters is an empirical observation; we could very well have existed in a "life friendly" universe that accepted broad changes to the constants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How does this refute my argument? You are just saying that "if the universe were totally different, then I could argue this [which is not a counter-argument anyway]."

Not even considering that those constants are not part of a universal "reality". These are human constructs too. Most astrophysicians argue that reality is not reachable, and I concur. It's just impossible. For instance, atoms are not "real", they are a model that seem to explain well our observations.
I also miss the whole point of arguing "if the universe were different, then...". We could still claim that the universe is fine-tuned for it allows the constants to change broadly (if that were the case). And why do you want to change the constants anyway? Why don't you want to modify the climate in East Africa some millions years ago to prevent the evolution of homininae?
Eventually, it all boils down to "if the universe had not allowed human life to emerge, then this would be a world of sh*t, therefore it's fine-tuned".
To me, saying that the universe is fine-tuned explains nothing. It's just Goddidit. Is God fine-tuned too?

At last, one could have a serious discussion with you, after a whole year.  :)
Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 13 2006,13:17

I hope you don't mind me butting into this discussion but I'd add that a "fine-tuned" argument is generally a reaffirmation of ego-centrism.  The universe appears "fine-tuned" because it produced us who observe it to be "fine-tuned" which completely neglects the possibility that millions of other life forms in universe think exactly the same thing.  Life may exist in multiple forms that we can not conceptualize which would be more supportive of a philosophy stating that life is inevitable rather than the conditions were just right.

That being said, any references to a positivist view point is again based upon ego.  As you said, Jean, we can not approach Reality so to dismiss alternate realities because it does not fit mankind's incomplete (flawed, inadequate, pick your descriptor) model would be unduely restrictive.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Oct. 13 2006,14:35

I really find Paley's behavior shocking.  Sure, anyone can be anyone else on the internet, but one hopes that ethics would constrain the more egregious instances of that sort of behavior to porn and mate-matching chat rooms.

Panda's Thumb, TO, and their various affiliates are evidence-oriented sites.  You may preserve your personal privacy (and safety) behind a screen persona and an avatar, but everyone from home-schooled kids to fence-sitting lurkers to Dawkins (for goodness sakes, who apparently reads "Pharyngula") rely on us to put forward our best-evidenced propositions.

I mean what's next:  Lenny is really his own Pizza Guy?  Pizza Guy is really Pizza Woman?  Pizza Woman is really Nurse Bettinke?  I'm really Popper's Ghost!  Gads, people, let's have a little transactional honesty, even here, especially here!  

I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't be shocked by this sock-puppetry, but I am.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 13 2006,14:50

I don't really have any response, myself. Think of it as an existential joke about the pointlessness of arguing with creationists. I'm glad I only rarely got roped into arguing with him.
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 13 2006,15:17

Now, granted that I haven't had to expend energy arguing against GoP, but I must say that I am more than a little impressed by GoP's trolling skills.  For some reason (after lurking in these forums for quite a while), I'm somewhat relieved that GoP was a troll.  Thatt makes me feel better about humanity.  Now if only afdave was faking it. . .
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 13 2006,15:25

Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 13 2006,20:17)
For some reason (after lurking in these forums for quite a while), I'm somewhat relieved that GoP was a troll.  Thatt makes me feel better about humanity.  Now if only afdave was faking it. . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree—I was always much more bothered by Bill's geocentrism than Dave's clueless flailing about in the sciences. Bill obviously has some training as a mathematician, at least, and seemed to at least have some understanding of the scientific method. Much more disturbing that someone like that could still believe the sun spins around the earth than that someone of Dave's intellectual abilities could believe the earth is a few weeks—I mean, a few thousand years—old.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 13 2006,15:30

Lord love a duck I was right, Gippy is a fucking Loki troll.

Wanker.

Louis
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 13 2006,15:37

Anybody else got any revelations? EricMurphy, do you get really drunk and post as AFDave? JonF, is William Dembski a lucrative character you dreamt up 15 years ago?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 13 2006,15:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There were several speculations wondering how the Ghost was able "to keep his act up." Now you know. All of the stratospheric brain activity on this board, yet nobody figured it out---Hmmmmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*slap*

you really don't pay much attention do you?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lord love a duck I was right, Gippy is a fucking Loki troll.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



not just a loki troll, but anybody who can get pleasure out of being a loki troll FOR A WHOLE YEAR, should consider they might have serious narcissistic tendencies.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 13 2006,16:00

Icthyic,

Well Gippy has managed one amazing thing. He/she/they has/have managed to revise my opinion of him/them downward.

An idiot I can cope with. A pompous self important delusional idiot is just in desperate need of a thorough kicking.

Louis

P.S. And as I also said before: Gippy's a wanker, it's just a pity his father wasn't. What a total waste of a perfectly useful ejaculation. It seems he snuck into the shallow end of the gene pool when the lifeguard wasn't looking. There clearly is no beginning to his talents.

P.P.S. London Howlerfest this weekedn, any beers you need drinking for you?

P.P.P.S. I am sorely tempted to appeal to Wes to IP ban GoP's operator(s). At the end of the day sock puppetry, extensive Loki trolling and the egomanical bullshit of GoP is counterproductive to any discussion. What point does playing GoP actually serve other than annoyance?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 13 2006,16:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There clearly is no beginning to his talents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



perfect.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Oct. 13 2006,18:45

Paley protested too much from the beginning.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
C.J. O'Brien likes to think I am a troll because he senses my intellgence is so vastly superior to his own.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 13 2006,20:14

Your comment on poor larry's blog gave you away awhile ago. It cross referenced on a google search. (Also creationists aren't smart as you sometimes are) I started to comment but then realized you were doing too well. The geocentric bit involved quite a bit of stuff I couldn't google easily and my hat came off in a pronounced bow.

The subject is interesting but in the end it is the creativity of the various posts that keeps us reading. And Posting. Eh?

PS I tried to make a new ID a couple of days ago and somehow I had entered something that gave up who I was but the interesting bit was that it brought up half a dozen other folks' UNs and PWs too. I figured it was karmic so I gave up. You have no idea how many different folks we can be on other sites. I am sometimes sorry I started here as me. I often want to be someone else when I make comments.

Congrats.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 13 2006,21:11

that's crap.

we started a thread months ago that discussed gawp's loki trolldom.

the point isn't whether anybody thought he was trolling or not, it was that nobody in their right mind would continue trolling for so long to begin with.

so, with a suggestion of an underlying pathology, you tipping your hat merely reinforces it.

sorry, but I can't agree with that.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 13 2006,23:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...but trolling is as trolling does, and ya gotta go where the market is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like I said before, it's not a matter of what I really believe, but what the market would bear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So GoP is in the "trolling market".
Although I'm pleased to have this confirmation, I find his job rather pathetic.

As I said, he's been excessively annoying for a whole year and if we had known he was doing this on purpose (from another source), he would have deserved a ban. Yeah, he said "sorry" but is it enough?  ???
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 14 2006,04:37

I always thought Ghost of Paley was < parodying >.

I can't think of anything positive that has emerged from the whole episode. It still seems a monumental waste of time, and I'm really glad I didn't respond any more than I did.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 14 2006,05:25

My two cents is get rid of the twat.

A) He/they hasn't/haven't contributed anything useful or of substance to any discussion (not unusual for a creationist, real or pretend). This isn't alone enough to merit a ban.

B) He/they is/are (a) self confessed troll(s). Since when did deliberately trolling for flames, Loki points and general disruptive bollocks become a tolerable and honest mode of interaction? Perhaps not enough to merit a ban on it's own.

C) Demonstrate(s) rampant egomania. Again not enough on it's own to merit a ban.

It's the combination of the three that are the problem. Coupled to the fact that I'm not sure I believe this two person tag team shit. I reckon it's just one fucked up bipolar egotist on his meds and off them.

Either way, my vote is for removal of GoP.

Louis
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 14 2006,07:25

Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 14 2006,02:11)
that's crap.

we started a thread months ago that discussed gawp's loki trolldom.

the point isn't whether anybody thought he was trolling or not, it was that nobody in their right mind would continue trolling for so long to begin with.

so, with a suggestion of an underlying pathology, you tipping your hat merely reinforces it.

sorry, but I can't agree with that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe to you. That thread is what got me looking around at GoP posts and where else (they) posted. We're all just as danm narcissistic for so many other things. Personally, I don't trust people who are in their right minds. If it weren't for the AFdaves and Uncommon Scent types, there wouldn't be much here to discuss. A quality Loki can make a good canvas for an issue to paint itself out on. It's playing the devil's advocate to a higher degree so to speak.

That geocentric Earth thread is a gem. Truly a gem. The rest was more political and rarely worked well (other than to upset Louis). But it took some pretty good minds to answer the claims ridiculous points. And the level of upset is maybe a good thing to reflect on. It let's us hold a mirror to ourselves.

That beautiful demonstration of how science works was worth its Loki bad Karma. If your chains are so tight that it hurt when GoP(s) yanked them, maybe they could be loosened a few notches?

I tend to do my Lokiing in the other camp and from a different tack but a well done Loki is a successful creative venture as far as I am concerned. I support it.

:)
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 14 2006,07:29

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 14 2006,12:25)
That geocentric Earth thread is a gem. Truly a gem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's no longer a gem, it's now a waste of time.
Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 14 2006,07:58

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 14 2006,13:25)
If it weren't for the AFdaves and Uncommon Scent types, there wouldn't be much here to discuss. A quality Loki can make a good canvas for an issue to paint itself out on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The assumption is that if AFDave didn't exist we would have to invent him?  The reality is he DOES exist.  And so do hundreds of others just as enlightening.

I don't see the need for the lokis here. I suspect if AFDave gives up, someone just as entertaining will come to take his place.

Don't be surprised to see posts on pro-YEC sites pointing to GoP's "outing" as evidence the evil Darwinists are just trying to use dishonesty to prop up their crumbling theory.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 14 2006,09:08

BWE,

I'll go along with that to a limited extent. A GOOD Loki is a worthwhile thing, as indeed is holding up mirrors and views being questioned etc. A GOOD loki isn't simply an attention whore or an annoyance, which sadly GoP is and was.  GOOD lokiing is inherently short term otherwise the value of the Loki is lost. Also there must be contrast for the joke  to work. I'll use an analogy: if you went to your annual job review and you and your boss agreed that you'd had 11 crappy months and 1 high performance month which would you consider the aberration? The good month or the 11 crappy ones? GoP did not and does not have the credibility or the high performance parts to make the Loki work. He can googleup a storm,but to be frank so can a sexually frustrated 13 year old. Shouldn't we be aiming slightly higher than rudimentary typing and a propensity for matching phrases with what other people have said?

I'd also disagree that things like the geocentrism thread took an enormously high level to counter. For example th chemistry/orbitals stuff was A-level to first year undergrad stuff. Ok so geocentrism was big doodoo a few centuries ago, but if GoP's claim to deliberate intellectual stimulation by Loki is to be believed then why use things that are no longer problems? Why not REALLY go for major controversies in science, as opposed to vocal political sounding points?

The political threads irritated me for their rank dishonesty more than anything else. I don't see any value in lying to get a rise out of people, and it's that that irritates me.  Like I have said several times now Loki behaviour like GoP's is an outlet for silliness that GoP is too shit scared to perform in public, and for good reason.

Granted a quality Loki does make a good canvas, and the tradition of the "devil's advocate" is long used in debate. The question is "was GoP a quality Loki?", the answer in my opinion is no.

Louis
Posted by: Ved on Oct. 14 2006,09:18

Paley, you assclown!

Yeah, it's not like no one called him on being a Loki troll. It's just that if a person keeps denying it, there's only so many times a person can be called out. Just like the last two Presidents. The one thing W has on Clinton is that he never ever, ever gives up on a lie.

So, I'm bummed that my favorite aspect of Paley is fake- the moonlanding denial. I'm gonna have to retire my Neil Armstrong photos.

But, I'm not surprised at all to learn that the political crap was at most just an exaggeration. It seemed to me all along that every Paley post that was in the slightest bit sciency was just there to make a platform to attack liberals. So fine, the kooky science was fake. Still, go to ####, Paley.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 14 2006,09:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, it's not like no one called him on being a Loki troll.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Since the first post of this thread, a few members have been suspecting Paley of trolling.
From Russell:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Paley's Ghost" strikes me as a way-over-the-top fake creationist. My bet is he [and the gender is almost certainly he] is a regular, evolution-accepting guy poking fun at creationists and/or evo-defenders he sees as taking it too seriously. That would be my bet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 14 2006,10:33

I don't see why people are so hostile. It was obvious that GoP was a fake. He was called on it very early in his posting history here.

The consistent thing that he did was ask people to refute his arguments and not ponder upon motivation. After awhile people stop seing the obvious as long as it stays consistent.

Even I knew he was a fake and I am not the brightest bulb in this firmament.
Posted by: guthrie on Oct. 14 2006,10:37

The other question is what is your genuine political label?
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 14 2006,10:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BWE,

I'll go along with that to a limited extent. A GOOD Loki is a worthwhile thing, as indeed is holding up mirrors and views being questioned etc. A GOOD loki isn't simply an attention whore or an annoyance, which sadly GoP is and was.  GOOD lokiing is inherently short term otherwise the value of the Loki is lost. Also there must be contrast for the joke  to work. I'll use an analogy: if you went to your annual job review and you and your boss agreed that you'd had 11 crappy months and 1 high performance month which would you consider the aberration? The good month or the 11 crappy ones? GoP did not and does not have the credibility or the high performance parts to make the Loki work. He can googleup a storm,but to be frank so can a sexually frustrated 13 year old. Shouldn't we be aiming slightly higher than rudimentary typing and a propensity for matching phrases with what other people have said?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wholeheartedly agree. But the creative process is sometimes difficult and has many failed attempts along the way. The task was nearly impossible and GoP(s) tried hard.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd also disagree that things like the geocentrism thread took an enormously high level to counter. For example th chemistry/orbitals stuff was A-level to first year undergrad stuff. Ok so geocentrism was big doodoo a few centuries ago, but if GoP's claim to deliberate intellectual stimulation by Loki is to be believed then why use things that are no longer problems? Why not REALLY go for major controversies in science, as opposed to vocal political sounding points?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

First, there is probably an inverse square law between information retention and time since grad school let alone undedrgrad. Second, that was the stumbling block that GoP(s) hit. The reason it's hard to Loki a creationist. All of their arguments are dumb. There is no way to make them look smart because they are all based on denial of the evidence. GoP(s) tried to make a positive case for an idiotic assumption and it took alot of diagrams and refreshers on physics 101 to show why it is stupid. It is a beautiful argument for education.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The political threads irritated me for their rank dishonesty more than anything else. I don't see any value in lying to get a rise out of people, and it's that that irritates me.  Like I have said several times now Loki behaviour like GoP's is an outlet for silliness that GoP is too shit scared to perform in public, and for good reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And that is really the problem with GoP(s). Politics is too far out on the limb because they were just being bigoted. The argument to bigotry is lifestyle so everything ends up as subjective and the discussion just gets wierd. Notice my last few posts on the Christians made the west strong or whatever post. I was basically asking, "What the heck?" You too, I notice.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Granted a quality Loki does make a good canvas, and the tradition of the "devil's advocate" is long used in debate. The question is "was GoP a quality Loki?", the answer in my opinion is no.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree that, in the end, the attempt didn't succeed. But I wonder if the wall had been reached? Maybe you can find the breakdown point at the end or shortly before the end of GoP(s) trail.

I applaud the effort. I also feel disgruntled to have had my chain yanked some but it is an interesting experiment.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 14 2006,11:11

Let's take this one at a time:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The other question is what is your genuine political label?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorta a weird blend of mild religious conservatism and libertarianism: clean up the public square and then let people do what they want in private. In other words, a return of socially-sanctioned hypocrisy. At least this lets people to pursue their interests without polluting the public culture.



As far as the taboo stuff is concerned (let's face it, that's what everyone really means)....I can't speak for B&F Paley but here's my take. I think that it's likely that group (ie racial) differences in physical and mental abilities exist, but our laws should proceed as if they don't. Let people be judged as individuals, especially since that's the package citizens come in anyway. I dislike affirmative action, Jim Crow, and all other racial shenanigans. The government has no business telling me or anyone else who I may hire, live with, or marry. I believe this is not so far from creoPaley, although he added plenty of racial paranoia to the mix.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The consistent thing that he did was ask people to refute his arguments and not ponder upon motivation. After awhile people stop seing the obvious as long as it stays consistent.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mr. Elliot gets it. One question I've always had was, "Can people detach arguments from the person making them?" This was an attempt to answer that question. After looking at the evidence, I'm not optimistic, although there have been some exceptions of course.

This is why I don't think this project was a waste of time: the arguments that occur to me can occur to a real opponent of evolution; in either case it's wise to take the claim at face value and address it before it gains momentum. This was particularly relevant to the Brazeau debate.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 14 2006,11:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This was particularly relevant to the Brazeau debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wonder how Martin Brazeau will feel about it?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 14 2006,11:41

Another thing that I want to get across is that there's a huge gap between how the lay public views evolutionists and how evolutionists view themselves. Even non-religious types tend to link evolution to a package of ideas/social programs that comes along when evolutionary biology is legitimised: the liberal welfare state, militant atheism, and a devaluation of religious modes of thinking. Many of you are aware of that, of course. What ya'll don't seem to get is that people have a right to be wary. Yes, it's true that many religious people accept common descent, heck I'll go further and admit that millions of religious conservatives accept Darwin. Doesn't make a lick of difference. Like it or not, tension exists between evolution and religious belief, and there's a correlation between acceptance of Darwinian concepts and in-your-face antitheism. Every atheist website I've ever seen has a huge section devoted to Evolution; sometimes it's the only scientific theory that receives its own space. Many of the "preachers" of the movement are open enemies of Christianity and slander it at every turn. The public hears Wes say one thing, but see his allies do the opposite. look at this board for instance. Who is the public going to believe:Wes, or what they read at this very site? I'm not saying that you guys should try to hide your beliefs, only acknowledge that there's a gulf between ideals and reality. I'm going to stop here, but first:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder how Martin Brazeau will feel about it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This proves my point. Brazeau is a brilliant scientist with impeccable ethics (as far as I can see at least), and he did a great job rebutting my claims. But do you know how he encountered my claim? Through a public plea on the Internet Infidels Creation/Evolution forum. In other words, he wasn't an innocent scientist who happened to stumble upon this site -- he was the Atheist Knight annointed to topple the Creationist Dragon. Not that this matters to me.....his arguments still stand. But imagine how Joe Sixpack would view the situation. Until you put yourselves in his Oxfords, you won't understand why the public is unmoved by the mountain of evidence in Darwin's favour.
Posted by: guthrie on Oct. 14 2006,11:54

From the other side of the Atlantic, on my experience of the past 10 years, its the creationists and rabid theocrat sorts that make connections between social programs and evolution.  I have yet to come across a "progressive" calling for a hike in the minimum wage because it will broaden the gene pool if more people can afford to have children.  

I did kind of think the race issue was closer to your heart, judging by your behaviour on that thread.
Posted by: cogzoid on Oct. 14 2006,13:43

GoP,

I must say I'm quite impressed with your trolling.  I will freely admit that I bought into your ruse.

I wished I could've continued our discussions, but a lack of time has forced me to only read AtBC every now and then.  I was spending a monumental amount of time arguing online and I needed to stop.

Anyway, your admission has brought me out of my lurking to congratulate you.  I guess both of you.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 14 2006,21:40

Two things:

BWE:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I applaud the effort. I also feel disgruntled to have had my chain yanked some but it is an interesting experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not worried about my chain being yanked, that's what it's there for. My annoyance stems from the fact that nI dislike dishonesty and this experiment has been done to death several times before, we know the answer, and it has been done well and productively.

GoP:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One question I've always had was, "Can people detach arguments from the person making them?" This was an attempt to answer that question. After looking at the evidence, I'm not optimistic, although there have been some exceptions of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah patronising! I'd buy this if it weren't for all the ridiculous insults about evos and libruls and piccies of wrestlers etc. I'd also buy this if it were for the HUGE dishonesty you demonstrated in your mode of argumentation. Your "arguments" WERE detached from the person making them all the time. The argument you had in rebut was not "GoP is an X therefore his arguments are wrong" you had "GoP says X, X is wrong because of Y".

Admittedly these were followed by frustration and annoyance at your rudeness and dishonesty by "GoP is simply trolling, his arguments have been refuted and yet he plays the endless shell game. Therefore GoP=wanker etc". YOUR tendancy to reduce the debate to it's lowest level (personal remarks, stereotyping, dishonesty) totally blows this patronising little claim of yours out of the water.

My guess, this switch is yet another part of the attention whoring shell game you are playing. You're trying to see how friendly people are to you once you're "on their team". Well Gippy, as long as you're dishonest, you're NEVER on my team, no matter what else we might or might not agree upon.

Stephen Elliot:

I think I articulated why I am annoyed in the "muslims" thread. It's dishonesty I don't like. I was hostile to GoP BEFORE his latest revelation because of his dishonesty. I am still hostile AFTER his latest revelation because of his dishonesty. Nothing has changed.

I don't buy it. I didn't buy it when I thought GoP was an obvious Loki months ago. I will continue not to buy it, and my purchase is not dependant on GoP's "allegiances". This is the latest round of the game that GoP is playing. It's not a good game, it's not being well played, and it ultimately finds out nothing that anyone was not already well aware of.

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 14 2006,22:30

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 15 2006,02:40)
Stephen Elliot:

I think I articulated why I am annoyed in the "muslims" thread. It's dishonesty I don't like. I was hostile to GoP BEFORE his latest revelation because of his dishonesty. I am still hostile AFTER his latest revelation because of his dishonesty. Nothing has changed.

I don't buy it. I didn't buy it when I thought GoP was an obvious Loki months ago. I will continue not to buy it, and my purchase is not dependant on GoP's "allegiances". This is the latest round of the game that GoP is playing. It's not a good game, it's not being well played, and it ultimately finds out nothing that anyone was not already well aware of.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis,

Yes, you are very clear. While I am annoyed also, I doubt I feel as strongly as you do.

I am most irritated by the idea that more than 1 person is posting from the same account. It bugs me.

The 2nd thing that I find irksome is that GoP was called on being a  spoof but denied it.

The only good thing about this is that he/she/they did make me think sometimes. Mostly about why I believe certain things. The geocentrism thread illustrates it best. I had forgotton a lot of the science behind why geocentrism was thrown in the bin ages ago.

Anyway I don't particularly want the GoP account banned, but it would be civil if the "team" started using different accounts.

I can see why you would be much angrier than myself though. It isn't my profession that is being accused of outright disshonesty by an organised bunch of semi-lunatics. That has got to be a pest.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 15 2006,00:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Brazeau is a brilliant scientist with impeccable ethics
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*yawn*

Martin was a simple grad student.

learn anything yet?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 15 2006,09:19

Fishy:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*yawn*

Martin was a simple grad student.

learn anything yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If anything, you should be the one taking notes. This "simple grad student" is light years ahead of most scientists I've seen, including a few on this board.

Louis:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Blah blah blah Gippy is a %*&%ity #%^*-%&%
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Louis, don't you realise that your very attitude contradicts your contention that I'm an incompetent troll? If I find someone beneath contempt, then I ignore him....I don't write profanity-laced tirades begging that the fellow be banned and "smacked in the mouth". Remember, sweet Louis: Indifference, not hate, is the negation of love.  :D
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 15 2006,09:31

Oh yeah, just one more thing, Mr. Louis.......

If I argued dishonestly in the Muslim thread, then why can't you ever point out where the distortions lie? So far, all you've given is a promissory note that you have some stats on an unspecified computer terminal that will overturn the grim numbers I've offered so far. Do the statistics show that the Muslim unemployment rate, scholastic achievement, and crime levels are different from what I've said? If so, this would be surprising, since one of my sources is the very study that supposedly demonstrates my dishonesty. Or will this be some attempt to show that the discrepancies are explainable by "discrimination"? If it's the latter, then I'm afraid it's you who are wasting everyone's time. I'm not interested in excuses, I want evidence of assimilation.

Which one will it be?
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 15 2006,10:21

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 15 2006,14:19)
Louis, don't you realise that your very attitude contradicts your contention that I'm an incompetent troll? If I find someone beneath contempt, then I ignore him....I don't write profanity-laced tirades begging that the fellow be banned and "smacked in the mouth". Remember, sweet Louis: Indifference, not hate, is the negation of love.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Competent or not, a troll is still a troll and you've been identified as such by the majority of the members, including myself. At least you should have admitted that.

Now after a whole year of posting outrageous and dishonnest comments, you are reproaching someone for responding to your provocations?

I've been told that you like to document your opponent's distortions. Although I didn't quote any reference, I feel it's pretty much what I did in my response to your fine tuning argument. Now, do you have anything better to offer?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 15 2006,10:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not interested in excuses, I want evidence of assimilation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you were given SOME, at least in the US, but I admit that I didn't pay attention to the thread after a while, since the fact is that I think conflict between Islam and Christianity is almost inevitable. Particularly if global warming (whatever it's causes) hits a bit harder. A tide of Muslims moving north spells trouble all around, I should think.

Muslims generally do fare worse in Europe than here in the US, and I'd like to have a clearer picture why, beyond the obvious. There are data that indicate that Muslims DO want to assimilate in Europe, yet they are faring poorly in many areas. I don't think it's just "their" culture..it's a mix of human wariness/antagonism toward the "other" and that Christianity and Islam simply both claim exclusive ownership of absolute "truth" along with doctrinal intolerance of religious competition and this is a recipe for divisiveness. Historical particularism also plays a part, I suspect, as well as centuries of stagnation in multiple arenas. Asian belief systems tend to be less confrontational and less visually obvious, although I've noticed antagonism towards the mere existence of large-scale Buddhist temples here in L.A., and Sikhs have been assaulted for wearing turbans, too, even in New Zealand, a source of concern for a buddy of mine.
 
As far as the trolling, I agree with Louis that any "results" obtained are already available. People in science have flaws. Wow. People argue using bad techniques and in my case, excessive insults (among many other things, I'm sure). I also agree with Louis that deliberate dishonesty is a sore point with me, and I cannot trust those that employ it just to prove minor points or "hold up mirrors" that people can view themselves in.

I've simply never understood the desire to troll, although I'd be interested in hearing what you think you've learned that was unique to your "experiment," GoP. Oh, and I disagree that indifference is invariably the "negation" or polar opposite of love. Hate is a perfectly valid emotion, within limits, just as all emotions are. Hating someone who kills a person you love, for instance, is perfectly warranted, although frowned on in this society.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 15 2006,10:43

jeannot:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've been told that you like to document your opponent's distortions. Although I didn't quote any reference, I feel it's pretty much what I did in my response to your fine tuning argument. Now, do you have anything better to offer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps....but would you mind restating your objection in a little more detail? I didn't understand your first attempt.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 15 2006,11:24

deadman:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, you were given SOME, at least in the US, but I admit that I didn't pay attention to the thread after a while, since the fact is that I think conflict between Islam and Christianity is almost inevitable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, you gave me good stats, and I acknowledged this, although I'm still a bit skeptical that first generation immigrants tell us very much (that's one reason I'm pissed that France is censoring their data -- they would be a great test case in cultural regression). But I agree that conflict's on the horizon.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Muslims generally do fare worse in Europe than here in the US, and I'd like to have a clearer picture why, beyond the obvious. There are data that indicate that Muslims DO want to assimilate in Europe, yet they are faring poorly in many areas. I don't think it's just "their" culture..it's a mix of human wariness/antagonism toward the "other" and that Christianity and Islam simply both claim exclusive ownership of absolute "truth" along with doctrinal intolerance of religious competition and this is a recipe for divisiveness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem here is that Europe isn't very Christian anymore. The Muslims's hostility seems to center around Europe's secularism, not its lukewarm Christianity. That's what bothers me. In fact, you could make a case that our fundies are keeping the Muslims in check to a certain extent. Certainly, our fundamentalist Christians aren't going to take as much crap as the secular, guilt-ridden European metrosexuals; certainly not from religious minorities.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Historical particularism also plays a part, I suspect, as well as centuries of stagnation in multiple arenas. Asian belief systems tend to be less confrontational and less visually obvious, although I've noticed antagonism towards the mere existence of large-scale Buddhist temples here in L.A., and Sikhs have been assaulted for wearing turbans, too, even in New Zealand, a source of concern for a buddy of mine.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Probably. But even Southern Rednecks tolerate the Asians more than other ethnic groups. In fact, the only resentment I've seen is from less competive ethnic minorities. This is particularly true for antisemitism, which resonates more among middle-class Blacks than anywhere else (from what I've seen and read).

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as the trolling, I agree with Louis that any "results" obtained are already available. People in science have flaws. Wow. People argue using bad techniques and in my case, excessive insults (among many other things, I'm sure). I also agree with Louis that deliberate dishonesty is a sore point with me, and I cannot trust those that employ it just to prove minor points or "hold up mirrors" that people can view themselves in.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I disagree; if we don't fix our flaws, they will grow and the other side will exploit them. That's one reason why Jewish people are so successful as a group; they've learned to kid themselves to a great extent. True, there are some prominent exceptions, but Portnoy's Complaint is much more indicative of Jewish culture than some Yenta from the ADL. "Could it be....HITLER!!?"   :D  :D  :D

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've simply never understood the desire to troll, although I'd be interested in hearing what you think you've learned that was unique to your "experiment," GoP. Oh, and I disagree that indifference is invariably the "negation" or polar opposite of love. Hate is a perfectly valid emotion, within limits, just as all emotions are. Hating someone who kills a person you love, for instance, is perfectly warranted, although frowned on in this society.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think you misunderstood me. I was just suggesting that Louis would make a better point by ignoring me than ranting about me.....not that it really matters either way <shrug>.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 15 2006,11:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if we don't fix our flaws, they will grow and the other side will exploit them. That's one reason why Jewish people are so successful as a group
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is interesting. I think a case can be made along those lines: success in an "alien" culture can be at least partly determined by the ability of one's culture to tolerate internal and external ..well, ridicule, for lack of a better word at the moment. Flexibility in one's cultural self-image allows for flexibility in adapting to differing cultural norms, etc. The Muslim response to the cartoons of Muhammad was seen by people used to lampooning Christianity..as excessive. Low cultural self-esteem? Historical resentment of centuries-old "injuries?"

Anyway, you never really answered what "unique" insights your trolling experiment gave you. Or were there no real revelations?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 15 2006,12:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If anything, you should be the one taking notes. This "simple grad student" is light years ahead of most scientists I've seen, including a few on this board.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



nope, obviously you haven't learned anything.

go figure.

not surprising though.

I'm with Louis; your posts reflected your knowledge, regardless of the intent.

they still do.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 15 2006,12:24

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 15 2006,15:43)
jeannot:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've been told that you like to document your opponent's distortions. Although I didn't quote any reference, I feel it's pretty much what I did in my response to your fine tuning argument. Now, do you have anything better to offer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps....but would you mind restating your objection in a little more detail? I didn't understand your first attempt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could not be clearer, my English won't allow me to. :(

You don't need more detail either. Simply put: for scientific hypothesis, I rely on the principle of parcimony. Thus I don't take 'fine tunning' as the null hypothesis. Unless you provide a way to falsify it, I'll consider this hypothesis as not scientific.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 16 2006,04:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't need more detail either. Simply put: for scientific hypothesis, I rely on the principle of parcimony. Thus I don't take 'fine tunning' as the null hypothesis. Unless you provide a way to falsify it, I'll consider this hypothesis as not scientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, it's true I'm implicitly taking fine tuning as the null hypothesis, but only because the observations pushed it into the "null" position. If the calculations and observations had shown that our universe wasn't sensitive to small changes, then the atheistic position would have gotten the presumption. And even so, there are competing ideas that can still topple the Design Hypothesis; for example, if evidence in favour of the multiverse turns up, then the Design Hypothesis is ruled unlikely due to Occam's Razor. But I won't favour methodological naturalism a priori under all conditions.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 16 2006,05:44

Gippy,

The reason I reply with profanity laden abuse is because you deserve no more.

My vote to ban you is because you are a dishonest troll and you take more away than you contribute. Also, I didn't call for you to be smacked in the mouth, what I said was that you behave as you do online because no one can give you a smack in the mouth which, were you behave in this manner in meatspace, you would richly deserve.

As for ignorance being the opposite of love, well Gippy, I don't hate you, nor do I even dislike you, I don't even know you. What I DO do is hold you in profound contempt. If I abuse you, it's because I enjoy insulting mindless, dishonest bigots like yourself, and because I don't buy your latest pose of vague reasonableness. Remember Gippy who it is who has long history of posting piccies of semi naked sweaty men crushing "evos and libruls" and myriad comments of this nature. Hmmm? YOU started this mindless nonsense, you shouldn't attempt to hide behind a cloud of ink when someone calls you on it and responds in kind. You aren't subtle, you aren't clever, and let's be honest I feel perfectly justified in my utter contempt for you and shall demonstrate it at every turn.

Look at the muslim thread Gippy. The other stats I provide from the same source demonstrate your selective quotation of them.

As I have maintained from the start, you are either a self deluding moron or a dishonest, attention whoring troll with no intellectual gifts. The only part I got wrong was the "either" for you are demonstrably both.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 16 2006,05:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I have maintained from the start, you are either a self deluding moron or a dishonest, attention whoring troll with no intellectual gifts. The only part I got wrong was the "either" for you are demonstrably both.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then why are you the one that's ranting and begging for censorship? Seems like it should be the stupid bigot who's reduced to these tactics. Just sayin', hoss.
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Oct. 16 2006,06:17

Louis, and others, I share your frustration with Paley's Ghast, and have been wrestling with appropriate responses.
When someone so egregiously abuses the hospitality and good well of so many for so long, it seems that exclusion of the abuser is the only remedy with any hope of preserving the sociality of the gathering.  Banning would give him far more attention than the miserable little twunt deservers.
Therefore, I can only suggest that the only legitimate response is emphatic shunning.
GoP should be ignored, no responses to his lies and drivel should be posted -- aside from at most a note to 'see previous behavior patterns for a full explanation of why this wanker is being ignored'.  He is not a member of the community, he is not a welcome participant, he is not even so respectable as that complete loser afDave.  So, ignore him utterly and completely.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Ved on Oct. 16 2006,07:08

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 16 2006,11:50)
Then why are you the one that's ranting and begging for censorship? Seems like it should be the stupid bigot who's reduced to these tactics. Just sayin', hoss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How is Louis begging for censorship? Has he done more than to say that his vote would be for your banishment? He's really only saying that he thinks the terms of service rules NOT be overlooked in your case. And, I don't believe there IS a vote, so it's pretty hypothetical. Besides, banning is not exactly the same as censorship.

And as far as ranting goes... where's the eye-roll emote?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 16 2006,07:10

I have to agree with Shirley on this one. My reasoning is threefold:
1) I'm not impressed with trolling, no matter how long-term. Anyone with a reasonable grasp of the subject matter and a willingness to engage in trollish tactics --fallacies, rhetorical games, deliberately initiating abuse/antagonism, etc. -- can troll. This was two people trolling, which accounts for the longevity. The interesting thing to me is that the people calling themselves GoP could have presented their views on various subjects, including the "meta-topics" of how we as humans and scientists comport ourselves, without the subterfuge. Ultimately, trolling wastes time and effort.

2) I asked twice what unique insights "GoP " gained from his "experiment" and got no answer. This itself is telling, in my view.
"GoP" said this earlier, after unmasking:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One question I've always had was, "Can people detach arguments from the person making them?" This was an attempt to answer that question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And this is the sum of "reasons" given for a year of trolling. Now...IF that were the actual motive behind this charade, the answer could have been obtained quite early on.

Furthermore, it's not MERELY detaching questions from the questioner that is being asked...what is also being asked is can people remain dispassionate and unemotional in the face of obvious trolling tactics, designed specifically to elicit negative responses. Again, that answer can be obtained quickly. I find this "reason" for trolling to be facile and easily obtainable in current literature. Therefore, I find this inadequate as a "reason."

Another "reason" hinted at was what I alluded to earlier: that scientists and others defending against creationism and ID should take stock of their approaches by viewing themselves in the "mirror" of trolling. Again, this is inadequate when the trolling TACTICS and deliberate inciting techniques are taken into account. There were numerous instances where the "argument" being presented by GoP was dismantled and "GoP" then proceeded not to back down, but to merely switch the argument in a deliberately underhanded manner.

Now, think about this: IF the goal were to determine whether (valid) arguments could be separated from the arguer, the question in that instance would be answered. Instead, a second version would then be offered by "GoP" which would often be invalid. This would then be knocked down as well...so...
did the experiment now become "can INvalid arguments be separated from the trollish tactics of the arguer?"

Nah, I don't buy this as a valid "explanation" either.

3) This leads to my final point: why would one do this? As I said, I asked GoP twice so far to "justify" his trolling and got no real answer.

This left me wondering about who these two people claiming to be GoP ..were, and what their actual motives might be. Again, after GoP "unmasked" we find this comment by the pair:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 The only thing I find surprising was that nobody publicly sussed that Paley was a joint effort...All of the stratospheric brain activity on this board, yet nobody figured it out---Hmmmmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This points, I suggest, to the underlying purpose and longevity of this performance. Ego.
Ichthyic noted this earlier as well, saying : "anybody who can get pleasure out of being a loki troll FOR A WHOLE YEAR, should consider they might have serious narcissistic tendencies."
I might add.. for a whole year and without a stated (thus far) valid purpose to it. However, IF these two people claiming to be GoP are anything like I imagine...this was one massive exercise not in "discovering truths" about themselves, or their interlocutors here at AtBC, it was about their egos and trying to gainsay and "best" or "one-up" people that they viewed disdainfully.

For all of the reasons I gave above, I have no problem with shunning such @sshole-ish characters. They can go and make new names or whatever and then try to weasel back in, if they wish, but I see no purpose to dealing "nicely" with the dishonorable.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 16 2006,08:03

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 16 2006,09:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't need more detail either. Simply put: for scientific hypothesis, I rely on the principle of parcimony. Thus I don't take 'fine tunning' as the null hypothesis. Unless you provide a way to falsify it, I'll consider this hypothesis as not scientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, it's true I'm implicitly taking fine tuning as the null hypothesis, but only because the observations pushed it into the "null" position. If the calculations and observations had shown that our universe wasn't sensitive to small changes, then the atheistic position would have gotten the presumption. And even so, there are competing ideas that can still topple the Design Hypothesis; for example, if evidence in favour of the multiverse turns up, then the Design Hypothesis is ruled unlikely due to Occam's Razor. But I won't favour methodological naturalism a priori under all conditions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This hypothesis is still not falsifiable.
I don't see what the multiverse could change. Even if most of the "universes" were hostile to life, in what way would this be different from the fact that our universe is mostly hostile to life? You could still argue for fine tunning.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 16 2006,11:58

deadman:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) I asked twice what unique insights "GoP " gained from his "experiment" and got no answer. This itself is telling, in my view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Work schedule. I only have a few minutes now, but will answer this later tonight. But here's a sample: a good way to improve your ability to analyze creationist tactics is to assume the role of a creationist yourself. It's like physics: you can read the chapter all day long, but until you attempt the problems, you can't separate the important parts from the rest. Learn by doing.

jeannot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This hypothesis is still not falsifiable.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But it's not trivial, because the observations could have gone the other way. Say I pick a ticket with the numbers 12345. Should I be surprised? This depends on:

1) How freely the numbers can vary;

2) How many other people are playing.

As 2) increases, then the individual odds don't change, but the chance of that ticket being selected approach unity. I would be very surprised if the total possibilities were high, and the number of participants was low.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 16 2006,13:36

I have a new theory. GoP isn't really two people. It's one person who thinks he's two people.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 16 2006,13:42

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 16 2006,16:58)
jeannot:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This hypothesis is still not falsifiable.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But it's not trivial, because the observations could have gone the other way. Say I pick a ticket with the numbers 12345. Should I be surprised? This depends on:

1) How freely the numbers can vary;

2) How many other people are playing.

As 2) increases, then the individual odds don't change, but the chance of that ticket being selected approach unity. I would be very surprised if the total possibilities were high, and the number of participants was low.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On a more serious note, Bill, I'd recommend Leonard Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. Dr. Susskind discusses this topic at great length (it's essentially the topic of the entire book), and makes a criticism of Lee Smolin's thesis as presented in The Life of the Cosmos that articulates a problem I had with that thesis in a much more coherent fashion than I ever could have come up with.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 16 2006,14:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
a good way to improve your ability to analyze creationist tactics is to assume the role of a creationist yourself. It's like physics: you can read the chapter all day long, but until you attempt the problems, you can't separate the important parts from the rest. Learn by doing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False analogy.
Grasping creationist tactics has already been done by people not bothering to "become" creationists. Creationist tactics are not physics.
A detective doesn't have to become a cannibal to understand Jeffrey Dahmer's tactics or views. A novelist doesn't have to become an astronaut to write convincingly and deeply about how space travel feels or how people feel and think about it. An anthropologist doesn't have to "become" WaiWai to grasp how the WaiWai think. This is an old topic in anthro and psych, and the analogy is false. Try again, this time being honest.
The fact is that you had the time to answer other things yesterday. I asked twice. The fact is that in reviewing your posts, you and your cohort took glee not just in posing as creationists, but you deliberately went out of your way to seek out people on other threads and antagonize them, while not dealing with creationist topics at all. Try again.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 16 2006,16:02

Duff Man:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
False analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not to me it isn't. I actually improved my skills in that area.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Grasping creationist tactics has already been done by people not bothering to "become" creationists. Creationist tactics are not physics.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Some don't learn by doing, while others benefit from hands-on experience. I fall into the latter category. And since this is about my motivations, that's all that matters.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A detective doesn't have to become a cannibal to understand Jeffrey Dahmer's tactics or views. A novelist doesn't have to become an astronaut to write convincingly and deeply about how space travel feels or how people feel and think about it. An anthropologist doesn't have to "become" WaiWai to grasp how the WaiWai think. This is an old topic in anthro and psych, and the analogy is false. Try again, this time being honest.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who said that judging other people's thoughts and motivations was unfruitful and dishonest by nature? You don't know me, how can you conclude anything about my inner life? That's right, you can't.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that you had the time to answer other things yesterday. I asked twice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And?....When you pay my bills you can determine my timetable. Until then, you'll get nothing and like it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact is that in reviewing your posts, you and your cohort took glee not just in posing as creationists, but you deliberately went out of your way to seek out people on other threads and antagonize them, while not dealing with creationist topics at all. Try again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't have to try again, especially for the likes of you. I answer whoever I want, however I want. You want an answer, try asking nicely.

Geez, do your coworkers put up with this shit?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 16 2006,17:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't have to try again, especially for the likes of you. I answer whoever I want, however I want. You want an answer, try asking nicely. Geez, do your coworkers put up with this shit?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did ask twice, nicely. None of my co-workers are whiny frauds who troll for a year and offer up patently fraudulent reasons for their obvious ego-stroking endeavor.
It's not my fault you have self-esteem issues and need to validate yourself by these means. It's your problem, this is again shown by your failure to address what I wrote ..." The fact is that in reviewing your posts, you and your cohort took glee not just in posing as creationists, but you deliberately went out of your way to seek out people on other threads and antagonize them, while not dealing with creationist topics at all."
The best you can offer up is " well, this is how *I* learn, and you can't prove otherwise, nyah, nyah. " which is precisely the answer your "alter ego" GoP would give...which then means...it's not an act -- it's you, baby.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 16 2006,23:40

Gippy,

As stated before. the reason I treat you with contempt is because it is all you deserve. Ignoring you only grants you the freedom to post drivel at will. Banning you hopefully demonstrates a hard line on pointless ego massaging trolling which is all you have done. This latest pose, like your others fools no one, least of all me.

Personally I find your sort of troll immensely amusing, a kind of chew toy that can be chewed and beaten as a catharsis after a long day. The simple fact that you don't get the subtle distinctions in what I or anyone else types despite extensive clarification demonstrates your intellectual failings very clearly. How, for example, can someone like Shirley Knott, Deadman, Ved etc "get" what I am saying in plain English without blowing a single neuron whereas you destroy a lobe over every post?

Also, what is it with your memory? In the past you have been answered fairly and politely by all concerned, even naughty old me. In this same past you have demonstrated that google trawling for concepts you clearly don't understand, lying and outright doublethink are your only methods of counter. I hate to break it to you Gippy, but your grandiose claims of "putting oneself in the creationist mindset to improve one's counercreationism" is patently false, if not utterly absurd. Empathy is all well and good, and understanding the other person's argument is vital,, but guess what Gippy: every damned one of us here myself included has done this. Guess what else: we didn't need to do ego stroking trolling to acheive it. Like I have been saying for quite some time Gippy, you fool no one.

BTW I love the way you keep trying to turn this around onto me and everyone else, it's highly amusing. This is why I don't for a second buy this new "tag team" Gippy bullshit. You are playing silly buggers pure and simple. THIS is another reason why were it up to me I would ban you. You contribute nothing positive, you are demonstrably dishonest in every aspect of your conduct and argumentation, ignoring you won't work for the simple reason that you will attention whore until you get the desired response, and you are merely masturbating with your own ridiculously deluded ego. Getting rid of you is the best option. Mind you, I expect claims of being a "l33t h4x0r" to arise shortly before or after any ban, should one be forthcoming.

Louis
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 17 2006,00:52

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 16)


jeannot:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This hypothesis is still not falsifiable.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But it's not trivial, because the observations could have gone the other way. Say I pick a ticket with the numbers 12345. Should I be surprised? This depends on:

1) How freely the numbers can vary;

2) How many other people are playing.

As 2) increases, then the individual odds don't change, but the chance of that ticket being selected approach unity. I would be very surprised if the total possibilities were high, and the number of participants was low.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A few points:
- You have not defined your hypothesis. What is a "fine tuned" universe ? A universe where human consciousness can arise? Where life can appear? (in these cases the answer is trivial). A universe designed by God?
- We don't know wether the constants describe the universe with precision (= wether they mean anything beyond our interpretation of reality).
- We don't know the distribution function of these constants, if that even makes sense.
- Even if we knew it, a high probability for their current values would not falsify your hypothesis (universe created by God).
- Their values don't add any support to your hypothesis, no more than the probability of the sequence of mutations that led to human consciouness. Why don't you support prescribed evolution, while you're at it?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 17 2006,01:58

Not only that but all these "fine tuning" arguments are ass backwards. As Douglas Adams said it's like a puddle claiming that the hole it occupies was specifically designed to fit it. The reason we observe the universe the way it is is simply because if the universe were different that we wouldn't be here to observe it.

Yes of course perhaps there are different stable universes based on different values of various constants, and this is one of the things that science is currently exploring (although how in some cases is beyond me I must confess). The argument from personal incredulity "it's all so narrow the window of variation, look look how narrow it is" is nothing more than special pleading.

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 17 2006,04:40

Paley, are you Canadian? Or British?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2006,07:27

OK, I'll try to get to your fine-tuning rebuttals tonight. Heck, I'll go the extra step and link to some of the best critiques of my position that I've found. But I don't have time just now, so......



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley, are you Canadian? Or British?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



American. Noah Webster and I have been long and bitter enemies I guess. I sorta like the flexibility that English speakers used to have (look at how many different ways the Elizabethan dramatists rendered their own names.)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2006,11:09

Here are some < relevant > < links > to < the > < discussion. >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 17 2006,13:45

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2006,12:27)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley, are you Canadian? Or British?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



American. Noah Webster and I have been long and bitter enemies I guess. I sorta like the flexibility that English speakers used to have (look at how many different ways the Elizabethan dramatists rendered their own names.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you're American but you use British/Canadian spellings as an affectation?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2006,13:52

Arden:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you're American but you use British/Canadian spellings as an affectation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes. So? I thought a linguist wouldn't be so anal. Or is there "good" English and "bad" English? Should someone only speak the language/dialect of his native country/region? If not, then why are you making such a big deal out of this?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2006,14:17

Arden's question might reveal more than he thinks. One characteristic that I have is that it's hard to draw a bead on me....the details are clear, but they don't cohere into a stable identity that you guys can relate to. Consider:

1) This character is a composite of two individuals, so you can't be quite sure to whom you're speaking;

2) My relationship to the board has recently shifted;

3) The references are American, yet the spelling is Canadian/Australian;

4) The politics are an amalgamation of several different philosophies, rather than a simple Right/Left dichotomy;

5) My religion is Deist, a halfway-house between Atheism/Classical Theism;

6) The attitude is all over the map. I don't show the "proper" respect to my social/academic "betters", yet I obviously respect the academic world and compliment several scientists;

7) I don't succumb to the usual ploys and insults ("yer a bigot, yer a closet queer, yer a poor nobody, so why can't you be enlightened like us?");

Basically, you can't find a firm basis to form a relationship. I think this bothers you. < The Andy Kaufman Syndrome. >

Yes, I know what the comeback will be : "Or maybe it's just that you're an [fill in the blank]", or maybe, "My, aren't you the narcissist." It's still worth pondering.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 17 2006,14:52

You're not as interesting as you seem to think you are, Paley.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2006,15:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're not as interesting as you seem to think you are, Paley.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you're far too predictable. We each have our flaws.
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 18 2006,03:52

Like most, I suspected that GoP wasn't entirely for real.

What I never would have predicted is that the 'real' GoP would prove even more insufferable and contemptible than the put-on.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 18 2006,04:16

Quote (Ogee @ Oct. 18 2006,08:52)
Like most, I suspected that GoP wasn't entirely for real.

What I never would have predicted is that the 'real' GoP would prove even more insufferable and contemptible than the put-on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't be so mean. The main reason I come to ATBC anymore is to hear all about Paley's religious, political, and cultural opinions in excrutiating detail.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 19 2006,04:20

Here's a < commonly cited > argument against fine tuning being evidence for design:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our main theorem
Having understood the previous discussion, and with our notation in hand, it is now easy to prove that the WAP does not support supernaturalism (which we take to be the negation ~N of N). Recall that the WAP can be written as P(F|N&L)=1. Then, by Bayes' theorem [see footnote 2] we have

P(N|F&L) =  P(F|N&L)P(N|L)/P(F|L)

        =  P(N|L)/P(F|L)

        >= P(N|L)
where '>=' means "greater than or equal to." The second line follows because P(F|N&L)=1, and the inequality of the third line follows because P(F|L) is a positive quantity less than or equal to 1. (The above demonstration is inspired by a recent article on talk.origins by Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com>; we have simplified the proof in his article. The message ID for the cited article is <5j6dq8$bvj@winter.erols.com> for those who wish to search for it on dejanews.)

The inequality P(N|F&L)>=P(N|L) shows that the WAP supports (or at least does not undermine) the hypothesis that the universe is governed by naturalistic law. This result is, as we have emphasized, independent of how large or small P(F|N) is. The observation F cannot decrease the probability that N is true (given the known background information that life exists in our universe), and may well increase it.

Corollary: Since P(~N|F&L)=1-P(N|F&L) and similarly for P(~N|L), it follows that P(~N|F&L)<=P(~N|L). In other words, the observation F does not support supernaturalism (~N), and may well undermine it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet if study the proof carefully, you'll notice that it's based on an equivocation that destroys the assumption behind the critical step. Can anyone guess where the authors erred?
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 19 2006,05:24

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,09:20)
Can anyone guess where the authors erred?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Easy one:  they didn't.  

The only thing I can think of is that you have been confused by the mention of P(F|N) here, which refers back to the fallacious ID assertion that P(F|N)<<1 implies P(N|F)<<1, and that F therefore imples -N.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 19 2006,07:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only thing I can think of is that you have been confused by the mention of P(F|N) here, which refers back to the fallacious ID assertion that P(F|N)<<1 implies P(N|F)<<1, and that F therefore imples -N.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope, that's not my problem. Hint: they cancel P(F/N&L) in step 2 because they say that this probability = 1 under the Weak Anthropic Principle. < Here's a definition: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Barrow and Tipler (1986) propose three important variants of the Anthropic Principle, Weak, Strong, and Final, listed below in order of increasing strength:

Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."[8]
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines WAP as conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now ask yourself this question: why would we assume the probability = 1 unless we're interpreting the F merely as "life compatible universe" (the Merriam-Webster definition)? Could we assume P = 1 if we explicitly define F as "fine-tuned", with the probability condition attached as in the Barrow definition?
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 19 2006,07:25

GoP(s),

You turned out to be almost the same thing you were pretending to be. You give a lot of reasons for your subjective opinions. So? You have no point.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 19 2006,07:52

BWE,

Awww come ON! GoP's latest pleas of "Ha ha,I was just pretending!" is obvious bullshit. His schtick hasn't changed one bit. He just took a larger dose of his meds than normal and had a moment of near rationality.Only near though. He's still wearing his mother's wedding dress whilst being sat in the dimly lit root cellar he calls home and masturbating to pictures of sweaty wrestlers and Ann Coulter whilst sat in a pileof his own effluvia.

But just for a second he could smell his own stink and came up with "I was making the pretendy game!".  Pity poor GoP for he is stupid like a turd.

Louis
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 19 2006,08:00

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,12:22)
Now ask yourself this question: why would we assume the probability = 1 unless we're interpreting the F merely as "life compatible universe" (the Merriam-Webster definition)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No interpretation is necessary.  The authors explicitly define F:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let F="The conditions in the universe are 'life-Friendly,' in the sense described above." Ross, in his arguments, certainly assumes that F is true. So will we (assumption b). The negation, ~F, would be that the conditions are such that life cannot exist naturalistically, so that if life is present it must be because of some supernatural principle or entity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try reading more carefully.
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,12:22)
Could we assume P = 1 if we explicitly define F as "fine-tuned", with the probability condition attached as in the Barrow definition?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, but so what?  That's a completley different argument.  Under their formulation, "fine tuning" takes the form P(F|N)<<1.

There is no equivocation.  F is defined as "the universe if life-friendly" throughout.  They prove that observing F cannot undermine N, no matter how small P(F|N) is.  Sorry, no dice.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 19 2006,10:03

Ogee:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No interpretation is necessary.  The authors explicitly define F:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Let F="The conditions in the universe are 'life-Friendly,' in the sense described above." Ross, in his arguments, certainly assumes that F is true. So will we (assumption b). The negation, ~F, would be that the conditions are such that life cannot exist naturalistically, so that if life is present it must be because of some supernatural principle or entity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Try reading more carefully.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That was my interpretation too. "Life-Friendly" = "life compatible", not "narrowly contrained constants + life compatible". In other words, the parameters could vary by several dozen orders of magnitude and still fit their definition. This makes sense, and would make the conditional probability = 1. But here's where I get stuck: how does this refute the fine tuning argument in any meaningful sense? All they're really saying is, "Seeing a universe with natural laws that are consistent with the formation of life makes philosophical naturalism at least as likely as theistic design". Of course that holds -- few theists could argue otherwise! However, theists are surprised that the parameters are so brittle, not that they're consistent with life. So if  P(F/N&L) was meant to describe the probability that the universe is observed to be fine tuned (given life + naturalism), then setting this equal to 1 is circular, since it assumes that a naturalistic universe with life will be fine tuned by definition (certainly, the physicists would be surprised to hear that). But if they mean the looser definition described above, it collapses to the trivial statement that "Seeing a universe with natural laws that are consistent with life forming makes philosophical naturalism at least as likely as theistic design". Which isn't much of a statement. You can't take a limit on a definition; "compatibility" can't be transformed into "fine tuning" after the cancellation is made. So the shrinking of P(F/N) might correspond to the narrowing of the parameters, but that doesn't give them the right to cancel in the first place. So the definition is loose for cancellation purposes, then calcifies into the hard form after the theorem is "proved".
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 19 2006,11:01

Note: Richard Harter also asserts that the authors are misunderstanding the fine tuning assertion:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Richard Harter <cri@tiac.net> has suggested a somewhat different interpretation of the "fine-tuning" argument in E-mail (reproduced here with permission). He writes:

This takes care of the WAP; if one argues solely from the WAP the FAQ argument is correct. However the "fine tuning" argument is not (despite what its proponents say) a WAP argument; it is an inverse Bayesian argument. The argument runs thusly:

P(F|~N) >> P(F|N)

ergo

P(~N|F) >> P(N|F)

Considered as a formal inference this is a fallacy. None-the-less it is a normal rule of induction which is (usually) sound. The reason is that for the "conclusion" not to hold we need

P(N) >> P(~N)

[This is not the full condition but it is close enough for government work.]

There are two fallacies in this form of the argument. The first is the failure to condition on L, mentioned above. This in itself would render the argument invalid. The second is that the first line of the argument, P(F|~N) >> P(F|N), is merely an unsupported assertion. No one knows what the probability of a supernatural entity creating a universe that is F is! For example, a dilettante deity might never get around to creating any universes at all, much less ones capable of supporting life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, the authors claim to have refuted much of this with a brand-new proof, but as I'll show, this fails too.
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 19 2006,15:50

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,15:03)
But here's where I get stuck: how does this refute the fine tuning argument in any meaningful sense?   All they're really saying is, "Seeing a universe with natural laws that are consistent with the formation of life makes philosophical naturalism at least as likely as theistic design".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No they're saying that even infinitesimal values of P(F|N) do not support ~N.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if  P(F/N&L) was meant to describe the probability that the universe is observed to be fine tuned
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's one of your problems right there.  F is not "the universe is fine-tuned"! P(F|N&L)=1 is the weak anthropic principle, that is: if the universe is naturalistic and has life, it must be life-friendly.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But if they mean the looser definition described above, it collapses to the trivial statement that "Seeing a universe with natural laws that are consistent with life forming makes philosophical naturalism at least as likely as theistic design".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, no.  They are making no statement about the relative values of P(N) versus P(~N).  They are showing that fine-tuning does not logically support ~N.
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 19 2006,15:55

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,16:01)
Yes, the authors claim to have refuted much of this with a brand-new proof, but as I'll show, this fails too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope this will be of superior quality to your last objection.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 20 2006,09:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's one of your problems right there.  F is not "the universe is fine-tuned"! P(F|N&L)=1 is the weak anthropic principle, that is: if the universe is naturalistic and has life, it must be life-friendly.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



<sigh>It's obvious you don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Let me spoon feed you a little:

1) The I-J Theorem is based on Bayes' Theorem;

2) When working with Bayes (and our authors frequently emphasize this point), one must condition your probabilities on all the relevant observations;

3) As you and I agree, I-J do not count for Fine Tuning in their initial conditional probability; that is, the F in P(F/N&L) does not include the brittleness of parameter values in its definition;

4) This exclusion is crucial to their proof, as you admit:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,12:22)
Could we assume P = 1 if we explicitly define F as "fine-tuned", with the probability condition attached as in the Barrow definition?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, but so what?  That's a completley different argument.  Under their formulation, "fine tuning" takes the form P(F|N)<<1.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The authors, having then failed to include ALL the relevant criteria in their original conditions, then use their narrow definition to cancel the troublesome probability, and argue that their conclusion makes the Fine-Tuning argument irrelevant to theistic claims because Fine Tuning applies when P(F/N)<<1. This might be a good strategy, but it doesn't adhere to the requirements of Bayesian probability analysis;

5) Therefore, their reasoning might not apply to the real Fine Tuning argument, which accepts observations that I-J don't account for in a proper way.

Hopefully, this will be too transparent to misread.
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 20 2006,10:36

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 20 2006,14:23)
<sigh>It's obvious you don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ironically, you're showing it's you that has no idea what you're talking about.

I'll obviously have to hold your hand through this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

1) The I-J Theorem is based on Bayes' Theorem;

2) When working with Bayes (and our authors frequently emphasize this point), one must condition your probabilities on all the relevant observations;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK, so far.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) As you and I agree, I-J do not count for Fine Tuning in their initial conditional probability; that is, the F in P(F/N&L) does not include the brittleness of parameter values in its definition;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I repeat: so what?  That is not their argument.  Their argument concnerns the effect of the weak anthropic principle on the probability P(N|F&L).  They prove that this probability cannot be diminished by the observation F, regardless of the value of P(F|N) (for which small values correpsond to fine tuning).  I implore you: read the entire article.  You clearly do not understand the purpose of the work, and are harping on some ridiculous idea that 'F' should represent fine-tuning in and of itself.  If you still don't get it, I encourage you to email the authors.  Perhaps they can explain it to you in a manner you will comprehend.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4) This exclusion is crucial to their proof, as you admit:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is called a "strawman".  I said no such thing in what you quoted, or anywhere else.  An argument in which F represents fine tuning would be an entirely different argument, and one in which P(F|L&N)=1 would not represent the weak anthropic principle!! Again, your objection stems purely from ignorance and fallacy.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5) Therefore, their reasoning might not apply to the real Fine Tuning argument, which accepts observations that I-J don't account for in a proper way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The accepted formulation of fine-tuning based on those defiinitions of N and F is P(F|N)<<1.  They have shown that the observation of F cannot undermine N, even if P(F|N)<<1 (fine-tuning) is true.  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hopefully, this will be too transparent to misread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would save the arrogance for when you've stopped making gross errors in comprehension.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 21 2006,03:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I repeat: so what?  That is not their argument.  Their argument concnerns the effect of the weak anthropic principle on the probability P(N|F&L).  They prove that this probability cannot be diminished by the observation F, regardless of the value of P(F|N) (for which small values correpsond to fine tuning).  I implore you: read the entire article.  You clearly do not understand the purpose of the work, and are harping on some ridiculous idea that 'F' should represent fine-tuning in and of itself.  If you still don't get it, I encourage you to email the authors.  Perhaps they can explain it to you in a manner you will comprehend.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gee, I wonder why someone would treat you as if you're arrogant? In any case, you agree that all the relevant observations should be included. What you don't seem to realise is that the observations should be included from the start, which I-J explicitly didn't do.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Similarly, a Bayesian calculation is valid if it uses the probability calculus correctly, and factually correct if all of its premises (assumptions) are correct. It is sound if it is both valid and factually correct.

We will show that if one attempts to ignore true background information B in the likelihood function P(E|T,B), and if B actually affects the values taken on by the likelihood, the argument will not be factually correct, and therefore the argument will be unsound.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is why they conditioned on L. Too bad they also didn't condition on Fine-Tuning, even though it's observed and is valid "background information".

So who cares what the rest of their paper "says"? I've read it, they do not deal with this issue. In any case, you bring nothing to the debate. Go talk down to your students, they actually have to put up with your crap.
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 21 2006,04:54

Stop whining just because you've been caught out in a stupid objection to a sound argument.  "The universe is fine-tuned" is not a predicate, it is a statement of probability (in this case, P(F|N)<<1).  You do not condition on statements of probability.  

If you don't wish to put up with my "crap", you are welcome to stop posting easily-refuted garbage here.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 21 2006,06:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stop whining just because you've been caught out in a stupid objection to a sound argument.  "The universe is fine-tuned" is not a predicate, it is a statement of probability (in this case, P(F|N)<<1).  You do not condition on statements of probability.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong. Fine tuning is a predicate; its probability depends on other background information (which we don't have). Fine tuning has been observed. Its probability depends on TOEs and putative multiverses. Nobody knows the probabilities involved, including Ikeda - Jeffries.

You know, the only academics I've encountered with your type of arrogance have all been mediocre. I'm not saying you are, but you might not want to be confused with a backbencher. Just sayin'.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 21 2006,06:17

Does all this provide a way to falsify the fine tuning hypothesis?
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 21 2006,07:26

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,11:06)
Wrong. Fine tuning is a predicate; its probability depends on other background information (which we don't have). Fine tuning has been observed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would love for you to point to the observation that the universe is fine-tuned.

Meanwhile, in the real world, we (including our friend Heddle) know that fine-tuning refers to the apparently very small a priori probability that certain fundamental properties would fall within the life-amenable range.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Its probability depends on TOEs and putative multiverses. Nobody knows the probabilities involved, including Ikeda - Jeffries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Which is irrelevant to their argument, which proves that ~N is not supported by fine-tuning, regardless of those probabilities.  Your inability to grasp this despite repeated explanations is shocking.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know, the only academics I've encountered with your type of arrogance have all been mediocre. I'm not saying you are, but you might not want to be confused with a backbencher. Just sayin'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your brazen ignorance is a sure sign that your exposure to academics has been profoundly inadequate.
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 21 2006,07:30

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 21 2006,11:17)
Does all this provide a way to falsify the fine tuning hypothesis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't falsify fine-tuning, but it does falsify the creationist assertion that fine-tuning implies "God did it".
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 21 2006,09:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would love for you to point to the observation that the universe is fine-tuned.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that after all the insults, Ogee finally starts rebutting my claim proper. Thanks, all it took was wading through two miles of crap.

Ogee seems to think, along with Ikeda - Jeffries, that the "fine tuning" argument is simply a probability statement: the universe's parameters are unlikely to take the values they do, so therefore design. Now, if that were the gist of it, I would agree that I-J rebutted the fine tuning argument. In fact, I might even agree that I-J accomplished what they explicitly set out to do; that is, prove that one definition of the WAP, in and of itself, provides no support for the design hypothesis, and in fact may undermine it. The problem is, however, that this is not the fine tuning argument as expressed by many of its proponents. Many of the proponents, in fact, do not start from a purely philosophical assumption that the constants would be difficult for a naturalistic universe to achieve (of course it would, try hitting the same target twice blindfolded), but that, based on the empirical observation that many of the constants are very "brittle" (change them a little and you have no universe), the chance of the universe hitting those constants is very small. Notice how the argument depends (ya might say is predicated) on this observation of brittleness. Take that evidence away, and the design argument must rest on something else entirely. That's why this evidence must be included ahead of time into any relevant conditional probability, especially if one is using a bayesian format.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 21 2006,09:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would love for you to point to the observation that the universe is fine-tuned.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Sure, Chief: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Known physical constants and possible examples of fine tuning
(Sources for this section: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7])

The nuclear strong force holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, by as little as 2%, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together and hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If the strong force were slightly stronger, by as little as 1%, hydrogen would be rare in the universe and elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from fusion during the explosion of supernovae) would also be rare.
The nuclear weak force affects the behavior of leptons (e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and muons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions. If the weak force were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available, and little or no helium would be produced from the big bang. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the constructing of life as we know it would not be made by the nuclear furnaces inside stars. If the weak force were slightly smaller, the big bang would burn most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars, and life as we know it would not be possible.
The intensity of the force binding electrons to protons in atoms depends on the electromagnetic coupling constant. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atoms determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were different atoms and molecules would be significantly different.
The ratio of electron to proton mass also determines the characteristics of the orbits of electrons about nuclei. A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron. If the electron to proton mass ratio were different, atoms and molecules would be significantly different.
The entropy level of the universe affects the condensation of massive systems. The universe contains about one billion photons for every baryon. This makes the universe extremely entropic, i.e. a very efficient radiator and a very poor engine. If the entropy level for the universe were slightly larger, no galactic systems would form (and therefore no stars). If the entropy level were slightly smaller, the galactic systems that formed would effectively trap radiation and prevent any fragmentation of the systems into stars. In either case, the universe would be devoid of stars and solar systems.
The force of gravity affects the interaction of particles. In order for life as we know it to form, the force of gravity must be 1040 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism for charged elementary particles. (Frank Wilczek has said that it is not the force of gravity that is so weak, but the mass of the particles that is so small.) The relationship of gravity to electromagnetism as it currently exists is this: The positively charged particles must equal in charge the numbers negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will not form. The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 1037 (10 to the 37th power).
The more probable explanations of Multiverse models themselves require fine-tuning.
These and other examples are often given as evidence of the universe being fine tuned. Whether they actually are proof of fine tuning is a matter debated between proponents of the fine-tuning argument and critics who feel that such reasoning is a subjective anthropomorphism of natural physical constants and even if it is improbable that they occurred by chance, that by itself, improbability is insufficient reason to conclude that they occurred by design.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that these are observations, not philosophical statements. In other words, I-J attack an analytic strawman while ignoring the synthetic component IMHO.
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 21 2006,09:32

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,14:01)
Notice that after all the insults, Ogee finally starts rebutting my claim proper. Thanks, all it took was wading through two miles of crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am surprised that you're so prissy and delicate, Ghosty, but I'm not surprised that you would blatantly lie:  I have addressed (and demolished) your argument at every step.  The insults, while well-deserved, are for entertainment purposes only.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, if that were the gist of it, I would agree that I-J rebutted the fine tuning argument. In fact, I might even agree that I-J accomplished what they explicitly set out to do; that is, prove that one definition of the WAP, in and of itself, provides no support for the design hypothesis, and in fact may undermine it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No one gives a shit what you agree with or don't: it's what you can demonstrate.  So far, you're not doing too well on that count.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem is, however, that this is not the fine tuning argument as expressed by many of its proponents. Many of the proponents, in fact, do not start from a purely philosophical assumption that the constants would be difficult for a naturalistic universe to achieve (of course it would, try hitting the same target twice blindfolded), but that, based on the empirical observation that many of the constants are very "brittle" (change them a little and you have no universe), the chance of the universe hitting those constants is very small.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, for Christ's sake. How would one would formulate "the chance of the universe hitting those constants is very small"? Oh, yeah, P(F|N)<<1.  That you tried to argue that the fine-tuning argument is NOT a statement of probability and then describe it as "the chance of X is very small" is precious.  You simply cannot proceed from "parameter(s) must take on very specific values for a natural universe to support life" to the fine-tuning argument without rendering it as a probability statement, as you've shown yourself in your Keystone-cops attempt to assert the opposite.

I am starting to suspect that this is just another attention-whoring put-on like your geocentrism nonsense.  It's not a total waste, however:  I get the pleasure of embarassing a dishonest cretin, and we all get a demonstration of the pitfalls of Google-scholarship.
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 21 2006,09:56

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,14:15)
Notice that these are observations, not philosophical statements. In other words, I-J attack an analytic strawman while ignoring the synthetic component IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:D  :D  :D   No one is questioning whether the values and life-compatible ranges of the various paramaters of interest are observations, genius.  No one knows what the a priori probabilities of these values are, or even what the ranges of possible values are, relative to the ranges of life-friendly values.  To get from observations like "if the mass of the electron changed by X%, life would be impossible" to the fine-tuning asssertion you must make a statement on the probability.   You can't hide a probability inside a predicate by semantic abuse.  

I do appreciate the fact that you've quietly conceded that there was no equivocation on the authors' part.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 21 2006,10:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one is questioning whether the values and life-compatible ranges of the various paramaters of interest are observations, genius.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then why didn't I-J include them in the definition for "F"?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one knows what the a priori probabilities of these values are, or even what the ranges of possible values are, relative to the ranges of life-friendly values.  To get from observations like "if the mass of the electron changed by X%, life would be impossible" to the fine-tuning asssertion you must make a statement on the probability.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's right,  but these observations should have been included in the initial conditional probability, as Bayes demands. So why didn't the authors do this? They only included "Life" and "Life friendly". These do not encompass the totality of what's observed. It's not just that the values are consistent with life that's observed, it's also that they're narrow. Doesn't mean life is unlikely under naturalistic assumptions, but it does need to be included. They clearly didn't.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To get from observations like "if the mass of the electron changed by X%, life would be impossible" to the fine-tuning asssertion you must make a statement on the probability. You can't hide a probability inside a predicate by semantic abuse.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not: I'm just arguing that the conditional probability predicated on all the observations is low.

More later.
Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 21 2006,10:12

Quote (Ogee @ Oct. 21 2006,13:30)
It doesn't falsify fine-tuning, but it does falsify the creationist assertion that fine-tuning implies "God did it".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ogee,

Not to butt in on your ongoing fued with GoP, but I wanted to clarify something about the above.

The fine tuning argument is agnostic, it doesn't tell us anything about the likelyhood and unlikelyhood of a creator.  True?
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 21 2006,10:16

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 21 2006,15:12)
The fine tuning argument is agnostic, it doesn't tell us anything about the likelyhood and unlikelyhood of a creator.  True?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's right.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 21 2006,10:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do appreciate the fact that you've quietly conceded that there was no equivocation on the authors' part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, not really. Let's just say that they're applying the proof more broadly than it strictly calls for. "Equivocation" is a little harsh, and if I implied that they were deliberately deceptive, then I apologise. I still think they unintentionally used a strawman definition of fine tuning (a weaker Wap construction*), and then used it to argue against what I consider the authentic fine tuning argument.

Look, before this argument gets even more pointless, let me admit that I could very well be wrong. I don't think I'm wrong, but I've fucked up before, and God willing, I'll probably fuck up in the future. I just can't see why Ogee is hugging I-J's nuts so badly: dude, they're just a couple of stats guys, not yo' mamma. Just stick to the argument please.


*Jesus, I can't believe I actually typed that phrase. The evidence is in: I'm as crazy as a loon. God help me.  :(
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 21 2006,10:47

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,15:09)
Then why didn't I-J include them in the definition for "F"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would they?  The weak anthropic principle is not concerned with whether or not the universe would support life with different laws and constants.  The weak anthropic principle does concern whether the universe is life-friendly (F), contains life(L), and is naturalistic (N).
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's right,  but these observations should have been included in the initial conditional probability, as Bayes demands. So why didn't the authors do this? They only included "Life" and "Life friendly". These do not encompass the totality of what's observed. It's not just that the values are consistent with life that's observed, it's also that they're narrow. Doesn't mean life is unlikely under naturalistic assumptions, but it does need to be included. They clearly didn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where does Bayes "demand" that observations not relevant to the probabilities of interest be conditioned for?  The existence of life must be conditioned for when dealing with the WAP, while the fine-tuning is accurately represented by P(F|N)<<1.  

Yet another problem for your objections is that the inclusion of these observations in F would change the conditional probabilities: obviously it can't change L (which we know to be 1 and which is used only to condition the other two), so it could only change N, but this is begging the question.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not: I'm just arguing that the conditional probability predicated on all the observations is low.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which can't be done without assuming a prioiri that the observations decrease the probability of N, which renders the argument circular.
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 21 2006,10:59

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,15:44)
Well, not really. Let's just say that they're applying the proof more broadly than it strictly calls for. "Equivocation" is a little harsh, and if I implied that they were deliberately deceptive, then I apologise. I still think they unintentionally used a strawman definition of fine tuning (a weaker Wap construction*), and then used it to argue against what I consider the authentic fine tuning argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm quite aware of what you're saying; it's the part where you back it up with something other than bald assertion and misrepresentation that's lacking.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look, before this argument gets even more pointless, let me admit that I could very well be wrong. I don't think I'm wrong, but I've fucked up before, and God willing, I'll probably fuck up in the future. I just can't see why Ogee is hugging I-J's nuts so badly: dude, they're just a couple of stats guys, not yo' mamma. Just stick to the argument please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a real piece of work: toss an insult and then plead for a civil discussion.  You can stick your hypocrisy and your false civility up your ass.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 21 2006,11:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The weak anthropic principle is not concerned with whether or not the universe would support life with different laws and constants.  The weak anthropic principle does concern whether the universe is life-friendly (F), contains life(L), and is naturalistic (N).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, this is true for at least one definition. I have heard other definitions (for example, I quoted two earlier). But I'm challenging whether their version of WAP really encompasses the argument they think they're addressing, let alone the observations themselves. I've said from the beginning that they've established what their pinched definitions allowed them to establish. I'm just skeptical that their definitions match most theists's.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where does Bayes "demand" that observations not relevant to the probabilities of interest be conditioned for?  The existence of life must be conditioned for when dealing with the WAP, while the fine-tuning is accurately represented by P(F|N)<<1.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ogee, I really do understand their paper. I just disagree with their background assumptions.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another problem for your objections is that the inclusion of these observations in F would change the conditional probabilities: obviously it can't change L (which we know to be 1 and which is used only to condition the other two), so it could only change N, but this is begging the question.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not necessarily. It could change the likelihood of N (most physicists think it doesn't, and I realise that), but these observations come straight from N's background information. If it didn't, scientists wouldn't be trying to account for them in their TOEs. In fact, inflation itself is an attempt to address some anthropic coinci-dinks. I can't stress this enough: these observations didn't have to be true. In fact, everything I've read suggested that these facts were initially greeted with surprise.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
I'm not: I'm just arguing that the conditional probability predicated on all the observations is low.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Which can't be done without assuming a prioiri that the observations decrease the probability of N, which renders the argument circular.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It would be circular if I wanted the low probability built into the assumptions. But as I've said before, I do not believe these anthropic coincidences narrow the likelihood of N by definition. In fact, I can think of several natualistic models (Smolin's evo universe, multiverse models) which use these coincidences as evidence. These theories are entirely materialistic. If true, then Paley's definition of F would increase P(N). Wouldn't that be embarrassing?  ;)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're a real piece of work: toss an insult and then plead for a civil discussion.  You can stick your hypocrisy and your false civility up your ass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh my, I'm debating with an idEOlogue. Tell me Ogee, why is this issue so emotional for you? If I'm wrong, I can accept it and move on, but if I'm right, I have a feeling that you're gonna be really depressed. Why? For a group of people who don't believe in ####, you atheists sure like immersing yourself in the furnace.

Ogee, this response will have to do until Monday.

By the way, does anyone understand what I'm trying to say?
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 21 2006,11:47

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,16:16)

Yes, this is true for at least one definition. I have heard other definitions (for example, I quoted two earlier). But I'm challenging whether their version of WAP really encompasses the argument they think they're addressing, let alone the observations themselves. I've said from the beginning that they've established what their pinched definitions allowed them to establish. I'm just skeptical that their definitions match most theists's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are backpedalling and your objections are growing more vague.  I don't care what your opinion is; what can you show?  Where's the fault in that forumlation of the WAP?   Where's your superior alternative formulation?  Where's the beef?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ogee, I really do understand their paper. I just disagree with their background assumptions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And?  If you can't show that they're wrong, why should anyone care whether you disagree?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not necessarily. It could change the likelihood of N (most physicists think it doesn't, and I realise that), but these observations come straight from N's background information. If it didn't, scientists wouldn't be trying to account for it in their inflationary models.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonsense.  It is an important problem quite independent of any theological implications.  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, inflation itself is an attempt to address some anthropic coinci-dinks. I can't stress this enough: these observations didn't have to be true. In fact, everything I've read suggested that these facts were initially greeted with surprise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this is news, nor has anything to do with whether fine-tuning implies ~N.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It would be circular if I wanted the low probability built into the assumptions. But as I've said before, I do not believe these anthropic coincidences narrow the likelihood of N by definition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
This pattern seems somehow familiar: Ghost has some really devastating points to make and, rest assured, will provide a grand proof (later).
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 21 2006,11:58

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,16:16)
Oh my, I'm debating with an idEOlogue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, because only ideologues are irritated by cretins.  Fuck yourself.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I'm wrong, I can accept it and move on, but if I'm right, I have a feeling that you're gonna be really depressed. Why? For a group of people who don't believe in ####, you atheists sure like immersing yourself in the furnace.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(1) I'm an atheist?    
(2) You're already wrong.  This is sport.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Oct. 21 2006,12:06

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,16:16)
By the way, does anyone understand what I'm trying to say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.  "Goddidit".

Got it.


(yawn)
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 22 2006,01:32

Ghost of Paley,

It seems that you don't directly equate fine-tuning to God. Which leads me to a few questions I wan't you to address here. Please don't just provide links, I find that kind of answer annoying. I won't bother to read them.

What precisely differentiates a fine-tuned and a badly-tuned universe? It appears that, for you, a fined-tuned universe is suitable for life, although I don't see how you get the "tuning" from this observation alone. In that case, could a universe that is not propitious for (to?) human life be also fine-tuned? Justify your position.

What arguments lead you to conclude that a fine-tuned universe is the creation or God? I suspect this has to do with some low probability.
Would a high probability falsify the action of God? In other words, how could one falsify your hypothesis?

Do we have any theory that is relevant outside our universe, that says anything about the conditions for its appearance? (In other words, is infinity reachable?)

In that case, why would these particular conditions be more relevant to demonstrate the action of God, that, say, the conditions for the appearence of our hypothetical mutliverse, or the conditions for the apearence of life on Earth, Homo sapiens, yourself? In other terms, what did God design? Did he design himself? Justify you position.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 22 2006,11:02

jeannot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What precisely differentiates a fine-tuned and a badly-tuned universe? It appears that, for you, a fined-tuned universe is suitable for life, although I don't see how you get the "tuning" from this observation alone. In that case, could a universe that is not propitious for (to?) human life be also fine-tuned? Justify your position.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, you're making the same mistake Ikeda-Jeffries did. The fact that the universe's constants are hospitable to life does not surprise me -- if our scientific theories are valid, they had better be. What's surprising is the narrow room for error. If you could change the fine structure constant by several orders of magnitude and still obtain carbon-based life forms (the only form of life of which we know), then I wouldn't consider it very surprising. Or, if we had evidence that many other types of life were possible, I wouldn't be suspicious. But the parameters are pretty narrow; any change of more than 4% renders the development of carbon-based life impossible.

More later.
Posted by: creeky belly on Oct. 22 2006,12:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, you're making the same mistake Ikeda-Jeffries did. The fact that the universe's constants are hospitable to life does not surprise me -- if our scientific theories are valid, they had better be. What's surprising is the narrow room for error. If you could change the fine structure constant by several orders of magnitude and still obtain carbon-based life forms (the only form of life of which we know), then I wouldn't consider it very surprising. Or, if we had evidence that many other types of life were possible, I wouldn't be suspicious. But the parameters are pretty narrow; any change of more than 4% renders the development of carbon-based life impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think youre really limiting yourself, though, if you're only looking at the constants. For instance, what if the divergence of magnetic fields wasn't zero, or what if the gravitational interaction wasn't proportional to the square of the distance. The fact that you can imagine different constants, or proportions, or powers, really has no significance; especially since we really don't understand whether or not the constants are connected to something more fundamental to our universe.
By the way, 4% isn't exactly small either.
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 22 2006,17:10

Hmm...turns out Ghost's original mistake regarding whether F represents fine-tuning in Ikeda & Jeffrys' arguments exactly mirrors an identical mistake made in the fine-tuned universe < Wikipedia article >.  Not that Ghosty has any history of getting ear-deep in broken arguments based on half-assed Google scholarship or anything.  I've also noticed another telling trend (probably already detected by others here) that he decides something is wrong (or right) first, and then does the background reading, with predictably lousy results (and, ironically, it's a key trait of a true ideologue).

It's a disappointingly stereotypical creationist M.O. and, in retrospect, horribly boring.  As for the matter at hand, I don't doubt for an instant that GoP has both the time and inclination to post minor re-wordings of the same errors ad nauseam, nor that he will claim victory once I stop responding to his drivel, but my patience for repeatedly correcting those errors (and for letting his disingenuous conduct raise my blood pressure) is at its end.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 22 2006,17:33

Quote (creeky belly @ Oct. 22 2006,18:00)
By the way, 4% isn't exactly small either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whether 4% is big or small depends on side information. If your boxing opponent is 4% bigger, that can have an enormous effect. If your tire pressure is 4% bigger, you'll never notice. In the case of the beloved cosmological constant, nobody knows how it got there, what else it could have been, or what the #### it is, even to an order of magnitude, so using it to support magic beings in the sky is the height of lameness.

I can imagine water in the ocean being 10% larger, in which case I'd drown. Should I infer that the Easter Bunny tuned it? No, but I'm sure an Easter Bunny cultist would.
Posted by: Ogee on Oct. 22 2006,17:47

Quote (creeky belly @ Oct. 22 2006,17:00)
I think youre really limiting yourself, though, if you're only looking at the constants. For instance, what if the divergence of magnetic fields wasn't zero, or what if the gravitational interaction wasn't proportional to the square of the distance. The fact that you can imagine different constants, or proportions, or powers, really has no significance; especially since we really don't understand whether or not the constants are connected to something more fundamental to our universe.
By the way, 4% isn't exactly small either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're right, in that no one knows exactly what determines the observed laws and constants, much less a  credible way to estimate their a priori probabilities - although it is generally accepted that these will be (collectively, at least) very low.

The real flaw is in the fallacious and unparsimonious creationist claim that a low a priori probability of life-supporting physics implies divine intervention.  There is simply no way to support that claim except by flat assertion (non sequitur) or by begging the question.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 22 2006,21:18

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 22 2006,16:02)
What's surprising is the narrow room for error. If you could change the fine structure constant by several orders of magnitude and still obtain carbon-based life forms (the only form of life of which we know), then I wouldn't consider it very surprising. Or, if we had evidence that many other types of life were possible, I wouldn't be suspicious. But the parameters are pretty narrow; any change of more than 4% renders the development of carbon-based life impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not answering any of my questions.

I was asking you, what do you consider "fine-tuned"? Apparently, it means suitable to carbon-based life. Why carbon-based? Must it include human life, life on Earth? Justify your position.

And as the others pointed out, what do you consider a "narrow room for error" for constants?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 22 2006,23:35

I have a better direction for this thread to deviate in. "Better" as defined as a "more productive, interesting and useful". As I said before the fine tuning argument is puddle-tastic in the Adamsian sense.

Speaking of puddles, Google scholarship, shoehorning the data to fit preconceived notions, and standard creationist gambits: Gippy's all wet. As usual. Surely mockery and abuse is the only possible way to deal with such a buffoon?

Discuss.

Louis

(Founding Member of the Dept of Belittling and Abusing Nugatory Ghostly Attention Whoring Pseudocreationists who Self Tout and Admittedly Troll, BANGAWPSTAT for short. Applications for membership are currently being considered, respond in this thread)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 23 2006,05:37

By the way, I just noticed that Ogee misinterpreted another aspect of my argument:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That you tried to argue that the fine-tuning argument is NOT a statement of probability and then describe it as "the chance of X is very small" is precious.  You simply cannot proceed from "parameter(s) must take on very specific values for a natural universe to support life" to the fine-tuning argument without rendering it as a probability statement, as you've shown yourself in your Keystone-cops attempt to assert the opposite.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No sir, I argued that:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem is, however, that this is not the fine tuning argument as expressed by many of its proponents. Many of the proponents, in fact, do not start from a purely philosophical assumption that the constants would be difficult for a naturalistic universe to achieve (of course it would, try hitting the same target twice blindfolded), but that, based on the empirical observation that many of the constants are very "brittle" (change them a little and you have no universe), the chance of the universe hitting those constants is very small.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In other words, there are two components to "fine tuning":

1) Start with a conditional probability predicated on the observation of anthropic coincidences (not accounted for in I-J's original conditional probability);

2) Then argue that 1) implies that the probability is low.

2) is an argument on the magnitude of the conditional probability conditioned on 1). 1) does not lead analytically to 2). I-J accounted for 2), but ignored 1).

Perhaps one of the cheerleaders in your classes can put aside her pom-poms and explain this to you.
Posted by: The_Shadow_Of_Paley on Oct. 23 2006,12:32

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 16 2006,18:36)
I have a new theory. GoP isn't really two people. It's one person who thinks he's two people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, GOP was two people. I was the second one. I now have a new identity.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2006,12:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
based on the empirical observation that many of the constants are very "brittle" (change them a little and you have no universe), the chance of the universe hitting those constants is very small.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So basically you argue that, because the universe exists and we have some constants in our equations, then "goddidit"?
Posted by: The_Shadow_Of_Paley on Oct. 23 2006,13:36

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,15:03)
Ogee:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No interpretation is necessary.  The authors explicitly define F:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Let F="The conditions in the universe are 'life-Friendly,' in the sense described above." Ross, in his arguments, certainly assumes that F is true. So will we (assumption b). The negation, ~F, would be that the conditions are such that life cannot exist naturalistically, so that if life is present it must be because of some supernatural principle or entity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Try reading more carefully.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That was my interpretation too. "Life-Friendly" = "life compatible", not "narrowly contrained constants + life compatible". In other words, the parameters could vary by several dozen orders of magnitude and still fit their definition. This makes sense, and would make the conditional probability = 1. But here's where I get stuck: how does this refute the fine tuning argument in any meaningful sense? All they're really saying is, "Seeing a universe with natural laws that are consistent with the formation of life makes philosophical naturalism at least as likely as theistic design". Of course that holds -- few theists could argue otherwise! However, theists are surprised that the parameters are so brittle, not that they're consistent with life. So if  P(F/N&L) was meant to describe the probability that the universe is observed to be fine tuned (given life + naturalism), then setting this equal to 1 is circular, since it assumes that a naturalistic universe with life will be fine tuned by definition (certainly, the physicists would be surprised to hear that). But if they mean the looser definition described above, it collapses to the trivial statement that "Seeing a universe with natural laws that are consistent with life forming makes philosophical naturalism at least as likely as theistic design". Which isn't much of a statement. You can't take a limit on a definition; "compatibility" can't be transformed into "fine tuning" after the cancellation is made. So the shrinking of P(F/N) might correspond to the narrowing of the parameters, but that doesn't give them the right to cancel in the first place. So the definition is loose for cancellation purposes, then calcifies into the hard form after the theorem is "proved".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Ghost appears to be saying is that the constraints upon the fundamental constants of physics necessary for life to develop have something to do with the probability of those constants assuming those values. Let us assume some god could lower the permittivity of free space by one part in one million and this would make the Columb force too strong for atomic orbitals as we know them to form. Hence, life as we know it would be impossible. This does not imply the probability that the permittivity of free space having its value is one in one million--or any other relative error values such a constant would need to have in order for life to exist.

Let's assume that Apollo's closet has a wooden bowl, a marble, and a light shining directly overhead. The shadow of the marble on the bowl must have an area of Pi r^2 +- 10^-3r^2. Now, the god of light and wisdom has two choices. One, he can place the marble on the top of the bowl, or he can place it on the bottom. If he places it at the top the probability is very low that it will stay in its precise location, and he must hold it there. (This is how the proponents of the theistic fine-tuning imagine things to be.) However, if he places it at the bottom the probability it will stay is very high. Indeed, if the light is placed directly overhead, the shadow will assume no other values. (at least within the constraints of the uncertainty principle) The probability is close to one. In both cases the tolerances are the same, but the probabilities of the marble meeting them are very different.

Now, he could reply by saying the tolerances (brittleness) might have an unknown probability, that deserves a place in the denominator of the original Bayesian equation. However, the onus of proof lies with him. Since we indeed have one universe with a known permittivity constant, and no others are known to exist, and no known gods to build them for us, what can be said about this probablity--precisely nothing. You can not infer any probabilities from a sample size of one.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 24 2006,03:59

Quote (The_Shadow_Of_Paley @ Oct. 23 2006,17:32)
 
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 16 2006,18:36)
I have a new theory. GoP isn't really two people. It's one person who thinks he's two people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, GOP was two people. I was the second one. I now have a new identity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't wait to find out if the new one's an assh0le, too.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 24 2006,04:21

Arden:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't wait to find out if the new one's an assh0le, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why? One of your club members dropped out and you need a replacement?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 24 2006,04:32

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 24 2006,09:21)
Arden:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't wait to find out if the new one's an assh0le, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why? One of your club members dropped out and you need a replacement?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zing, Paley. Bravo.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 27 2006,10:15

S. Paley:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What Ghost appears to be saying is that the constraints upon the fundamental constants of physics necessary for life to develop have something to do with the probability of those constants assuming those values.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, and I like your analogy, but once again I must stress that the low tolerance is an observation and that it's detachable from the probability argument that has bloomed around it. That's where Ogee and I-J go wrong in my opinion. There's nothing circular about demanding that the "low tolerance" component of the constants be included into the initial probability, because in order to interpret that observation as supporting a low probability of life occuring by chance, you have to make philosophical assumptions that are independent of the anthropic coincidences themselves. Your example illustrates this. You see a small shadow and assume that the bowl is oriented one way, while I assume the opposite orientation. Others would picture multiple bowls. The point is, we see the same observation and come to opposite conclusions; ergo, the observations are not entangled in an a priori assumption of low probability. And that's without bringing Smolin into it.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 27 2006,21:31

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2006,02:18)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 22 2006,16:02)
What's surprising is the narrow room for error. If you could change the fine structure constant by several orders of magnitude and still obtain carbon-based life forms (the only form of life of which we know), then I wouldn't consider it very surprising. Or, if we had evidence that many other types of life were possible, I wouldn't be suspicious. But the parameters are pretty narrow; any change of more than 4% renders the development of carbon-based life impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not answering any of my questions.

I was asking you, what do you consider "fine-tuned"? Apparently, it means suitable to carbon-based life. Why carbon-based? Must it include human life, life on Earth? Justify your position.

And as the others pointed out, what do you consider a "narrow room for error" for constants?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was under the impresion that the fine tuning argument was not that there are narrow parameters for life; But the parameters for the Universe existing are narrow.

This applies to all the 4 forces.

The easiest to remember (for me) is gravity. Slightly stronger=Universe collapsing before the first star forms. Slightly weaker=no atoms forming.

The observation of "fine-tuning" is not just a creatioist view. Both Stephen Hawking (a signatory on project Steve) and Brian Greene mention it in detail in their popular science books.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 27 2006,22:26

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 28 2006,02:31)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2006,02:18)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 22 2006,16:02)
What's surprising is the narrow room for error. If you could change the fine structure constant by several orders of magnitude and still obtain carbon-based life forms (the only form of life of which we know), then I wouldn't consider it very surprising. Or, if we had evidence that many other types of life were possible, I wouldn't be suspicious. But the parameters are pretty narrow; any change of more than 4% renders the development of carbon-based life impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not answering any of my questions.

I was asking you, what do you consider "fine-tuned"? Apparently, it means suitable to carbon-based life. Why carbon-based? Must it include human life, life on Earth? Justify your position.

And as the others pointed out, what do you consider a "narrow room for error" for constants?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was under the impresion that the fine tuning argument was not that there are narrow parameters for life; But the parameters for the Universe existing are narrow.

This applies to all the 4 forces.

The easiest to remember (for me) is gravity. Slightly stronger=Universe collapsing before the first star forms. Slightly weaker=no atoms forming.

The observation of "fine-tuning" is not just a creatioist view. Both Stephen Hawking (a signatory on project Steve) and Brian Greene mention it in detail in their popular science books.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read Hawking's book and I don't remember any mention of "fine-tuning". It wasn't in English though.

No atomes != no universe.
So I'm asking again. Under what conditions would Paley consider a fine-tuned universe : atomes, carbon-based life, Homo?

Not to mention that speculating on the probabilies for the appearence of the universe is nonsensical. The probabilities are part of the universe too, according to the definition: the universe (metaphysical) = all.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 28 2006,04:08

Jeannot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not to mention that speculating on the probabilies for the appearence of the universe is nonsensical. The probabilities are part of the universe too, according to the definition: the universe (metaphysical) = all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not if there is more than one universe. Then probabilities can be applied. With one universe, then the discussion becomes entirely metaphysical. Even if a TOE is developed, I'd still be suprised that the laws "bent" into a life-friendly direction. I admit that this is a personal reaction, and others would view it differently.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 28 2006,13:24

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 28 2006,09:08)
Jeannot:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not to mention that speculating on the probabilies for the appearence of the universe is nonsensical. The probabilities are part of the universe too, according to the definition: the universe (metaphysical) = all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not if there is more than one universe. Then probabilities can be applied. With one universe, then the discussion becomes entirely metaphysical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"More than one universe" just moves the (non) problem further. It's nothing more than terms. At the end, there is only one "all" (mutliverse if you prefer) and fine-tuning (God) is supposed to be the origin of "all". Or are you arguing that God is just a natural product of the multiverse who fine-tuned our own universe?

(Pardon my English.)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 29 2006,11:14

jeannot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"More than one universe" just moves the (non) problem further. It's nothing more than terms. At the end, there is only one "all" (mutliverse if you prefer) and fine-tuning (God) is supposed to be the origin of "all". Or are you arguing that God is just a natural product of the multiverse who fine-tuned our own universe?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem is eliminated in a suitably large multiverse, because this would indicate that the universe had enough trials to hit upon the "correct" constants. But if we find evidence for only a handful of universes, each possessing dramatically different constants and all but one -- ours-- barren of life, then the probability of our universe goes down IMHO. For a suitably evidenced TOE, it's hard to say which hypothesis should be favored, although most scientists would find naturalism vindicated.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 31 2006,19:30

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 28 2006,03:26)
I've read Hawking's book and I don't remember any mention of "fine-tuning". It wasn't in English though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IIRC he doesn't use the expression "fine tuning", but does discuss the argument.

I think it is in the chapter where he is discussing the start of the universe, initial conditions, the weak and strong anthropic arguments, cosmic background radiation and uniformity on the large scale.

I will try to find the exact chapter later today (when I get home from work).
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 01 2006,06:02

Is it just me, or has GoP become much less strident and obnoxious the last couple weeks? Did they change his meds?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Nov. 01 2006,06:16

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 01 2006,01:30)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 28 2006,03:26)
I've read Hawking's book and I don't remember any mention of "fine-tuning". It wasn't in English though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IIRC he doesn't use the expression "fine tuning", but does discuss the argument.

...

I will try to find the exact chapter later today (when I get home from work).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK. Home now. It is chapter 8 The Origin and Fate of the Universe.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 01 2006,06:25

Occam,

It's just you.

GoP has recently "confessed" to purposefully trolling for the last year. This "I'm a fine tuning deist" schtick is the latest ploy in a swathe of wankery. Same old GoP, same old shite. We've moved from the inferiority of muslims and black people to the subjugation of women, but essentially the same nonsense is being repeated with slight variations for topic relevance. On the plus side, we still get nice rants about liberals.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 01 2006,10:46

Stephen:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The observation of "fine-tuning" is not just a creatioist view. Both Stephen Hawking (a signatory on project Steve) and Brian Greene mention it in detail in their popular science books.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think this is very well put. It's not like the anthropic coincidences are a theistic ploy to sink science. These observations need to be accounted for in any model that attempts to describe the formation of the universe, including naturalistic ones.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 03 2006,05:13

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 01 2006,12:25)
Occam,

It's just you.

GoP has recently "confessed" to purposefully trolling for the last year. This "I'm a fine tuning deist" schtick is the latest ploy in a swathe of wankery. Same old GoP, same old shite. We've moved from the inferiority of muslims and black people to the subjugation of women, but essentially the same nonsense is being repeated with slight variations for topic relevance. On the plus side, we still get nice rants about liberals.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now now, it's all part of Paley's duties as a 'conservative being vocal in defense of science'. Since, you know, liberals are out to destroy science. Or something.

I'm just waiting to see what Paley 3.0 will look like next October. A gay Muslim? Scientologist? Opus Dei member? Rightwing atheist?
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 03 2006,07:22

If I remember correctly, Hawking used in his book the anthropic principle to explore the potential conditions for the early universe. The only plausible scenarios are the ones compatible with carbon-based life. If he had speculated about the action of God in the creation of our universe, I would have noticed it.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 03 2006,08:20

Arden,

GoP 3.0:

Gay muslim? Naaaah
Opus Dei? Naaaah
Scientologist? Naaaah

My money's on a scat loving, male to female transexual, BDSM bottom who begs at the door of local gyms for muscley men to defecate on "him" and call him Gaia the Earth Goddess. I also predict a major campaign from GoP on the legalisation of  bestiality sometime after christmas too.

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Nov. 03 2006,09:26

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 03 2006,13:22)
If I remember correctly, Hawking used in his book the anthropic principle to explore the potential conditions for the early universe. The only plausible scenarios are the ones compatible with carbon-based life. If he had speculated about the action of God in the creation of our universe, I would have noticed it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read it again. The terms are different but the arguments are the same.

According to both Hawing and Greene we are in a weird situation. They both want the laws to be "plausible" and both see a difficulty.

This is not just a creationist view. Aparently most cosmologists/astrophysicists see a problem.

The vast majority are looking for naturalistic causes. This is the only reason that string theory is taken seriously BTW.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 03 2006,13:37

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 29 2006,17:14)
jeannot:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"More than one universe" just moves the (non) problem further. It's nothing more than terms. At the end, there is only one "all" (mutliverse if you prefer) and fine-tuning (God) is supposed to be the origin of "all". Or are you arguing that God is just a natural product of the multiverse who fine-tuned our own universe?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The problem is eliminated in a suitably large multiverse, because this would indicate that the universe had enough trials to hit upon the "correct" constants. But if we find evidence for only a handful of universes, each possessing dramatically different constants and all but one -- ours-- barren of life, then the probability of our universe goes down IMHO. For a suitably evidenced TOE, it's hard to say which hypothesis should be favored, although most scientists would find naturalism vindicated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would this falsify fine-tuning? I don't think so.
A large multiverse? What does that mean? Isn't the mutliverse supposed to be infinite?
Before we go any further into this pure speculation, I would like you to define the mutliverse. First, what differentiates two separate universes?

And you've yet to define what you consider a fine-tuned universe.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 03 2006,13:57

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 03 2006,15:26)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 03 2006,13:22)
If I remember correctly, Hawking used in his book the anthropic principle to explore the potential conditions for the early universe. The only plausible scenarios are the ones compatible with carbon-based life. If he had speculated about the action of God in the creation of our universe, I would have noticed it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read it again. The terms are different but the arguments are the same.

According to both Hawing and Greene we are in a weird situation. They both want the laws to be "plausible" and both see a difficulty.

This is not just a creationist view. Aparently most cosmologists/astrophysicists see a problem.

The vast majority are looking for naturalistic causes. This is the only reason that string theory is taken seriously BTW.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hawking is not being scientific if he uses this argument (God), I'm sorry.

I know some other cosmologists who claim that no astrophysicist/cosmologist nor anyone else is entitled to draw such conclustion. They just don't know. Resorting to a omnipotent supernatural being because we can't explain the world we live in isn't science. It's creationism, plain and simple, be it from a YEC or a Nobel prize in physics.

I really don't see where the "problem" is. Since I don't have the book right now, you'll have to explain me. The universe is all, speculating about its nature in terms of probabilities is nonsensical, as I have shown. Probabilities are part of the universe itself, by definition. This isn't astrophysics, it's logic.

No one here has offered any definition of a fine-tuned universe, let alone a way to fasifiable the fine-tuning hypothesis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Nov. 04 2006,09:38

Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 03 2006,19:57)
Hawking is not being scientific if he uses this argument (God), I'm sorry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You do know that when Hawking says "God" he is not reffering to the Judeo/Christian God? He is talking about 1st cause IIRC. That could be either purely random or designed.

Hawking does not believe in a personal God. Hence his signature on the "Steve" list.

AFAIK. "Fine tuning" comes from physicists/cosmologists desire for the Universe to comply with a basic relationship between the different forces. Something that should be "elegant/obvious".

Example: The way gravity works is dependant upon the amount of physical spacial dimensions there are. That is elegant.

However, the ralationship between forces and how a difference would affect the universe is niether obvious or elegant.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 06 2006,03:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would this falsify fine-tuning? I don't think so.
A large multiverse? What does that mean? Isn't the mutliverse supposed to be infinite?
Before we go any further into this pure speculation, I would like you to define the mutliverse. First, what differentiates two separate universes?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here's one definition: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Classification
According to Max Tegmark, the existence of other universes is a direct implication of cosmological observations. In a 2003 Scientific American article[1] he presents a clear and comprehensive summary. Tegmark describes the set of related concepts which share the notion that there are universes beyond the familiar observable one, and goes on to provide a taxonomy of parallel universes organized by levels.[2] The levels are briefly described below.

Level I: (Open multiverse) A generic prediction of cosmic inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions - including an identical copy of you about  meters away.

Level II: (Andre Linde's bubble theory) In chaotic inflation, other thermalized regions may have different effective physical constants, dimensionality and particle content. (Surprisingly, this level includes Wheeler's oscillating universe theory as well.)

Level III: (Hugh Everett III's many-worlds interpretation) An interpretation of quantum mechanics that proposes the existence of multiple universes, all of which are "identical", but exist in possibly different states. It is widely believed that Everett's interpretation (considered as a formal theory) is a conservative extension of standard quantum mechanics -- that is, as far as results expressible in the language of ordinary quantum mechanics is concerned, it leads to no new results. This, according to Tegmark, "is ironic given that this level has historically been the most controversial".

Level IV: (The ultimate "Ensemble theory" of Tegmark) Other mathematical structures give different fundamental equations of physics. This level considers "real" any hypothetical universe based on one of these structures. M-theory might be placed here. Since this subsumes all other possible ensembles, it brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses: there cannot be a Level V.


[edit] Open multiverse
That the universe extends infinitely and rather uniformly in all directions is uncontroversial among physicists. (A finite universe is a minority view.) [citation needed]

The theory of relativity places a firm upper limit on the speed at which information can travel, effectively dividing this infinite space into "local" universes. Our observable universe, for example, is a sphere centered on the Earth (centered, that is, on whoever's doing the calculating), currently about 14 billion light years in radius, called the Hubble volume. The size of the Hubble volume is directly related to the age of the universe; it grows at a rate of one light year per year, or exactly the speed of light.

Thus, there are an infinite number of regions of space the same size as our observable universe -- an infinite number of observable universes, that is. This infinite set (which must contain, among other things, an infinite number of identical copies of you,[3] the nearest of which is about  meters away, and an equally infinite number of not-quite-identical copies) comprises the level-I multiverse.

Overtly or not, physicists often use the idea of an Open Multiverse when evaluating theories. For example, Max Tegmark writes:

...consider how cosmologists used the microwave background to rule out a finite spherical geometry. Hot and cold spots in microwave background maps have a characteristic size that depends on the curvature of space, and the observed spots appear too small to be consistent with a spherical shape. But it is important to be statistically rigorous. The average spot size varies randomly from one Hubble volume to another, so it is possible that our universe is fooling us--it could be spherical but happen to have abnormally small spots. When cosmologists say they have ruled out the spherical model with 99.9 percent confidence, they really mean that if this model were true, fewer than one in 1,000 Hubble volumes would show spots as small as those we observe.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The bolded definition is the one I'm using.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 06 2006,05:39

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 04 2006,15:38)
You do know that when Hawking says "God" he is not reffering to the Judeo/Christian God? He is talking about 1st cause IIRC. That could be either purely random or designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I don't care about any religion in particular.
God could be purely random?
If that's designed, as I said, the hypothesis is not scientific.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 06 2006,06:44

jeannot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, I don't care about any religion in particular.
God could be purely random?
If that's designed, as I said, the hypothesis is not scientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Even assuming that fine tuning is unfalsifiable (and in the strict sense, it probably is), does that prevent us from examining the idea? Since certain observations would remove the need for this hypothesis, fine tuning has content IMHO. Remember, the universe does not exist to fit into our philosophical constructs; it may be too broad to capture by the human mind. Scientism is only one way of viewing things -- it is not necessarily the correct way.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 07 2006,04:26

Scientism?

Why whatever is that?

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 07 2006,11:27

Louis:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientism?

Why whatever is that?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Scientism: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientism is an ideology which holds that science has primacy over other interpretations of life (e.g., religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations). The term has also been applied to the view that natural sciences have primacy over other fields of inquiry such as social sciences.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 07 2006,11:58

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 06 2006,06:44)
jeannot:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, I don't care about any religion in particular.
God could be purely random?
If that's designed, as I said, the hypothesis is not scientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Even assuming that fine tuning is unfalsifiable (and in the strict sense, it probably is), does that prevent us from examining the idea?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.

What's a fine tuned universe (third time asking)?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 07 2006,12:13

Jeannot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's a fine tuned universe (third time asking)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's my definition. Notice that there are three components:

1) The constants for life have a low tolerance, which means that a small change makes carbon-based life impossible. This part is not controversial, and should be included in any model that seeks to explain origins.

2) The universe will probably not "choose" life-friendly constants because these constants are only a small subset of all the possible choices available. Therefore, our universe has a very small chance of existing. Everybody's still debating this part, of course.

3) This increases the likelihood that Something designed our universe. Most scientists reject this conclusion.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 07 2006,13:26

Oh dear. I should have put a sarcastic smiley in there for you. I'm aware of scientism, Gimpy. I'm also aware that it is the last plaintive cry of the denial suffering humanities graduate/student. It's the strawman di tutti strawmen.

I love the "other ways of knowing" schtick. It's a personal favourite. So Ghosty tell us some of these other ways of knowing, and tell us of their results.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 07 2006,14:57

Louis, still smarting after having his corner toss in the towel in the last debate:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh dear. I should have put a sarcastic smiley in there for you. I'm aware of scientism, Gimpy. I'm also aware that it is the last plaintive cry of the denial suffering humanities graduate/student. It's the strawman di tutti strawmen.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is it a strawman? Science is great at what it does, but its domain does not cover the entirety of human knowledge. For example, scientific induction works best with phenomena that overlap our sensory world (although instruments may extend the scope of our senses). This leads to:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love the "other ways of knowing" schtick. It's a personal favourite. So Ghosty tell us some of these other ways of knowing, and tell us of their results.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ever read a sonnet, listened to a concerto, read a philosophical argument, or scrutinised a painting? Probably too Western for you. Even if you don't count those, any physicist will tell you that some potentially true things are difficult to test (string theory, for example).
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 07 2006,15:19

How does a person know which ways of knowing things are better than other ways of knowing things, to say nothing of which way of knowing things is "the" actual correct one?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 07 2006,16:21

Ved:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How does a person know which ways of knowing things are better than other ways of knowing things, to say nothing of which way of knowing things is "the" actual correct one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If a question is amenable to inductive reasoning, then science is usually the best solution. Many questions, however, cannot be given the proper formulation, either because of the scale involved, or because the question does not involve particulars suited to generalisation. "How many universes exist?" is a question of the first type, while "Given a line and a point not on the line, how many non-intersecting lines can be drawn through the point" is an example of the latter.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 07 2006,16:29

Louis:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love the "other ways of knowing" schtick. It's a personal favourite. So Ghosty tell us some of these other ways of knowing, and tell us of their results.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Better get used to "other ways of knowing", Louis, because it's coming to a country near you.  :p
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 07 2006,18:53

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 07 2006,14:57)
For example, scientific induction works best with phenomena that overlap our sensory world (although instruments may extend the scope of our senses).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think science is more than happy to leave anything that doesn't "overlap our sensory world" to your "other ways".  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 08 2006,02:03

Gimpy,

Oh double dear! Ok in some vague order:

1) Smarting from what? Side? Ummmm no sorry Gimpy. Are you channelling AFD, declaring victories when having your arse kicked? The thread was killed because a) the topic was pretty irrelevant to start with (not that that really matters, but eh), and b) you were continually dishonestly ignoring the fact that your claim was not supported by the data. Your constant dishonesty and obfuscation was rendering any debate pointless. Deal with it. Amusingly, it would appear that it is YOU that has the problem since you immediately personal messaged me after the thread was locked and it appears you still can't let go. Projection much Gimpy? Are you upset because the Democrats are whipping the Republicans in both houses of congress? Hush now little Gimpy, retreat to your white supremacist compound and play with your Jesus dolls and AK. Fuckwit.

2) Science's domain doesn't cover the entirety of human knowledge? Really? Science (the method) is reason applied to observations Gimpy. A sonnet,concerto, poem etc are stimuli made by humans with the expressly reasoned purpose of causing a specific series of neurological, hormonal and psychological responses. End of story. Does that unweave the rainbow? Does that mean that love and beauty are meaningless? No of course not. These things aren't Platonic abstracts, existant only in a fictional aether, they are real measurable effects. Quantifying them is troublesome, but that doesn't mean they aren't physical.

Pure logic, maths, philosophy, can demonstrate propositions are "true", but all that "true" means is that they are internally coherent and consistent. They cannot (without reference to observation) demonstrate a proposition is representative of reality without it. Incidentally, this has been one of the prime criticisms of M-theories (superstrings etc), that although it does propose experiments (observations) to test its predictions, they are incredibly difficult. Remember that science doesn't deal with absolute proof, it deals with provisional proof. Something is provisionally externaly "true" when demonstrated by science, not simply absolutely internally true as when demonstrated by logic.

This is a key difference. The very second you refer to any observation external to oneself (and if we are being honest, almost any internal observation) you are in the realm of science, like it or not. I can't show that the purple object you see is the same purple object I see, but I can show that the photoreceptors and neurons of your nervous system respond the same way to the same wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. In addition, I can show that we treat the purple object in the same way.

3) And these other ways of knowing are.........? I notice you are too cowardly to advance them, merely relying on common prejudice.

Merely emoting and not examining that emotion is not another way of knowing. The only ways you can possibly be refering to will ultimately come down to faith or revelation. Let's be blunt, neither of these can garner any knowledge of anything external to your own mind, and barely even that. If they can do so, then please tell me why a hindu's faith and revelations  are accurate and a muslim's aren't (for example, the specific faiths are irrelevant, all that matters is that the faith/revelatory propositions are different and mutually exclusive). Ultimately the only way anyone knows anything is via reason, and like it or not that involves the scientific method, whether we give it that fancy schmancy name or not.

This doesn't mean that beliefs, faiths, revelations etc are meaningless and without use. Far from it. They have vast personal meaning (like a poem etc) and great use (group cohesion, emotional crutches, explanation, inherent beauty, inspiration etc etc), but none of this personal meaning, emotional use, or social value (or lack of value in some cases) has anything to do with their validity.

4) You are assuming that there are things that don't "overlap" with the physical universe. Some proof please.

{crickets chirruping}

Thought as much.

5) Concertos etc too Western? Doubtlessly because I don't hate people of different races and religions like you do Gimpy, you assume I hate the west. Ooopsie! Mistake. One can appreciate the beauty in a Carravagio and a Picasso, prefer the Picasso and still realise that the beauty of the Carravagio might inspire someone else to prefer that to the Picasso. Group identity is a real issue for you eh Gimpy? Yet more evidence of your aberrant psychology and trollishness.

6) Other ways of knowing are coming to a country near me? Where Gimpy? Nice news articles about the evils of immigrants do not cultural overthrow make. Amazingly Gimpy, the UK and Europe have survived influx and religious nonsense before, we more than have the ability to do it again.

Louis

11/11/06 editted to correct error of omission. Aren't platonic abstracts, not are platonic abstracts.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 08 2006,15:34

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Smarting from what? Side? Ummmm no sorry Gimpy. Are you channelling AFD, declaring victories when having your arse kicked? The thread was killed because a) the topic was pretty irrelevant to start with (not that that really matters, but eh),
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave hasn't been censored, has he? And Thordaddy was allowed to pontificate on off-topic political subjects until he complained about moderation. Wes himself said that the ban wasn't about T- Daddy's politics. Now, I don't deny that part of my muzzling is due to a re-emphasis on evolutionary topics, but c'mon. You were protected.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and b) you were continually dishonestly ignoring the fact that your claim was not supported by the data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not allowed to debate this topic, so let me just say the board obviously didn't agree, hence the ban.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your constant dishonesty and obfuscation was rendering any debate pointless. Deal with it. Amusingly, it would appear that it is YOU that has the problem since you immediately personal messaged me after the thread was locked and it appears you still can't let go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As you know, we're not allowed to discuss the contents of PMs, so let me just say that you're leaving the important parts of our exchange out of your little diatribe. Let's just say if the contents of our exchange were revealed, you wouldn't look so good.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Projection much Gimpy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Only liberals still believe in Freudian concepts. Sad, really.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you upset because the Democrats are whipping the Republicans in both houses of congress? Hush now little Gimpy, retreat to your white supremacist compound and play with your Jesus dolls and AK. Fuckwit.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Typical liberal behavior. By the way, if you're the self-confident individual you claim to be, why are you following me around and posting on my threads? Sounds like you're the obsessed one. Just sayin.
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 08 2006,16:31

Only liberals still believe in Freudian concepts? Like projection?? Is that supposed to be a negative thing? I mean is the concept of projection bogus?

You're my favorite, Paley.
Posted by: skeptic on Nov. 08 2006,17:23

Louis, I recommend The Identity of Man by Jacob Bronowski.  It addresses the knowledge of science and the knowledge of self, you might find it interesting in relation to your second point.

Forgive me for intruding, GoP, just thought I'd offer that tidbit.  I've been told I inject into other's threads too often.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 08 2006,17:36

skeptic:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Louis, I recommend The Identity of Man by Jacob Bronowski.  It addresses the knowledge of science and the knowledge of self, you might find it interesting in relation to your second point.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting. I haven't read it yet.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 08 2006,17:56

By the way, I don't mind if people post in my threads, even if their name is "Louis" or "Lenny". I just find Louis's behaviour amusing.

Ved:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only liberals still believe in Freudian concepts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently so.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like projection?? Is that supposed to be a negative thing? I mean is the concept of projection bogus?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know if the concept's bogus, but it sure is untested. In fact, it may not even be testable. Certainly, crying "projection" is a cheap shot and should be avoided in a civilised debate.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're my favorite, Paley.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Some men are born satans, while others have satanism thrust upon them by liberal policy.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 08 2006,19:02

Ok, let's examine Louis's second point:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) Science's domain doesn't cover the entirety of human knowledge? Really? Science (the method) is reason applied to observations Gimpy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, except:

1) Some things are difficult to observe (like, you know, universes with physical constants different from ours, or the six extra dimensions in string theory). Certainly, physicists have mathematical constructs such as the Calabi-Yau manifold, renormalisation, or perturbation to get around some of these problems, but the fact that such adjustments need to be made reveals the limitations imposed by our senses and souped-up ape brains. Scientism implicitly assumes that the universe has been modeled on our inadequacies. Colour me skeptical.

2) Our "reason" is based on logic and symbols that may not map perfectly to the universe. Scientists ignore this potential problem because it doesn't get anything accomplished, but nobody said that the truth is necessarily the best path toward career advancement. (Ask Dembski). Once again, you assume that the universe exists to be understood, even by us arrogant apes. Possible, but debatable.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A sonnet,concerto, poem etc are stimuli made by humans with the expressly reasoned purpose of causing a specific series of neurological, hormonal and psychological responses. End of story. Does that unweave the rainbow? Does that mean that love and beauty are meaningless? No of course not. These things are Platonic abstracts, existant only in a fictional aether, they are real measurable effects. Quantifying them is troublesome, but that doesn't mean they aren't physical.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You missed my point as usual. Consider this proposition: "Danielle Steele is a better writer than Shakespeare". [Edit:I should learn to spell her name correctly if I'm going to insult her! - Paley] Can you falsify it?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pure logic, maths, philosophy, can demonstrate propositions are "true", but all that "true" means is that they are internally coherent and consistent. They cannot (without reference to observation) demonstrate a proposition is representative of reality without it. Incidentally, this has been one of the prime criticisms of M-theories (superstrings etc), that although it does propose experiments (observations) to test its predictions, they are incredibly difficult. Remember that science doesn't deal with absolute proof, it deals with provisional proof. Something is provisionally externaly "true" when demonstrated by science, not simply absolutely internally true as when demonstrated by logic.

This is a key difference. The very second you refer to any observation external to oneself (and if we are being honest, almost any internal observation) you are in the realm of science, like it or not. I can't show that the purple object you see is the same purple object I see, but I can show that the photoreceptors and neurons of your nervous system respond the same way to the same wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. In addition, I can show that we treat the purple object in the same way.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Any observation external to myself? OK, God exists, but doesn't wish to be detected by human beings. Can science explore this idea? If so, how? If not, then this is one example of the limitations of science. You might quibble that this really isn't an observation, but the point is that something that we can't "observe" might, in fact, be observable. I'm sure a higher dimensional being (if it exists) would be able to observe more than we can. Heck, look at how time itself robs us of many potential observations. So many historical issues remain contentious because the evidence has vanished.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And these other ways of knowing are.........? I notice you are too cowardly to advance them, merely relying on common prejudice.

Merely emoting and not examining that emotion is not another way of knowing. The only ways you can possibly be refering to will ultimately come down to faith or revelation. Let's be blunt, neither of these can garner any knowledge of anything external to your own mind, and barely even that. If they can do so, then please tell me why a hindu's faith and revelations  are accurate and a muslim's aren't (for example, the specific faiths are irrelevant, all that matters is that the faith/revelatory propositions are different and mutually exclusive). Ultimately the only way anyone knows anything is via reason, and like it or not that involves the scientific method, whether we give it that fancy schmancy name or not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How would you know that revelation can't "garner any knowledge of anything external to [one's] own mind" unless you are assuming what you're trying to prove? Perhaps some revelations really are a direct communication from God, in which case external information has been conveyed. Science discards phenomena that are not repeatable, but that's just because it can't get a handle on singular events that don't leave circumstantial evidence. I don't dispute the utility of this restriction, but I'm not going to confuse what's convenient for what's true.

Let's break this post up.
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 08 2006,19:12

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 08 2006,17:56)
Certainly, crying "projection" is a cheap shot and should be avoided in a civilised debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor Ghosty, so delicate, like a flower.  Let's be gentle with  his sensitive soul and at the same time try to live up to his exemplary style of honest and respectful debating.  This goes double for you stupid, immoral "liberals".

Oops.. that's not Ghosty being a mealy-mouthed hypocrite again, is it?  

 
Quote (Louis @ Nov.08,2006,02:03)
Amusingly, it would appear that it is YOU that has the problem since you immediately personal messaged me after the thread was locked and it appears you still can't let go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You weren't the only person to get one of those.
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 08 2006,19:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If not, then this is one example of the limitations of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Either that or all revelations of external information flowing from god are imaginary, and it's not and example of the limitations of science.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 08 2006,20:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4) You are assuming that there are things that don't "overlap" with the physical universe. Some proof please.

{crickets chirruping}

Thought as much.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By proof, do you mean "scientific" proof? If I could supply it then I would disprove my conjecture! Boy, would that be a stupid thing to do. In any event, the superposition of the universal wave function and its subsequent decoherence into mutually orthogonal components would provide one possible example, although "proof" is lacking. Remember, the physical universe we observe may not be the whole enchilada.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5) Concertos etc too Western? Doubtlessly because I don't hate people of different races and religions like you do Gimpy, you assume I hate the west. Ooopsie! Mistake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sane immigration policies are not hateful, nor are the people who propose them. Or are < Mexico >, < South Africa >, and < Japan > cauldrons of hate? Why are certain countries allowed to restrict, but not others?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One can appreciate the beauty in a Carravagio and a Picasso, prefer the Picasso and still realise that the beauty of the Carravagio might inspire someone else to prefer that to the Picasso. Group identity is a real issue for you eh Gimpy? Yet more evidence of your aberrant psychology and trollishness.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The point is that artistic beauty can't be scientifically quantified. Yet as we both agree, it exists.

           As far as identity is concerned, do you think that some groups should have it and not others? I can assure you that group identity is very important for everyone except liberals*. I recall that evolution provides a possible rationale for this. Personally, I don't worship the group I happen to be part of, but neither do I wish to eliminate it. I'm happy with letting people be themselves so long as they don't hurt others. On the other hand, liberals think that some people should hate themselves as much as they themselves do. That's one of the reasons I turned away from the doctrine: I just couldn't abide hating my culture any longer. Since I've abandoned liberalism, I've found myself becoming more tolerant of other cultures and ideas, and more empathetic towards other people's problems. Certainly, I don't turn from evil because it's politically inconvenient (look at how Madeleine Albright defended US sanctions against Iraq, which killed half a million children < according to one estimate. > Look at how liberals like Walter Duranty tried to deny the Holodomor or the leftists who arrogantly dismissed the evidence of atrocities flowing from the < Cambodia's killing fields. >)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
6) Other ways of knowing are coming to a country near me? Where Gimpy? Nice news articles about the evils of immigrants do not cultural overthrow make. Amazingly Gimpy, the UK and Europe have survived influx and religious nonsense before, we more than have the ability to do it again.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I hope you're right.






*who claim to despise it, but who encourage it for noncompetitive groups
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 08 2006,20:44

Nice to see you again, Ogee. Let's hope that you don't get the vapours this time.



AN ATHEIST ENCOUNTERS AN UNPLEASANT FACT
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 08 2006,21:04

"Get the vapours"?  Putting aside the irony of you posting such a few short posts after whining like a baby about being insulted, what's with this anachronistic contempt for women of yours?  You're not some sort of misogynist bigot, are you?

Oh, right.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 09 2006,01:39

Every time I assume that Gimpy knows what he's talking about I'm proven wrong. Yet more googletrawled bullshit and general wankery.

1) I was protected? From what Gimpy? I know you have reading for comprehension issues and are a dishonest fuckwit, but come on son, cognitive dissonance like that which you are displaying moves beyond mere personality quirks and right into pathology. Read the thread again. You made claim. Claim was not supported by evidence. You obfuscated wildly. Trying the "I was muzzled therefore I'm right" bullshit isn't fooling anyone. Take a straw poll Gimpy. Who thinks you supported your claim?

I can't comment on why specific moderation decisions were made one way or another, simply because I don't know why they were made. Were I moderating you'd have been gone right after your "confession" of trolling. Regardless of your views. Neither Dave or TrollDaddy would have lasted  as long as they did/have  either. Not because I fear dissent or being wrong, but just becauuse I think there are really excellent issues and controversies that can be discussed reasonably and honestly. You do neither. You get your fair share of abuse Gimpy, but let's be blunt, you doled it out long before you got it.

2) Post my PMs. You have my express permission to post the full contents of anything I sent to you by private message. I stand by and will defend everything I said in them. Of course should you do this I shall take it as implicit that your PMs be posted in full alongside them.

3) I notice you avoid the whole issue raised in my post. Amusing. The whole things about non sequiturs like "Danielle Steele is better than Shakespeare" is that they are undecidable by rational means unless you closely define what "better" means. You raise the claim god exists but is deliberately unobservable, this is a great illustration of you not understanding the simplest thing about this issue. This is not an observation, it is a fantasy, an article of faith, or revelation. There is no way this can be verified. The high level physics you google up in support of this can in principle be verified. You STILL don't appear to understand that science doesn't in fact know anything absolutely. If we arrive at the TOE, we have mathematical desciptions of every phenomenon in the universe we have nothing more than a first model. It could all be galloping pixies doing the work, but if the pixies are unobservable then how d we know it's pixies and not fairies? So again I ask the key question you are avoiding: if you claim that "god" exists an is unobservable how do you distinguish between your claim and the claim of another person who says it's "gods" or a specific "god" or "cheezwhizz"? You can't. Rhetoric establishes nothing. Logic and reason won't avail you. The claim is indistinguishable from mere fantasy.

This is crucial Gimpy. Like my comment about purple things previously. Yes there could be underlying unobservable mechanisms behind, but if they are unobservable then how do we find out if they are any more real than the next guy's unobservable mechanism? They're not. Oh sure we can wax lyrical, but once again, the second we use reason, logic, observations to justify our previously claimed unobservable and we are slap bang right in the middle of science's sandbox.

................ Oh bugger I'm playing with muppets again. Hey Gimpy, try working out you are not debating the strawliberal in your head. Take a dollar and buy a clue.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 09 2006,07:30

Skeptic,

I've read it. Interesting book. Unsurprisingly there are bits I don't agree with. I'm not devaluing the arts or human emotional experiences etc, all I'm saying is that simply because we feel X doesn't mean X is supernatural/irrational/unreasoned. There are perfectly reasoned and natural processes underlying human thought and emotion.

My point is, whether people like to admit it or not, knowledge about the universe falls into two categories: that distinguishable from fantasy (at least to a high degree of approximation by relation to observation), and that indistinguishable from fantasy. I'm not denying the artistic influence or the muse, all I'm saying with regards to those is that they fall within the realm of examination by reason. Like the "is Mozart better than the Beastie Boys" type question, it hinges on how you define better. At worst the question is simply stupid in any sense other than the trivially subjective (i.e. do you prefer Mozart to the Beastie Boys, or vice versa), at best it's a technical question (i.e. Are the rhythmic devices employed by Mozart more technically complex and emotionally evocative in a larger group of people than those of the Beastie Boys).

Personally I prefer Mozart's music and the Beastie Boys' lyrics. Unfortunately whenever I try to marry the two it never comes out quite right.*

Louis

*This is a joke. You may laugh.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2006,09:11

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) I notice you avoid the whole issue raised in my post. Amusing. The whole things about non sequiturs like "Danielle Steele is better than Shakespeare" is that they are undecidable by rational means unless you closely define what "better" means. You raise the claim god exists but is deliberately unobservable, this is a great illustration of you not understanding the simplest thing about this issue. This is not an observation, it is a fantasy, an article of faith, or revelation. There is no way this can be verified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But see, this is the point I'm making. There is no objective, scientific way to define "better". Everyone's criteria will differ, and there's no way to test the competing metrics.

Now, does this mean we can't say that Shakespeare is better? Of course not! There are many reasons to prefer the Bard's poetry to Steele's.....prose. However, Shake's defense must rely on non-scientific measures, and there's no way to get around this uncomfortable fact.

The rest of your post is the usual banbait, so I will ignore it.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2006,11:56

I suspect that Louis hasn't thought very deeply about this issue. Literary critics have long debated whether or not their criticism can be placed on a symbolic footing, but even the mild semiotic approach collapsed due to its arbitrariness. And few, if any, critics would suggest that these symbols can follow rules that allow people to assess literary quality.
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 09 2006,12:11

Can knowing any concerto, or literary work, or painting, or revelation be considered "better" than say, knowing what AIDS is?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2006,13:56

Ved:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can knowing any concerto, or literary work, or painting, or revelation be considered "better" than say, knowing what AIDS is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a good question. Even if one were to concede that some knowledge is outside the purview of science, is that knowledge really important?  Science, art, and literature all enrich life. Science probably impacts the quality of life much more than the other two, if only because it can dramatically extend the average lifespan in addition to enhancing it. Nevertheless, life without fiction, music, and visual art would be pretty dull IMHO. I think the humanities are pretty valuable.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 09 2006,14:04

{slaps forehead}

Whoops again Ghosty. I have thought about this topic, whether or not that counts as deeply is, well just part of another veiled insult from you again. Let's be blunt, #### I'm rarely anything else, you're just being a wanker as usual Gimp boy. Try dealing with people's arguments as they are not as they are mangled by your strawliberal. Ban bait? Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ban me for telling you you are a pointless screw up with the intellectual gifts of a pile of foestering camel dung? Please go right ahead and get me banned. Anything I have said I can back up with clear examples and definitions should I be so required. Politeness takes many forms Gimpy. Honesty and reason in discussion are two of them. Along of course with not pointing out you're a fuckwit. So I mess one up! Hey I'm human and fallible.  To ban anyone after your behaviour for vastly lesser "offences" than yours would be an act of the rankest hypocrisy. And as far as I am aware none of the moderators here are either rank or hypocrites!

You're hiding behind several things, as usual all of them dishonest. Read my post again, and the post I made to Skeptic, I gave an example of how you could define "better". The point again (because you've missed it 3 times now) is that simply because a question can be phrased does not mean it is a useful, reasoned, rational or productive question. Unless one carefully defines in what sense one uses the word "better" the question is meaningless. And yes, regardless of the nigh on endless witterings of generations of humanities grads, one can demonstrate on perfectly measurable grounds that Shakespeare is "better" than Byron as long as one carefully defines in what sense Shakespere is "better". In fact I think you'll find that a rather large portion of humanities grads' witterings make this point excellently.

Now Gimpy are you going to deal with the points made or just continue your desire for flaming? Let's be honest yet again, as in so many ways I am vastly your superior in coming up with vaguely exciting abuse.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2006,14:35

Louis:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now Gimpy are you going to deal with the points made or just continue your desire for flaming? Let's be honest yet again, as in so many ways I am vastly your superior in coming up with vaguely exciting abuse.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First of all, you would make more sense if you eased up on the constant stream of insults. Not only do they detract from your ideas (such as they are), they make you look like a wimp. Poodles can bark just as loud as Pit Bulls, but they're still poodles. Something to ponder at any rate.

Anywho, after wading through your crap and looking at the recommended post, I found:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My point is, whether people like to admit it or not, knowledge about the universe falls into two categories: that distinguishable from fantasy (at least to a high degree of approximation by relation to observation), and that indistinguishable from fantasy. I'm not denying the artistic influence or the muse, all I'm saying with regards to those is that they fall within the realm of examination by reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a) unsupported; and therefore b) circular. Let's try some more:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like the "is Mozart better than the Beastie Boys" type question, it hinges on how you define better. At worst the question is simply stupid in any sense other than the trivially subjective (i.e. do you prefer Mozart to the Beastie Boys, or vice versa), at best it's a technical question (i.e. Are the rhythmic devices employed by Mozart more technically complex and emotionally evocative in a larger group of people than those of the Beastie Boys).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Was this the point I didn't "deal with"? Let's look:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But see, this is the point I'm making. There is no objective, scientific way to define "better". Everyone's criteria will differ, and there's no way to test the competing metrics.

Now, does this mean we can't say that Shakespeare is better? Of course not! There are many reasons to prefer the Bard's poetry to Steele's.....prose. However, Shake's defense must rely on non-scientific measures, and there's no way to get around this uncomfortable fact.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think I addressed your point rather well. Sure, any hobo can come up with a definition or three, but:

1) They will be different from other people's definitions, with no objective way to choose between them (why choose complexity over simplicity, for example?);

2) The weights put on the various components of your definition are completely arbitrary (is mass appeal more important than complexity? If so, how much more?);

3) The definition, if followed consistently, will lead to eccentric results (Mozart's music is less complex than much 20th century music. Ergo, he's a mediocre composer by modern standards).

I can defend these points if you wish, but really, Louis, do you really need spoonfeeding?

More later.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 09 2006,14:45

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 07 2006,12:13)
Jeannot:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's a fine tuned universe (third time asking)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's my definition. Notice that there are three components:

1) The constants for life have a low tolerance, which means that a small change makes carbon-based life impossible. This part is not controversial, and should be included in any model that seeks to explain origins.

2) The universe will probably not "choose" life-friendly constants because these constants are only a small subset of all the possible choices available. Therefore, our universe has a very small chance of existing. Everybody's still debating this part, of course.

3) This increases the likelihood that Something designed our universe. Most scientists reject this conclusion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We don't know if our universe had a very small chance of existing, and this question doesn't make any sense if we consider that the universe is all (the definition I use).

You didn't give me a definition of a fine-tuned universe, but for what you said, I conclude it's a life-friendly universe.

3) follows from the definition (2) only if we consider life as a necessity or a goal. Necessity implies consciousness (unconscious things don't want anything), i.e. God.
So, you presuppose the existence of God in order to estimate a likelihood of design (i.e. the existence fo God). This is a tautology.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2006,15:37

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yes, regardless of the nigh on endless witterings of generations of humanities grads, one can demonstrate on perfectly measurable grounds that Shakespeare is "better" than Byron as long as one carefully defines in what sense Shakespere is "better". In fact I think you'll find that a rather large portion of humanities grads' witterings make this point excellently.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good. Then you should have no problem digging up an example. Make sure that the witterings include:

1) An objective basis for preferring one definiton to another. For example, if he says that Shakespeare is better than Byron because Willie uses the language more fluently, then he should justify why this criterion is a superior metric than, say, density of thematic content. In other words, the definition should be scientifically valid.

2) A rigorous application of the definition. In other words, everyone applying the definition should be able to get the same answer for any set of authors (AKA reliability);

3) A full justification of any weighting scheme if more than one criterion is applied. What are the coefficients?

Puttie or shuttie.

Jeannot, I'll get to your rebuttal as soon as possible.
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 09 2006,15:50

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 09 2006,14:35)
Not only do they detract from your ideas (such as they are), they make you look like a wimp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, they're rather amusing embellishments on his otherwise systematic destruction of your bullshit.  They're certainly don't smell of wimpiness, especially compared to your unctuous whinging about them.

As for the rest, it's pure, trivial sophistry.  So one can pose a question in a manner so vague that it defies rigorous investigation: so what?  What does this prove about the relative utility of science versus your undefined "other ways" of modeling existence?  For that matter, how does it justify your abject failure to demonstrate that "fine-tuning" supports a supernatural origin for the universe?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 09 2006,15:59

Lord love a duck Gimpy.

Point here.


You here.

If you're going to try to patronise people at least have the ability to read for comprehension. You haven't addressed my point at all. See the following:

1) Ben Johnson is a better athlete than I am because he can run faster than I can.

I am a better athlete than Ben Johnson because I have never taken performance enhacing drugs, and therefore cheated.

The word "better" means different things in different contexts. It's referring to different senses of the word better. In these examples it's referring to a measurable metric, the athlete's speed or history of drug taking. Both statements are demonstrably true as written for the given meanings of the word "better".

2) Raymond E Feist is a better writer than Shakespeare because I find his stories more engaging.

Shakespeare is a better writer than Raymond E Feist because my friend finds his stories more engaging.

Here the word "better" is being used in the same manner in both cases, but it is referring to a purely subjective preference. We can't tell if Feist or Shakespeare is the better writer based on the information in this example, what we CAN tell is which writer I or my friend prefer. The word "better" in this example is referring to a qualitatively measurable metric (the amount of individual engagement), but quantitative measurement would be over egging the pudding somewhat (except in certain limited research circumstances, and then only arbitrary units could be used). This is a far more ephemeral use of the word better, and one open to far more abuse.

You can show that Mozart is better than the Beastie Boys and indeed vice versa. But what you MUST do to achieve this is clearly define in what sense (i.e. with regards to what metric) you are using the word better.

Another common mistake people make is that better in one sense means better in all. It don't. Example 1 is a good example of how ridiculous this mistake is. Both statements are demonstrably true but it doesn't follow that I am an all round better athlete in every possible sense of the word better than Ben Johnson. The one use of "better" simply doesn't follow from the other use.

If you wish to decide upon WHICH metric is more important than another, then you have to be careful again. This can reduce to personal preference in the case of artistically inspired emotion, but it can also be reduced to cold hard measurables, as is being done by music businesses and TV companies the world over. There are patterns to human taste and preference, and these are open to exploitation by anyone willing to work out those patterns. No one claims they are 100% applicable, and they don't need to be, all they need to do is produce a measurable effect. It would appear that historical science isn't the only field you have a problem with, statistical science has escaped you too. So your trivial irrelevancies like "is simplicty better than complexity" are explained already. It depends on the situation, context and specific use of the word better.

As for your claim that the point about reason etc was circular, please do pull your head from your arse. Not only is it not circular, but it's one of the most bog standard pieces of epistemology there is. Common Gimpy, you can google better than this surely?

Louis

P.S. I am compelled to point out yet again that the irony of you of all people pointing out hat abuse detracts from an argument is overwhelming. Gimpy you have spent a year trolling this message board with abuse, stupidity and silly piccies. Whilst I am not convinced by this latest act in your pointless personal shell game, you have made the claim. Let's be blunt, when you start being honest and actually, ya know, making a halfway rational point as oppsed to googletrawling to support your prejudices, then I'll happily take you seriously. Until then, business as usual.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2006,20:23

I always have to remind myself that you guys are amateurs when it comes to arguing. Take Louis, for example. On the one hand, he wishes to shoehorn everything pretty and useful into the "science" bin, while labeling his dislikes as "nonscience". This is because he suffers from the philosophical doctrine known as scientism, which I tried to warn him about to no avail. So an obsession with philosophical doodles coupled with a personal dislike of yours truly births some really strange ideas; i.e. that "Shakespeare is a better writer than Lord Byron" is a scientifically defensible statement, which even a fucking orangutan would shun. So of course I have to demonstrate Louis's banality for the whole world to see, baby-stepping so fine that even a mouthbreather could trace each trembling finger jot by tittle to the ultimate conclusion. Of course this just pisses Louis all the more, and although Louis is seldom wise he fancies himself witty enough to engage in a debate with anyone other than the scientific slackjaws he communes with in his crumbling megalith where he bangs stones while counting the sparks.

;)

Louis, Louis, Louis, can you not understand the most rudimentary of points? How many times must I repeat the same arguments? For example, you say:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Ben Johnson is a better athlete than I am because he can run faster than I can.

I am a better athlete than Ben Johnson because I have never taken performance enhacing drugs, and therefore cheated.

The word "better" means different things in different contexts. It's referring to different senses of the word better. In these examples it's referring to a measurable metric, the athlete's speed or history of drug taking. Both statements are demonstrably true as written for the given meanings of the word "better".

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a dumb statement on many levels, not the least of which because it confuses the multiple meanings of a word with the ambiguity within a single definition (unless Louis is suggesting that he's a faster runner than B. Johnson absent steroids, which is pretty unlikely). Still, here we have a measurable metric. Now let's examine some more Louissqueak:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) Raymond E Feist is a better writer than Shakespeare because I find his stories more engaging.

Shakespeare is a better writer than Raymond E Feist because my friend finds his stories more engaging.

Here the word "better" is being used in the same manner in both cases, but it is referring to a purely subjective preference. We can't tell if Feist or Shakespeare is the better writer based on the information in this example, what we CAN tell is which writer I or my friend prefer. The word "better" in this example is referring to a qualitatively measurable metric (the amount of individual engagement), but quantitative measurement would be over egging the pudding somewhat (except in certain limited research circumstances, and then only arbitrary units could be used). This is a far more ephemeral use of the word better, and one open to far more abuse.

You can show that Mozart is better than the Beastie Boys and indeed vice versa. But what you MUST do to achieve this is clearly define in what sense (i.e. with regards to what metric) you are using the word better.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



After giving a completely irrelevant lecture, Louis again dances past my point. Let's remember what I said [the bolds are mine]:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But see, this is the point I'm making. There is no objective, scientific way to define "better". Everyone's criteria will differ, and there's no way to test the competing metrics.

Now, does this mean we can't say that Shakespeare is better? Of course not! There are many reasons to prefer the Bard's poetry to Steele's.....prose. However, Shake's defense must rely on non-scientific measures, and there's no way to get around this uncomfortable fact.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please notice the first bolded part. It has two components:

1) Everyone has different ideas about what makes one author "superior" to another. This is the point that Louis keeps repeating;

and

2) There's no way to choose objectively between the competing definitions. Louis stumbles here.

Let's reexamine the Ben Johnson example. Can we say that Ben Johnson is faster than Paley? Well, there might be some definitional problems to overcome, but science (not to mention common sense) would define "faster" as "able to travel the same distance in a shorter time period". From here, we can become more precise: what distance shall we cover? Here's where Louis would caution about the necessity of precision. So we agree to race over several distances (say 60M, 100M, 200M, 400M) and compare the times. If Johnson beats Paley at each of those distances (and he would, although "beats" is a little too prim in this context), then most people would agree that Johnson indeed is the faster runner. Notice that we have:

1) A valid and reliable metric (r = d/t);

2) A logical basis for this measurement (you don't have to know the formula to understand what speed entails); and

3) A quantifiable way to apply the metric. In fact, using these measurements, I can pretty much tell which pair of runners is faster the great majority of the time (although there will be a little ambiguity among those who specialise at certain distances)

Now let's look at the Willie/Georgie comp and see if it bears the same fruit. Uh, oh, we have multiple problems on our hands;

1) Many well-educated people would disagree on what makes literature great, and even when they agree on a criterion (facility with the language, for example), there is no consistent way to apply this definition. Where is the formula? Can I use it to compare Byron with Eliot? Or T.S. with George? If so, how?

2) Even if we can get people to agree on a set of criteria, then how much emphasis do we give to each part? How do we weigh narrative skill against thematic depth? Does longevity get the presumption? What about originality? Any agreed-on scheme will be artificial, and heavily disputed by other groups's schema.

3) How do we put the above to the test? Is there a standard to compare our authors against? Long-term popularity? Academic popularity? What? Even if we bang out the differences, we often reach bizarre conclusions (Thedor Geisel >> than James Joyce, Stephen King >> everyone else, etc., etc.)

Now Louis would urge the use of narrow, quantifiable criteria: who sells the most, who appears most often on student's required reading lists. But this is stripping out the mathy parts while leaving the mystery untouched. Best sellers and professor faves are merely a symbol of an author's attributes, not the attributes themselves (don't believe me? Try measuring a literary skill against the bestseller list). Academic fads come and go...Ariosto in, Ariosto out, is Ossian too wee for thee? Out with the hoaxer! Notice that this problem doesn't vanish at any point at the literary bell curve.

So it goes.

So how do critics judge a work of art? By projecting the shadow of their training and life's experiences against the artist's canvas. It's an 'umble lot, but when applied with skill and care, quite illuminating. Just don't call it science.

Then again, most wouldn't want to.


PS Notice that Louis puppied out on my challenge. All squeak, no nibble.

PPS I'm bored with Louis. I might start a thread that's chem heavy just to see if Louis can make sense in his own specialty. Louis, have you encountered < this book? > Because it might be encountering you. You shan't have much to fear, as I'm mainly looking for an assessment of the author's arguments in light of new evidence. My religion has no quarrel with abiogenesis, by the way. Just looking for a little guidance here.
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 09 2006,21:57

Classic Paley: arrogance in the absence of anything to be arrogant about.

Before we lose track, let's review where Paley initiated his latest mess with this tidy pile of stupidity:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even assuming that fine tuning is unfalsifiable (and in the strict sense, it probably is), does that prevent us from examining the idea? Since certain observations would remove the need for this hypothesis, fine tuning has content IMHO. Remember, the universe does not exist to fit into our philosophical constructs; it may be too broad to capture by the human mind. Scientism is only one way of viewing things -- it is not necessarily the correct way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paley made an insinuation about the applicability of science to the fine-tuning problem - an understandable attempt at diversion, given his miserably incompetent defense of the "fine-tuning, therefore Goddiddit" assertion. Naturally, he got called on it.    

The ensuing red herring regarding whether science can/will resolve "correct" meanings of nebulous words like "better" is an (again, understandable) attempt to drag the discussion into his comfort zone, i.e. where he can saturate the thread with mountains of obfuscatory and fatuous bullshit (and make unintentionally hilarious fist-pumping declarations of victory).

And now we're promised the Nth regurgitation of the crown jewel of all creationist pseudoscience:  the second law argument.  Every time I read Paley, I can't help but think of Voltaire (and not just because V. was a deist and an enthusiastic bigot):

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.

Apart from some sort of Davison-grade pathological narcissism, I can't imagine why GoP insists on spending so much time, losing debate after debate, in a forum where he already has zero credibility and commands zero respect.
Posted by: skeptic on Nov. 09 2006,23:02

Quote (Ved @ Nov. 09 2006,12:11)
Can knowing any concerto, or literary work, or painting, or revelation be considered "better" than say, knowing what AIDS is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would submit, that knowing any concerto, literary work, etc allows you something greater than simply knowing what AIDs is, it allows you to cure AIDs (or at least try).

Just to be honest, there was a time when I felt all those squishy humanities courses were pretty worthless, now I tend to think that they train and stretch the imagination and teach you another way of thinking.

Just a thought, and as a side I'd have to say that sidelining in this thread is quite entertaining.  Some of these exchanges are priceless.  Also, GoP I perked up my ears when you hinted at a chem-heavy thread.  I'd be interested to see where you go with that, especially in light of the opposing expertise.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 10 2006,02:04

Gimpy,

First of all, that first paragraph is an excellent piece of abuse, at least for you. You're really pulled the stops out, well done. Were I wearing headgear I would doff it to you for that. Granted, I'd expect better from a retarded echidna, but you're improving, you've a long way to go before you reach those lofty heights.

Second, it's really funny to see you mangle the argument I'm making. I'm not trying to shoehorn everything I don't like into the non-science bucket, far from it. I also didn't say that the Shakespeare/Byron question was a scientific question, I said it was a question open to reasoned understanding rather than the appeal to mystery. Reason is the foundation of the scientific process. Although it is extremely amusing to see you keep flogging the same strawman.

As for the rest, colour me highly amused. You've run off in your own little misinterpretation designed to obfuscate the fact that you have no argument.

Louis
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 10 2006,08:54

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 10 2006,00:02)
 
Quote (Ved @ Nov. 09 2006,12:11)
Can knowing any concerto, or literary work, or painting, or revelation be considered "better" than say, knowing what AIDS is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would submit, that knowing any concerto, literary work, etc allows you something greater than simply knowing what AIDs is, it allows you to cure AIDs (or at least try).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It might help to understand what I meant by "knowing what AIDS is" if you consider the opposite. For this exercise, move any knowledge of the virus to the realm of the unknowable. So, no matter how inspired people are by art, music, or literature, they can never put two and two together, and can never figure out why some people just spontaneously start to waste away and die.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 10 2006,12:47

Louis:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second, it's really funny to see you mangle the argument I'm making. I'm not trying to shoehorn everything I don't like into the non-science bucket, far from it. I also didn't say that the Shakespeare/Byron question was a scientific question, I said it was a question open to reasoned understanding rather than the appeal to mystery. Reason is the foundation of the scientific process. Although it is extremely amusing to see you keep flogging the same strawman.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I don't deny that people use logic to understand art, but it's a broader --or looser -- sort of reasoning that can't be beaten into scientific form. One example would be Burton Raffel's dissection of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which is apparently unavailable online (< here's an excerpt: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The Lord of the Rings is a magnificent performance full of charm, excitement and affection, but it is not - at least as I am here using this term - literature. It would be foolish to say that Tolkien does not write well. He does, he writes admirably, whether his prose is discursive, scholarly or imaginative, but prose is not autoteic, and if Tolkien writes admirably one still must ask, to what purpose? That is, his prose may do admirably just what he wants it to do and what he wants it to may be - and in fact is - very much worth doing. .........  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

).

It's a very well-reasoned essay, but in the end Mr. Raffel is forced to compare Tolkein's prose with what he considers true literature. Raffel makes apt choices, but the ultimate decision rests with the individual reader. Science cannot adjudicate this dispute.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 10 2006,14:12

jeannot:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We don't know if our universe had a very small chance of existing, and this question doesn't make any sense if we consider that the universe is all (the definition I use).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I disagree. If the constants were randomly chosen, then the fact that our universe "chose" constants that permitted the evolution of self-aware critters is very surprising, since these constants have very low tolerances. I would suspect that most choices would lead to scrambled, barren universes. Our existence appears to be rather unlikely given the totality of choices available.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You didn't give me a definition of a fine-tuned universe, but for what you said, I conclude it's a life-friendly universe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No! The definition entails a life-friendly universe that is perched on a very narrow branch. It's the narrowness rather than the existence of the branch that's surprising. Naturalism predicts a perch of some sort.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) follows from the definition (2) only if we consider life as a necessity or a goal. Necessity implies consciousness (unconscious things don't want anything), i.e. God.
So, you presuppose the existence of God in order to estimate a likelihood of design (i.e. the existence fo God). This is a tautology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's review:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's my definition. Notice that there are three components:

1) The constants for life have a low tolerance, which means that a small change makes carbon-based life impossible. This part is not controversial, and should be included in any model that seeks to explain origins.

2) The universe will probably not "choose" life-friendly constants because these constants are only a small subset of all the possible choices available. Therefore, our universe has a very small chance of existing. Everybody's still debating this part, of course.

3) This increases the likelihood that Something designed our universe. Most scientists reject this conclusion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that scientists themselves are puzzled by the nature and likelihood of these constants. Here's a naturalist's < take on the cosmological constant: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recall that the simplest explanation for the origin of the dark energy which is driving the accelerated expansion of the universe is a spatially constant positive vacuum energy proportional to the "cosmological constant" which exerts a negative pressure tending to drive clusters of galaxies apart. As the 3D space of our universe has expanded from the moment of the "big bang", the spatial density of matter and radiation has steadily decreased, while the spatial density of the vacuum energy has remained constant and now dominates the energy density of space.

The "fine tuning problem" is that the measured cosmological constant in our universe is tiny but not zero, and if it were much larger, galaxies could not have formed and galaxies are needed to provide an environment for successive generations of stars to form and die, some of their deaths resulting in the crucial production of chemical elements necessary for our (carbon based) form of life to evolve on suitable planets formed together with second generation stars (like our sun).

The other part of this fine tuning problem is that it would be incredible that one could ever find some deep physics reason (related, say, to some symmetry principle) for there being one unique solution allowed for the vacuum state of any universe such that the cosmological constant was close to the tiny positive value we measure.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The blogger advances the metaverse as a potential solution, with our universe being a local pocket that just happens to have the right values. Interesting, but hypothetical. Here's a < mathier description of the problem: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The physical interpretation of the cosmological constant as vacuum energy density is supported by the existence of the "zero point" energy predicted by quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, particle and antiparticle pairs are consistently being created out of the vacuum. Even though these particles exist for only a short amount of time before annihilating each other they do give the vacuum a non-zero potential energy. This concept of the vacuum energy has been experimentally confirmed through the Casimir effect, where two uncharged conducting plates attract each other due to quantum fluctuations. In general relativity, all forms of energy should gravitate, including the energy of the vacuum, hence the cosmological constant.


The problem with associating the cosmological constant with quantum mechanical vacuum energy appears when we make even a simple estimate of what this implies for its value.
[...]
Such high theoretical calculations of  are a real limit to the plausibility of a non-zero cosmological constant. The above was only an example for a single field, and it is possible that the the contributions of all the different fields associated with the particles of the standard model conspire to produce a cosmological constant that is small. This argument, however, leads to the belief that the cosmological constant is exactly zero, for how could the fields conspire to cancel out all but 1 part in 10^120?  [my emp]


Even though theoretical calculations of the cosmological constant are not fully understood, the fact remains that the vacuum energy does exist. Since gravity couples all forms of energy, the cosmological constant remains as a physically plausible part of modern cosmology.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So I would turn your objection around. Since we would not assume that life is the goal of our universe, then we should not expect our universe to take the values that it has due to blind chance. This implies that the constant was not randomly selected, which leads to the possibility of a Designer.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 10 2006,14:47

Gimpy,

Just learn to read for comprehension please. I dealt with your strawman posts ago.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 10 2006,15:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gimpy,

Just learn to read for comprehension please. I dealt with your strawman posts ago.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now who's channeling Dave? Puttie or shuttie.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 11 2006,02:49

Gimpy,

It certainly isn't me. I've already explained why your strawman is nothing to do with what I've said. So all this "puttie or shuttie" nonsense is simply yet more evidence tha you're off your tiny nut.

I know you have reading for comprehension problems, it appears you also have thinking problems (like we didn't already know). You do realise I'm not responsible for your strawman Gimpy? You tried to shift the burden of proof and goalposts in the "muslims=bad" thread when the going got tough for you, and you're trying to do it here. Actually read what I've written, not what you think I've written. It'll make so much more sense.

Louis
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 11 2006,05:25

You're not refuting my objection with your quotes, Paley.

"Fine tuning => design" relies on a tautology.
Basically it says: for the universe to be life-friendly, the probabilities may be weak (which we don't know actually), so it must have been designed.

Translation: when God wanted to create life, he didn't rely on random chance because it would have produced an undesired result, hence the universe is designed, hence God exists.
You don't realise it (yet), but this is the underlying reasonning you have when you take "life-friendly" as an evidence of design.

Prove me wrong and show me your argument don't rely on a "required" universe, or show me that unconscious processes (non-God) can want anything.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 11 2006,10:08

Louis:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It certainly isn't me. I've already explained why your strawman is nothing to do with what I've said. So all this "puttie or shuttie" nonsense is simply yet more evidence tha you're off your tiny nut.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then say something worth rebutting. Your point seems to be, "everything worthwhile flows from objective reason" (if that's not your point, you lose). I showed many clear counterexamples, literary criticism being one. You simply can't define or appreciate art without recourse to subjective interpretation and emotion. Sorry.

Jeannot, I think we're talking past each other. I'm not assuming God to prove God. I'm saying that observations imply that random chance alone can't explain our universe. Therefore, there must be an organising principle (doesn't have to be God, could be a natural law we haven't discovered, or perhaps our universe has had trials that are currently hidden from us). I interpret this principle as God. But God was not the presumed hypothesis, atheism was.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 11 2006,14:24

Gimpy, Gimpy, Gimpy,

I've laid this out for you as briefly and clearly as is possible when dealing with a troll such as yourself. Read what I have written, not just snippets or bits you think resemble your strawliberal's arguments.

Your reference to emotion and literary criticism wrongly assumes, as I mentioned before, that these are not examples of the application of reason and observation. They are, and thus they are understandable by the scientific method, which ultimately it is after all the application of reason and observation. I'll give you an example I think even you can understand. Throw a ball into the air and catch it. Your brain has just performed an actof extrordinary differential calculus resulting in your arm moving and your hand grasping the ball. The simple fact that in the intervening seconds between you releasing the ball and catching it you didn't consciously sit down and scribble out the equation of motion for the trajectory of that ball and work out a point on this trajectory where your hand could intersect the path of the ball and catch it doesn't mean that your brain didn't do precisely this calculation "behind the scenes" as it were. It did. Preferences, subjectivity, emotions are all results of the "behind the scenes" processing of your brain. Granted they aren't as simple to elucidate or reason out as the maths of a moving ball in a gravitational field, but they are still there.

Your mind is easily fooled, just like everyone else's. Sleight of hand and prestidigitation can make you believe things have appeared from the very air. External electromagnetic stimulation of the brain can produce trance like states and even visions, revelations and "religious" experiences indistinguishable from "authentic" ones. Psychoactive chemicals can produce a huge range of physiological and psychological reactions. All of these are material causes which operate on material systems and produce material effects. Effects that are the product of the operation of the universe and can be unpicked by a rational, reasoned, observation based understanding of that operation.

Simply because we don't have a complete picture of every mechanistic step does not mean that the steps do or don't exist. So far however, every single system investigated across the whole universe, every phenomenon observed, every puzzle solved has had a natural, reasoned, rational mechanism behind it. We have yet to observe one that does not.

In literary criticism, one critiques the subject matter by observing it, dissecting elements of it, comparing and contrasting various modes and methods of writing and metaphor etc. There is a huge amount of science in linguistics, and a huge amount of scientific methodology in the understanding of prose and literature. The same goes for art. Look at the vanishing points of Leonardo, or the tesselations of Escher. Both of these (and a whole shed load more things I could mention) are due to the application of reason to artistic creation. The emotions these works may inspire are affected by their rational creation, regardless of whether that was the conscious intent of their creator.

Those emotions in turn are responses to certain stimuli. Those responses in turn are derived from a hugely complex series of interacting historical, social and biological factors. Frankly it's a fascinating area of study.

All theses things rely on the application of reason, logic and observation. The fact that they may or may not be consciously reasoned is irrelevant. The difficulty of elucidating precise mechanisms for them is irrelevant, after all one can examine an emergent phenomenon in it's own right without necessarily understaniding the underlying mechanisms that generate it.

This is why I am curious to know what your "other ways of knowing are". Because if you are decrying the scientific method as "only one way of knowing" then you are decrying the very methods that we use to generate art and criticise art and even emote. That something is subjective doesn't mean it is unreasoned. That something is subjective doesn;t mean it is valid or invalid. By trying to make the postmodernist claim that science is merely one way of knowing amongst many you are denying the fact that reason and observation are not simply one way of knowing, but the only way of knowing anything at all. Faith, revelation, fantasy are all moot without recourse to reason, for any man's fantasy is as valid as any other until it is matched against what we do observe.

This fine tuning bullshit is a great example. Your claim that we are looking at the same phenomenon and interppreting it different is purest drivel. If the universe were different in certain key parametres we wouldn't be here to observe it. That is not proof of design. Take a trivial example. Douglas Adams' puddle story is a good one.

" . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. "

Douglas was making several points,but the one I am focussing on is the illustration of the illogic and fallacious reasoning behind fine tuning. Smolin, Hawking et al want to understand this narrowness to our universe's mechanisms because they can conceive of other ways it could have evolved. The question they are asking is very interesting, it's about what mechanisms could constrain the evolution of physical systems. I have several uneducated guesses about this that I'm not going to get into in any depth other than to say that certain ideas about gradients and thermodynamics play a part, some universes are more stable than others. These may be things we can never know, but maybe one day, if some of the hunches about near future accelerator experiments are right, we might be able to test even the wackiest of them.

On the subject of knowledge one last thing. JBS Haldane's comment:

"Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose"

Is possible, but I'm open minded on the issue! If I were to have anything I believed in on faith alone it is that the universe's mechanisms are comprehensible by the human mind. Happily, since I have no faith, even in this, I am happy to conclude that it is possible, likely even, but not certain.

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,15:24

The user list says it's your celebration of solar circumnavigation, Louis, so happy birthday, ya old coot.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 11 2006,20:47

Deadman,

Cheers matey. I did wonder if anyone would notice. I've just got back from a minor night out commiserating England's dire performance in the rugby today.....well yesterday now. I may be mildly under the affluence of incohol.

32 eh? Fuck it, I'm in denial, I'm not a day over 18. I've just had 14 years of practice.  So eat, drink and be merry all, for tomorrow I shall have a hangover.

I predict that the beer monkey will savage me. The beer monkey is an evil simian who, when you are in the presence of beer, shits in your mouth, punches you in the face, steals all your money and deposits you in (or near) your bed fully dressed smelling like a dead dog and in the possession of an uneaten souvenir kebab.

#### you beer monkey!

{shakes fist}

Louis (or at least most of me)

P.S. Just because your drink is on fire, it doesn't mean it is good. Words to live by.

P.P.S. Why are some drinks a better idea when your drunk? Trust me on this, never try to drink a cocktail called a "Dog's Nose". Fans of the works of Tom Sharpe and ex-rugby players of recent years will know why.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 12 2006,16:56

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your reference to emotion and literary criticism wrongly assumes, as I mentioned before, that these are not examples of the application of reason and observation. They are, and thus they are understandable by the scientific method, which ultimately it is after all the application of reason and observation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you're going to accuse people of building strawmen, then you should avoid constructing your own. I never said that literary criticism was not an example of the application of reason and observation; on the contrary, I said that:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, I don't deny that people use logic to understand art, but it's a broader --or looser -- sort of reasoning that can't be beaten into scientific form. One example would be Burton Raffel's dissection of the Lord of the Rings trilogy[.] [my emp here and below]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If that wasn't enough, I elaborated:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your point seems to be, "everything worthwhile flows from objective reason" (if that's not your point, you lose). I showed many clear counterexamples, literary criticism being one. You simply can't define or appreciate art without recourse to subjective interpretation and emotion. Sorry.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does art and criticism use scientific tools from time to time? Certainly. But in the end, its core elements revolve around non-scientific forms of reasoning. Literature's components cannot be beaten into rigid definitions and formulas, and attempts to square the circle have misplaced the compass. The fact that art appreciation is underwritten by biological phenomena that may be reducible to scientific understanding does not change the fact that art appreciation itself is largely nonscientific. In other words, the preoccupations of the human mind are emergent properties of the human brain, which is itself a product of evolutionary forces. And emergent phenomena cannot be fully understood in terms of the background information that produce them. We need a new vocabulary.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 13 2006,07:50

Ghosty,

1) I'm not making a strawman of your argument. Tu quoque much? You've inserted the word "objective" into my argument and are running with your strawman. As usual.

2) My argument is that reason, logically coherent rational though and honest reference to observation are the the only ways of knowing anything about anything. Science is a field in which this process is most closely applied. Read back, I've made this, oooooh perhaps slightly clear to anyone with a reading age of over 5.

You've chosen a weird strawman version of science which involves (to quote you) "...rigid definitions and formulas...". Rigid, no. As well defined as possible, yes. These two things are different. As I have said about ooooooh a triple gazillion times now. But eh, you're not about to start being honest now are you Gimpy?  You're just out to bash "liberalatheistpinkocommiebastardswhoarewreckingtheworld". As an aside, pick just one example where I have bashed "conservatives". Like I've said so many times, your aberrant psychology is fascinatingly absurd. Especially when you try to hand wave it away as Freudian! Even a dumb old chemist like me knows that psychiatry,  psychology, neurology etc have move on just slightly since Siggy, who, let's be blunt,was demonstrably wrong about a key number of things.

Ooops digression.

3) I'll try to put a point I've mentioned before, but you've skipped, a different way for you. What does the subjective reasoning involved in literary criticism tell anyone? What knowledge does it garner? It tells you lots about the person expressing it, it can tell you lots of things about the social environment of the person making and perhaps also the subject of said criticism. And so on and so forth. This is reasoning and observation, this is making models and predictions about the universe (which after all includes humans) and hopefully, testing them. Postmodernist lit crit, or rather the extreme end of it, is really nothing more than fantastical mental masturbation. Look for example at the hilarious Sokal hoax, one example in a series which demonstrates very clearly that a lot of this stuff is academic window dressing, lots of arrogant people saying a great deal about nothing,.

We should expect this sort of froth on the surface of academic enquiry, in the borderlands of useful enquiry there will always be sections that fall over the edge into useless enquiry, be they individual researchers or almost whole fields. Don't get me wrong, some of these guys, even the loonier end, have produced some amazingly useful pieces of work, I'm absolutely not dismissing them or their field (just the woo woo element, which is present in all fields to a greater or lesser extent). I am a supporter of out there research for the simple reason that no one knows where the next major advance or discovery will come from. What I DON'T support, and very vigorously don't support, is constant reexamination of areas and methods that don't produce results, don't  acquire knowledge, and that have been shown not to work in any sense other than the fanatsies of the believer/researcher etc.

You yourself realise that you can't predict emergent phenomena from the underlying complex interaction of more deterministic phenomena. Emotions and subjectivity are not emergent phenomena in and of themselves, they are products or "symptoms" of an emergent phenomenon: consciousness. These phenomena are understandable as rational, "equation following" (to use your phraseology) processes. Granted to a lesser degree than say an electronic circuit,but then these are more complex systems. The fact that we refer to the emotional or subjective aspects of a piece of art does not in anyway detract from the fact that that art, that emotion, that subjectivity is produced by processes understandable by more objective study, and that they themselves can be understood in a more objective fashion. By denying this by the way, you are making a big mistake. It's like your trying to seperate the phonon from the crystal, the superconductivity from the material etc.

I'll put it yet another way. You could read "Dick and Jane Play Ball" as a story about Dick and Jane. You could read it as a study of intergender relationships and socialisation in western society. Neither analysis is more valid than the other as far as they go. They are treatments of the same subject at different levels of complexity. However, the same rational processes underly both analyses. One is more refined than the other, but the same things are occuring in both cases. In one case the "sword of reason" is being wielded by an amateur, in the other the "sword of reason" is being wielded by a master.

Simply because one can treat a subject on a series of different levels, doesn't mean that one of those levels is more valid than the other. It's important to realise that this is explicitly not a postmodernist argument. It's merely a recognition of the ability of individuals to deal with topics as they are able. For example, I'm not a professional mathematician, the maths you mentioned aboout Calabi Yau shapes in a different postare far beyond me. I understand something about them, but I am far from being expert enough to generate such an idea and develop that mathematical system. My appreciation of Calabi Yau mathematics does not negate the accuracy of more profound appreciations. Merely refering to my lack of ability to appreciate them profoundly, or to my subjective feeling that I don't particularly enjoy that sort of maths says nothing about the maths, nor the processes of thought behind them, nor the processes of thought behind my appreciation of them.

You can look at a picture and like it, and I can see the same picture and not like it. We can give reasons and evidence which supports our individual decisions, but what knowlege is being acquired? Is any knowledge being gained about the painting? Or is the major part of the knowledge we are acquiring (probably all if I'm honest about it) about your and my socialisation, preferences, and appreciation of art? Again we return to the simple point I made ages ago, simply because we are only referring to something at the emotional level of reasoning this doesn't negate the more "clinical" levels.

4) Another repeated point. I'm not advocating science (as in physics, chemistry, biology etc) per se, I am advocating reason. Again, a point I've made abundantly clear to all but the deliberately dishonest.

Scientific study is one manifestation of the application of reason and observation to the acquisition of knowledge about the universe. It is the most rigorous and thorough application of reason and observation not by virtue of some inherent superiority, but by virtue of the systems dealt with. The same thought processes and methods of acquiring knowledge about the universe apply to all fields of human enquiry. The details may be different (I don't breed fish like PZ Myers, he doesn't use an accelerator like the CERN guys, neither of us make case studies and statistical surveys of people's behaviour) but the method is the same. That method is also how we can make any distinction or any criticism of anything. The same process is not limited to the development of deterministic, rigid equations and laws. As you should know since you flannel about it as often as possible, quantum mechanics shows the non deterministic, non intuitive nature of the universe. Dame nature is a coy bitch, but she's not malicious. If you want to look under her skirts and discover her secrets, you have to be very careful and precise.

In one sense, the difference between the accuracy of a physical theory and a psychological theory is the number of decimal places it can be and has been confirmed to, and the width of the error bars.

These are points on a continuum of complexity. By complexity I mean number of interacting entities. Understanding the behaviour of one electron is fantasically difficult because it is vastly counterintuitive, highly constrained in some senses, and difficult to carefully observe. Understanding the behaviour (emotions, preferences etc etc) of one human is fantastically difficult because of the sheer number of interacting phenomena, the relatively large degrees of freedom for the phenomena under study, and careful observation isn't difficult for the same reasons as the electron, but it's difficult because of the huge numbner of other possible causative agents. We might apply the tools we have in different ways (particle accelerators and cyclotrons are not good tools for psychologists, linguists, sociologists or artists [well possibly artists! funfunfun]) but that doesn't mean they are different tools. A phillips head screwdriver, a flat head screwdriver, a hex bolt screwdriver etc all do the same job (unscrewing and screwing threaded objects) but they aren't different classes of tools. They are applications of the same principles to the same types of problems. The flathead might not work well in a hex bolt etc, but that isn't the best tools for the job. What you're saying is that the hex bolt driver is a saw. Literary criticism and emotional understanding are surface uses of the same tool, reason and observation. Like I said before, simply because one can leave them there at that level doesn't negate a more profound treatment.

5)  I found this comment of yours in another thread telling:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Auster's attempt at Reductio ad absurdum isn't the best example out there, but his main point is pretty solid: science, being predicated on methodological naturalism, is often used to support metaphysical naturalism, and this is even more true for branches of science that deal with the origin and evolution of life. This conflation harms people because it delegitimises the intangible cultural and moral values holding society together. I don't believe all of this, but many people do assume that because science is the best strategy in its domain it should be the null strategy in all domains, including the realm of moral guidance. People then  replace one religion with another while rejecting the accumulated wisdom of societal selection. That’s why utopian ideas almost always fail –- they haven’t “proven” themselves over time like most traditional ideas have. The Law of Unintended Consequences ensues.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bolding mine.

You are, as I have said many many times before, an enemy of reason. Your whole motivation is clearly not to "reclaim science for conservatives" or some such rot, but to destroy reason, the products of reason you don't like, and to assert your underlying subjective, unsupported claims as fact. Evolutionary biology does not in any way undermine or delegitimise any social, ethical or moral philosophy or system. You've made these sort of stupid comments before. Is does not equal ought. By the way, morals, ethics, social systems are products of reason and systems open to explanation and understanding by the process of reason and observation. If you deny this then how come people who have similar moral, ethical and social values based on different philosophical underpinings. How come the work of people like Fisher and Haldane show the "game theory" of altruism in biology. One can arrive at moral systems by reason alone based on an honest understanding of the systems which they apply to.

Again, the strawman you raise is that science, or reason if you prefer, is simply inductive. It isn't. Nor is it dogmatic in the sense of "replacing one religion with another" that you mention. All knowledge is provisional. As I have said many times before, if one day we have a 100% accurate scientific explanation for every phenomenon in the universe we don't have "THE ANSWER", we have a first approxiamtion. A model. We can never have more for the same reason that I mentioned before: the limits of observation.

So if you crave certainty, don't look to reason. There is always going to be an element of doubt. Productive and useful doubt to be sure, but doubt nonetheless. This is why, when confronted with the "you believe in evolution like I believe in god" cry of dumb creationists I reply with the key distinction "No. I accept that evolutionary biology is the best explanation, the best model, we currently have for the relevant phenomena we observe". That's a MASSIVE distinction. One appeal is possibly open to disproof and examination, the other isn't.

6) The above is partly why I am curious to know what these "other ways of knowing" you mention are, and when, why and from where they are "coming to a country near me" like you claim. Another reason is that I am amused by your aberrant psychology, faux confidence and delusions in the face of overwhelming contraray data. But my peccadillos aside. It's fun to see that you STILL can't read for comprehension, and STILL reply to the strawliberal in your head rather than what is actually being argued.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 13 2006,09:43

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can look at a picture and like it, and I can see the same picture and not like it. We can give reasons and evidence which supports our individual decisions, but what knowlege is being acquired? Is any knowledge being gained about the painting? Or is the major part of the knowledge we are acquiring (probably all if I'm honest about it) about your and my socialisation, preferences, and appreciation of art? Again we return to the simple point I made ages ago, simply because we are only referring to something at the emotional level of reasoning this doesn't negate the more "clinical" levels.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know you wrote a lot of stuff I haven't addressed, but I'd like to talk about this contention. You seem to be reasoning in a circle, because you say that all useful knowledge is acquired by a reasoning process, and then proceed to define useful knowledge as that which is uncovered by reasoning! But I contend that discussing our aesthetic tastes and applying them to a work of art does lead to useful information outside of the clinical information gleaned about our subjective states. We have gained a deeper appreciation of the work itself, an appreciation that is shaped by our subjective experiences as much as by the painting's background data. You can't just take the emotive responses and hand-wave it away as mere trivia, because this trivia influences our relationship to the artwork just as much (more?) as the objective stuff. In fact, this emotional reasoning is the core experience of studying art!

This applies to empirical phenomena as well. Mathematical modeling + observation is a wonderful way to investigate the universe, but it is predicated on the limitations of our senses, intellect, and computational ability. We can do a lot with what we have, and what we have just might be enough, but there is a good reason to assume that we're just simplifying (and thereby distorting) certain aspects of reality that our brains can't comprehend and that our senses can't investigate. I realise you admitted that this is a real problem, but recognising and incorporating a problem into a worldview are two different things. You clearly believe that reason is enough, or that it will be someday. I'm sorry, but your assurances are not enough to overturn my skepticism about the limits of human inquiry. Heck, most scientists admit up front that science cannot handle questions about God's existence. The response seems to be, "well, it must be an unimportant question then, or a fantasy." This reasoning is circular. Science is like the drunk who searches for his keys under the lamppost because the light is better there.
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 13 2006,12:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science is like the drunk who searches for his keys under the lamppost because the light is better there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you'd prefer to look for your keys in a place where you wouldn't even be able to tell if you'd found them or not?
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 13 2006,12:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem to be reasoning in a circle, because you say that all useful knowledge is acquired by a reasoning process, and then proceed to define useful knowledge as that which is uncovered by reasoning!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How else do you know if you know something useful? What useful knowlege is not that which is uncovered by reasoning? Knowing that god loves you?

By the way, which Paley are we talking to? Is there any way to know that?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 13 2006,13:40

Ved:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, you'd prefer to look for your keys in a place where you wouldn't even be able to tell if you'd found them or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I don't prefer the dark place, but I'm willing to acknowledge that the keys may be located there. After all, if you search the well-lit area and don't find the keys, there's a good chance they're somewhere else. Louis prefers to circle around in the spotlight while cursing those who grope around. And really, Ved, do you think it's likely that the universe is fully comprehensible to us apes? What are the odds of that coincidence occuring? Now maybe after some genetic engineering..........hmmmmm.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 13 2006,13:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
You seem to be reasoning in a circle, because you say that all useful knowledge is acquired by a reasoning process, and then proceed to define useful knowledge as that which is uncovered by reasoning!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How else do you know if you know something useful? What useful knowlege is not that which is uncovered by reasoning? Knowing that god loves you?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There are many things that enrich life that don't fall into the "scientific reasoning" category. Discovering a new way to interpret a novel's imagery; learning a new way to play a song that's not demonstrably better than the old interpretation, but that keeps the material fresh....writing a poem. And that's just art.
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 13 2006,15:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I don't prefer the dark place, but I'm willing to acknowledge that the keys may be located there. After all, if you search the well-lit area and don't find the keys, there's a good chance they're somewhere else. Louis prefers to circle around in the spotlight while cursing those who grope around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, if you find something out there while you're groping around, how do you bring it under the light so that you can figure out what you've got? How can you tell you've found something at all, or even something that is not a figment of your imagination?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
do you think it's likely that the universe is fully comprehensible to us apes? What are the odds of that coincidence occuring?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are the odds that the universe contains the "key" that apes like you are looking for???
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now maybe after some genetic engineering..........hmmmmm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure! But what about even just some regular engineering? Can an ape see an atom? Or hear radiation? It can if it builds the right tools.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are many things that enrich life that don't fall into the "scientific reasoning" category. Discovering a new way to interpret a novel's imagery; learning a new way to play a song that's not demonstrably better than the old interpretation, but that keeps the material fresh....writing a poem. And that's just art.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I do know about art. I'm a musician. Yes, art can be enriching. Enjoyable even. But what is any art beyond being ideas, imagery, or soundscapes transmitted between one person and another? It doesn't come from outside of humanity. Let's move on to another "way of knowing".
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 13 2006,17:52

Paley, why on earth do you think anyone gives a flying f#ck what you think or say?  About anything?


Are you *really* that full of yourself?  Do you *really* have THAT much of an inflated sense of your own self-importance?  

Really?


Geez.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 13 2006,19:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley, why on earth do you think anyone gives a flying f#ck what you think or say?  About anything?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Read my sig. Some of my opinions are of mortal importance.  :D

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you *really* that full of yourself?  Do you *really* have THAT much of an inflated sense of your own self-importance?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are my opinions worth sharing on a forum? Sure, why not? I don't understand what you're driving at.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently so. When the revolution comes, you can off all the wrong-thinking white people you like. For now, you'll have to <gasp> tolerate our opinions. I know....sucks to be you.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Geez.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Keep puffing those embers for the nonce, Strange Fruit.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 13 2006,20:13

Gimpy,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem to be reasoning in a circle, because you say that all useful knowledge is acquired by a reasoning process, and then proceed to define useful knowledge as that which is uncovered by reasoning!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No I am not doing this. I am not in any way doing the second part! I'm not even making the "useful" distinction you are claiming I am.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I contend that discussing our aesthetic tastes and applying them to a work of art does lead to useful information outside of the clinical information gleaned about our subjective states. We have gained a deeper appreciation of the work itself, an appreciation that is shaped by our subjective experiences as much as by the painting's background data. You can't just take the emotive responses and hand-wave it away as mere trivia, because this trivia influences our relationship to the artwork just as much (more?) as the objective stuff. In fact, this emotional reasoning is the core experience of studying art!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But I'm not handwaving it away at all, as you would know if you'd bothered to read the post rather than doing exactly what I described and predicted you would do: i.e. pick out a tiny piece you think represents the strawliberal in your head and respond only to that. Appreciating the emotional response to art is one perfectly valid level of understanding and dealing with art. It's not the only one, and it doesn't negate or invalidate other examinations of art. As I said before.

Not only that, you are assuming that the emotional response is not a reasoned one. Again, as I explained the emotional response is derived from reason and observation. You are interacting with an object of art and examining the responses that interaction causes in your psychological state. Artistic preferences are partly learnt from one's social context, these preferences are open to change based on experience. This is classic "stimulus/response", classic reasoned thought. Simply because one does not go through each step of the reasoning consciously is irrelevant, just as in the throwing ball example I mentioned. Conscious reasoning, i.e. a process of reasoned thought of which you are aware, is not the only kind of thought the brain processes. Simply because that partially conscious or unconscious thought process is not analysed by many people does not negate or invalidate the fact that it can be reasoned. It can even be trained. Again,I've already dealt with this, as I said the are different levels of interaction and appreciation, they differ only by their degree of conscious thought applied to the reasoning process, not the nature of the method of acquiring knowledge.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This applies to empirical phenomena as well. Mathematical modeling + observation is a wonderful way to investigate the universe, but it is predicated on the limitations of our senses, intellect, and computational ability. We can do a lot with what we have, and what we have just might be enough, but there is a good reason to assume that we're just simplifying (and thereby distorting) certain aspects of reality that our brains can't comprehend and that our senses can't investigate. I realise you admitted that this is a real problem, but recognising and incorporating a problem into a worldview are two different things. You clearly believe that reason is enough, or that it will be someday. I'm sorry, but your assurances are not enough to overturn my skepticism about the limits of human inquiry. Heck, most scientists admit up front that science cannot handle questions about God's existence. The response seems to be, "well, it must be an unimportant question then, or a fantasy." This reasoning is circular. Science is like the drunk who searches for his keys under the lamppost because the light is better there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, an understanding of the universe is not predicated on our senses. We can devise objects that interact with aspects of th universe in ways so beyond our senses that they are entirely alien. We have no organ that interacts with gravity or the weak force or the strong force in the manner our eyes interact with the electromagnetic force or our ears interact with longitundinal waves of compression in matter. We can devise objects to do all of this. Even in the areas of the universe that we do interact with our sense we are interacting with such a narrow piece that we are almost indistinguisable from being able to interact with none of it. We are far beyond being limited by our senses. Look at the counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics for example. You may be able to google up complex sounding science Gimpy, but yet again it's abundantly clear you don't understand the first thing about it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...there is a good reason to assume that we're just simplifying (and thereby distorting) certain aspects of reality that our brains can't comprehend and that our senses can't investigate....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? What is that reason Gimpy, other than the limits of observation? As for your comments about "incorporating an idea into a worldview" yet again you do me a disservice because you're dealing with a strawliberal in your head rather than my actual comments. I'll get to this in a moment.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I don't prefer the dark place, but I'm willing to acknowledge that the keys may be located there. After all, if you search the well-lit area and don't find the keys, there's a good chance they're somewhere else. Louis prefers to circle around in the spotlight while cursing those who grope around. And really, Ved, do you think it's likely that the universe is fully comprehensible to us apes? What are the odds of that coincidence occuring?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No Gimpy, I am openly and honestly NOT cursing those who grope around, nor am I circling only in the lit area. In fact my whole job is to extend that lit area and for that I have to venture into the dark and grope about like everyone else.

This relates to this comment of yours:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heck, most scientists admit up front that science cannot handle questions about God's existence. The response seems to be, "well, it must be an unimportant question then, or a fantasy." This reasoning is circular.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No Gimpy, this is where you are really off base. It all depends on what you claim this "god" is. If this god or supernatural element or spirit or whatever you want to call it exists AND interacts with the material aspects of the universe (that you so airily dismiss as the mundane, simply because you know fuck all about it) then there is a route, an interaction, a mechanism by which it does this. This is (obviously) an interaction with the material universe that has material consequences. This is precisely within the purview and remit of science. Should such an interaction exist it is open to rational, reasoned scrutiny and explanation.

However, should you (esp as a nicely reinvented deist, {cough} bullshit) claim that this spirit/god/supernatural element NOT interact with the material universe, then how is it different from being non-existant? How is it different from a myriad of similar claims? Why YOUR god/supernatural/spiritual claim? Why not mine or a muslim's or a hindu's etc etc etc.

As you recognised in a previous post, the very second you use reason and observation to defend this second specific case, you immediately admit that the question is open to reasoned falsification. By the way this is precisely why theists and deists etc special plead and obfuscate and appeal to mystery. They know this is the case.

What you fail to realise is that the faith (i.e. belief in something in the absence of evidence or incontradiction to the available evidence) these people have is not something I object to in any way, as long as it is honestly recognised for what it is. Why should your love of Constable be more important than my love of Escher? Why should your faith claim be more important than mine? As Lenny often says: What makes your religious opinion more important than his,mine, the bloke down the road's or his ever present and very important Pizza Deliviery Operative?  The answer, which you don't like (demonstrated by a myriad of posts and cclaims you have made) is "nothing". Until you can put your faith claims on a rational basis (which immediately removes them from the realm of faith btw) they are as valid as any other faith claim.

This doesn't mean they lack "value" or "utility" in the psychological and sociological senses, it just means they have no greater claim to being the "TRUTH" than any similarly rationally unsupported claim. This doesn't mean they should be banned or ridiculed or loathed. This doesn't invalidate them nor does it make them worthless. It merely recognises them for what they are. Are you going to fight a war over our different unsupported opinions on Carravagio? If not, then why fight a war over our different unsupported opinions over a deity?

As for it being an unimportant question, again no. If the first sort of deity is the one that exists (an interacting deity) this is a VASTLY important question. Surely you can see that there is a vast difference between a universe with such an entity and a universe without such an entity. However, we need to carefully define what we are looking for. Something I notice reluctance to do on many people's part. Rational, reasoned, honest enquiry into the universe may not have demonstrated that ALL possible and conceivable gods are very unlikely to exist, but it has demonstrated to a very high level of accuracy that all gods popularly espoused thus far in human history are vastly unlikely to exist. This is because their proponents have fallen afoul of defining their attributes in such a way that they were open to examination and falsification.

So I am absolutely NOT dismissing the question as unimportant or a fantasy. Nor am I denying or invalidating people's fantasies. I am merely saying that we recognise fantasies for what they are, and realise that if we decide to choose between them on the basis of which of them is "true", then we open them to falsification. Thus far, all such claims that have been advanced have been falisified. This does not mean that in the future all WILL, just that all HAVE.

Add into this parsimony. Adding a complex, intelligent supernatural entity into the origins of the universe multiplies entities beyond reason! You are explaining a complex phenomenon by invoking a more complex phenomenon with no supporting evidence! Not good.  Certainly not scientific, reasoned or rational.  Absolutely not parsimonious.

So what are these other ways of knowing about this supernatural entity Gimpy? I've clearly demonstrated that your claims about art and emotion aren't different ways of knowing, but different applications of certain tools and different levels of appreciation and application(whether you admit it or not btw. Your denial is not evidence).

As I said before, IF I did accept anything on faith, it would be that the universe is comprehensible. As I said I don't except this on faith at all, but were I a betting man (and oh I am!;) I would bet that this were the case, although I am happy to lose my shirt on the proposition, and happy to admit that we don't know if this is the case or not yet, despite the vast success we have had thus far. My stance is based on probability and demonstrable experience, not on bias or dedication to a "worldview".

As for whether we mere apes can understand the cosmos, and what the probability of this is, what's the probability that we won't be able to? You do realise what a dumb question that is don't you? Thus far every phenomenon we have encountered has yielded to our understanding, there are no failures yet. There are things we do not yet understand, things we don't have all the answers for, but why should we expect to have them. We've only just started out on the road, I'm interested to see where it goes because I don't know the destination. I'm not going to claim I do,but what I can claim is that I know where I've been and I have some idea of where the road is going for a certain distance ahead of me. Beyond that I have yet to see. However, the road has not deviated one inch in the entirety of human journeying upon it, it has pursued a straight course. Sure there have been hills to climb, rivers to bridge and valleys to descend along the way, but the road is straight as an arrow thus far. My guess, my bet is that it will remain so, but I'm happy to be wrong as I've said before.

What you don't appreciate Gimpy is that your unreason and special pleading is not sufficient to establish anything. Claiming that because we don't  know everything means we know nothing is stupid. Also understand that you conflate a myriad of issues in one place. Enriching life is not the same thing as knowledge of the universe.

We've yet to hear about these "other ways of knowing" and why, whence and how they are coming to a country near me. Are you really saying that literary criticism is coming to a country near me soon? If so, colour me shocked, I thought we already had lit crit and art. I'm pretty sure we vile EuroCommieLiberalYankHaters have had art for a while, I'm pretty sure we've looked at it too. Just what could you be talking about Gimpy? Nothing to do with immigrants I hope. Sorry, should that be pronounced "immahgunts"?

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 13 2006,20:54

Gimpy,

Far be it for me to speak for Lenny, but I would imagine he is referring to the fact that you are demonstrated and self confessed troll. Why should the opinions of an openly dishonest and disruptive person recieve anything more than ridicule? You're lucky to be posting here and you know it. Just like AFDave is lucky. Objection and dissent are welcome, heck even encouraged. Dishonesty, silly games, and trolling are not. Of course that's merely my opinion, the opinion of the management may, and probably does, differ.

You do realise that whilst I'm still here I'll always remember your trolling, dishonesty, ridiculous claims and bullshit and always remind you and everyone else of them don't you? You don't get to play reasonable and "nice nice" because you are demonstrably capable of neither. You do know that your pretence(s) fool(s) no one right? You're not taken seriously because you are obviously what you appear to be: a google trawling, dishonest, unintelligent troll.

If you had any smarts at all, you should be doing your level best to demonstrate your ability to be honest and reason. That or simply go away. Thus far, since your little "confession" (read latest play in your bullshit shell game), you've demonstrated yourself to be identical to your "troll persona". No one's trying to censor you or oppress you (your comments to Lenny about persecution of  "wrong thinking white people" and simmilar comments to me are HILARIOUS), but people are well aware that discussing pretty much anything with is an excercise in futility (other than the utility of openly countering your more obnoxious and/or fallacious claims). You have failed. No one is convinced by your bullshit, you are wasting your time and everyone else's, which is a shame because it's possible you could make a well reasoned and honest point that would get ignored because of your bullshit. That's why you whining about censorship or other people being protected is hilariously off base. You don't contribute reason so why should anyone think you are capable of it? Going away, sorting your head out and coming back under a different guise and arguing honestly in a reasoned fashion might help you. Posting silly wrestler pics, silly tirades about liberals, wantonly false victory and victimisation claims acheive nothing other than making you the group chew toy. Which is what you are, and my guess is soon your flavour will turn even more sour. 'Tis the fate of trolls.

You do realise that the freedom of speech and expression I wholeheartedly support rests on the foundation that ideas and people I despise have as free a voice as I wish for myself right? I would never remove or try to remove your right to express yourself. Neither would anyone here I imagine. What I do do is openly ridicule the ridiculous nature of your claims and conduct. The fact that you don't like and twist, lie and obfuscate to avoid the comments and refutations of me and many other posters doesn't count as evidence to the contrary. Get used to the fact that you aren't any more special than anyone else. Except in the "special school" window licking short bus riding sense of course.

Louis
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 13 2006,21:50

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 13 2006,19:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley, why on earth do you think anyone gives a flying f#ck what you think or say?  About anything?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Read my sig. Some of my opinions are of mortal importance.  :D

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you *really* that full of yourself?  Do you *really* have THAT much of an inflated sense of your own self-importance?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are my opinions worth sharing on a forum? Sure, why not? I don't understand what you're driving at.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently so. When the revolution comes, you can off all the wrong-thinking white people you like. For now, you'll have to <gasp> tolerate our opinions. I know....sucks to be you.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Geez.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Keep puffing those embers for the nonce, Strange Fruit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude,  **THAT's**   the best you can do . . . ?

You're not even entertaining as a troll, any more.

(yawn)
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 13 2006,23:20

Lenny,

You're right, Gimpy isn't a funny troll any more, he's a chew toy. Just like AirFarceDavetheRave, he's something to bite and knock about until a real debate shows up. We barely even get one sweaty wrestler piccy a week now. The game is up, the fun is over, now all that's left is dealing with his endless loathing of women, foreigners, liberals and Europeans, and all sundry bullshit about fine tuning. At least geocentrism had the value of being hilarious and guts to gametes was wonderful. An entirely new creationist claim! [Paging Mark Isaak]

He did manage some quite entertaining abuse a page or so ago, I was bordering on impressed. Still, since his aberrant psychology is obvious to all, it doesn't work well. There's no wonder in have shit thrown by a monkey that is oblivious to the fact that he's drowning in a barrel of shit of his own making.

Louis

P.S. I hate insomnia. Very annoying, I have work to do today and I have not slept in 36 hours. Probably explains the typos!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 14 2006,13:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're right, Gimpy isn't a funny troll any more, he's a chew toy. Just like AirFarceDavetheRave, he's something to bite and knock about until a real debate shows up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dude, you can't even handle what I have, so I'd keep quiet if I were you. If you want to be molested by someone else, however, you can try David Berlinski, who has whipped a group of Talk Originers in an online debate over the Second Law and another group on the Nilsson-Pelger paper. I've seen him lose a couple as well, but he's always game for a fight. But really, guy, you need to polish your debate skills first, because it's obvious you don't have any. Your technique is to ramble on without evidence, make your claim vague enough to cry "strawman!" and then move the goalposts when you finally get nailed. Berlinski will probably find you as dull as I do (multiple meanings intended).

Now that you've had your necessary abuse, will you try to make a sensible point? You don't seem to have a consistent definition of reason, which expands and contracts as needed to wiggle out of logical difficulties. You haven't addressed my claim about the difficulties with multiple dimensions, a claim which is permits weak testing at best. You still don't get that reason alone can't make a technique scientific. You don't even understand the implications of the things you do concede: that our intellect and senses restrict the domain of our knowledge, so we can never be sure if we've captured truth by the tail. But let me give you another example of something important that can't be investigated scientifically: morality. As I'll demonstrate later, you need both emotion and reason to build a ethical code that keeps society functioning. It won't do a lick of good in your case (the brainwashing didn't wear off -- too bad), but maybe the lurkers will derive some benefit from the exchange.

More later.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 14 2006,13:37

Mr The Ghost of Paley

I have just wasted rather a lot of time skimming through the latter part of this thread. Other than pandering to your ego, what purpose do you think your comments serve? As Louis, Lenny and others have already pointed out, your comments are neither informative or amusing, and appear devoid of any other redeeming feature. It may be possible for you to produce an interesting comment, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it. Do you really have nothing better to do?
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 14 2006,14:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But let me give you another example of something important that can't be investigated scientifically: morality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can that be? Aren't people are currently investigating morality, scientifically?
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 14 2006,14:21

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2006,13:05)
If you want to be molested by someone else, however, you can try David Berlinski, who has whipped a group of Talk Originers in an online debate over the Second Law and another group on the Nilsson-Pelger paper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once again, reality and Paley prove immiscible:

< Talk.origins trounces Berlinski >
< Talk.origins slaps Berlinski (Again) >
< http://www.talkreason.org/articles/blurred.cfm >

My most favourite bits:

From Wadkins:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My initial response is what I would now call Randy's rule of thumb:  If you think life, now or ever, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then you are a fucking idiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From Nilsson:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contrary to Berlinski's claim, we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye evolution sequence. The functions in Figure 1 display the results. These plots are computer generated, using small increments. Values and units are given on the axes of the plots, and procedures are explained in the legend. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important Equation 1 and a reference to Warrant and McIntyre (1993) where this theory is derived. Yet, Berlinski insists that "Nilsson and Pelger do not calculate the visual acuity of any structure". It would be much simpler for Berlinski if he went just a tiny step further and denied the existence of our paper altogether.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 14 2006,15:42

Ha, Ha! Ogee, arguing with you is like cuffing a puppy around. The very debate you cite supports my point! Check this < thread > and read this comment:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tim Broderick <TJBro...@Tezcat.com> wrote:
>In article <52p5tp$...@news.nyu.edu>, g...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
>wrote:

>> David Berlinski has sent me considerable e-mail to the effect
>> that he deeply resents my characterizing him as having fled
>> talk.origins.  Those may not have been my exact words, but
>> they are close enough.
><snip>


>>       ------ Paul J. Gans  [g...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]


>Actually, the guy fled twice. He refused for one weekend to reply to any
>messages until enough people harassed him. He came back a short while and
>that's when people really started to get through his math arguements
>(especially one TO regular, who was that?) to show that - aside from all
>the usual creationist strawmen - his theories had no application to the
>real world.



Nobody "got through" to Berlinski. Steve LaBonne was the only one to
really understand what Berlinski was trying to say and their discussion
was quite interesting - and basically a draw.

Berlinski is not a creationist. I can understand why he is so upset with
the talk.origins crowd for misrepresenting his opinions.




>It's too bad there's no way to publicize this. Send a press release with
>some good Deja News quotes and a list of contacts, so maybe he doesn't get
>a free pass when people interview him.


I for one would not want this incident to be widely publicized. It made us
look pretty silly.


Larry Moran

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who is Larry Moran, you might ask? < Find out here, > or < ask PZ Myers. >

Oh, and your third link? It seems to be missing Berlinski's < response to the above criticisms. I wonder why? Let's find out: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is hardly surprising, then, that while theoretical optics serves qualitatively to justify the overall connection Nilsson and Pelger draw between morphology and visual acuity, nothing in their paper and nothing in their references justifies the quantitative relationships they employ to reach their quantitative conclusion. To be sure, Mr. Nilsson denies that this is so. “Contrary to Mr. Berlinski’s claim,” he writes,

we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye-evolution sequence, and the results are displayed in figure 1 of our paper. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important equation 1 and a reference to Warrant & McIntyre (1993), where this theory is derived.

In fact, no underlying theory whatsoever is explained in Nilsson and Pelger’s main text, or in the legend to figure 1; and while they do assert that calculations were made, they do not say where they were made or how they were carried out. The burden of Mr. Nilsson’s denials is conveyed entirely by equation 1 and by his references.

Let us start with equation 1, and with figure 1b that this equation is said to control.
It is in figure 1b that aperture constriction takes over from invagination in getting an imaginary eye to see better. The graph juxtaposes aperture size against detectable spatial resolution. Having dimpled itself in figure 1a, Nilsson and Pelger’s blob is now busy puckering its topmost surface to form a pinhole in figure 1b.* In a general way, the curve they present is unremarkable. No one doubts that spatial resolution is improved in an eye when its aperture is constricted. But why is it improved in just the way that Nilsson and Pelger’s graph indicates?

Equation 1 is of scant help in this regard, despite Nilsson’s insistence that it is important. Drawing a connection among visual acuity, focal length, light intensity, and noise, the equation specifies the local maximum of a curve, the place where it stops rising. In other words, it specifies a point; and it does nothing more. “We can now use this relationship,” Nilsson and Pelger nevertheless declare, “to plot resolution against aperture diameter.” They can do nothing of the sort, at least not in my calculus class. Knowing that a man has reached the summit of Mt. Everest, we still know nothing about the route he has taken to get there. What is needed if Nilsson and Pelger are to justify their graph is the equation from which equation 1 has been derived by differentiation. It is not there, just where I said it would not be.

Similarly with Nilsson and Pelger’s references, which do nothing to support their argument. Quite the contrary. Three papers are at issue: (1) A.W. Snyder, S. Laughlin, and D. Stavenga, “Information Capacity of the Eyes” (Vision Research, vol. 17, 1163-1175, 1977); (2) A.W. Snyder, “Physics of Vision in Compound Eyes” (in Vision in Invertebrates, Handbook of Sensory Physiology, edited by H. Autrum, vol. VII/6A, pp. 225-313, 1979); and (3) E. J. Warrant & P.D. McIntyre, “Arthropod Eye Design and the Physical Limits to Spatial Resolving Power” (Progress in Neurobiology, vol. 40, pp. 413-461, 1993). Of these papers, the first is recapitulated (and corrected) in the second, and the second is summarized in the third. In what follows, references to Snyder are always to the Snyder of his second paper.

As their titles might suggest, both “Physics of Vision in Compound Eyes” and “Arthropod Eye Design and the Physical Limits to Spatial Resolving Power” deal with compound invertebrate eyes. Nilsson and Pelger’s work is devoted to the evolution of the camera eye characteristic of fish and cephalopods. Theoretical considerations that apply to bugs do not necessarily apply to fish or octopuses, the more so since their eyes are structurally different, as are their evolutionary histories. Writing about the compound eye, Nilsson himself has remarked that “it is only a small exaggeration to say that evolution seems to be fighting a desperate battle to improve a basically disastrous design” (Dan-E. Nilsson, “Optics and Evolution of the Compound Eye,” in Facets of Vision, edited by D.G. Stavenga & R.C. Hardie, p. 3075, 1989). Whatever the desperate battle going on among the arthropods, there is no battle at all taking place among the vertebrates or the cephalopods. Nilsson and Pelger’s eye moves from triumph to triumph with serene and remarkable celerity.

If the papers by Snyder and Warrant & McIntyre say nothing about fish or octopuses, neither do they say anything about evolution. No mention there of Darwin’s theory, no discussion of morphology, not a word about invagination, aperture constriction, or lens formation, and nothing about the time required to form an eye, whether simple, compound, or camera-like.

The purpose of these three papers is otherwise. No less than any other system of communication, the eye represents a balance struck between signal and noise. There is the object out there in the real world—whether a point source like a star, or an extended source like a grating of light and dark lines—and there is its image trembling on the tips of the retina’s budded nerve cells. Slippage arises between what the object is and how it is seen. Noise occurs in the visual system as the result of the random nature of photon emission, and it also occurs as the result of inherent imperfections in the eye’s optical system. The theoretical optician abbreviates these limitations in one mathematical instrument.

Imagine one of Nilsson and Pelger’s plucky light-sensitive cells, and then extend two flanking lines from the cell up past the constricted aperture and out into space, so that the cell and those two flanking lines form a cone with a flat top. In the center of the cone, where a cherry would sit atop the ice cream, there is a light source. The cherry moves to the sides of the cone in angular steps; the cell dutifully responds. The correlation between moving cherry and twitching cell constitutes the optician’s “angular-sensitivity function.”

Equation B15 (p. 238) in Snyder’s “Physics of Vision in Compound Eyes” defines the signal-to-noise ratio of a hypothetical eye in terms of noise, modulation contrast (the difference in intensity between black and white stripes in a grating), and the modulation-transfer function, which is simply a mathematical transformation of the eye’s angular-sensitivity function (its Fourier transform). Lumbering in Snyder’s footsteps, Warrant & McIntyre split his equation into two of their own (equations 10 and 11 in Warrant & McIntyre, p. 430), the one describing the signal, the other the noise in a hypothetical visual system. They observe what is in any case obvious: whatever the parameters affecting visual acuity, signal and noise will always reach a point where the first is drowned out by the second and the system fails, a point evident enough to anyone trying to see in the dark.

These equations lead by primogeniture to Nilsson and Pelger’s equation 1, which, as it happens, does not appear anywhere in their sources in the form in which they express it. But neither Snyder’s original equation nor Warrant & McIntyre’s bright bursting clones in any way suggest that the tipping point between signal and noise is unique. The ratio of signal to noise in an optical system depends on a host of factors, including head size and eye movement, most of which Nilsson and Pelger ignore. Nor, for that matter, do these equations taken in isolation justify any particular quantitative conclusions. Until the angular-sensitivity function is specified, whether theoretically or experimentally, its role is ceremonial.

Such specification is no easy business.
Determining the shape of the angular-sensitivity function is a little like trying to guess an astronaut’s weight in space. Scales are not likely to be of use. In an early paper dealing with this subject and devoted experimentally to flies, K.G. Götz noted that the angular-sensitivity function in Drosophila seemed to follow what is known mathematically as a Gaussian probability distribution (K.G. Götz, “Die optischen Übertragungseigenschaften der Komplexaugen von Drosophila,” Kybernetik, 2, pp. 215-221, 1965). It was an interesting idea, but one that led to very considerable computational difficulties.

Looking Götz-ward, and understandably recoiling, Snyder adopted a different strategy. In assessing the weight of an astronaut in space, it is simpler to count the calories he consumes and the exercise he undergoes than to try to measure his weight directly. His weight, although unmeasured, follows inferential-ly. In just the same way, Snyder thought to consider the angular-sensitivity function indirectly by considering the structures that determined its shape. These, he assumed, were the eye’s retinal receptive field—the area of the retina responding to signals—and its optical “blur spot”—the smeared image represented on the retina corresponding to the sharp object being seen. Let them both, he declared, be identically Gaussian. Why not? Both parameters had simple mathematical natures. The retinal receptive field is given as the ratio of the rhabdom’s diameter to its posterior nodal distance, the optical blur as the ratio of the wavelength of stimulating light to the eye’s aperture. From this the shape of the angular-sensitivity function followed.

The result is known as the Snyder model. “The great beauty of this model,” Warrant & McIntyre remark (in words that they have italicized), “is that if one knows some very simple anatomical information about the eye”—i.e., the nature of its optical blur spot and retinal receptive field—“one has the ability to predict . . . the approximate shape of the angular-sensitivity function” (p. 434). In referring to Warrant & McIntyre, Nilsson and Pelger are, in fact, appealing to Snyder, the maître behind their masters—for, like Snyder, they, too, assume that retinal receptive fields and optical blur spots are identically Gaussian (p. 54).


But theory is one thing, and living flesh another. Staking their all on Snyder’s model, Nilsson and Pelger must live with its consequences. “Having considered the physical limitations to resolving power,” Snyder wrote, “in addition to the absolute sensitivity of eyes, we now apply our concepts to real compound eyes.” This is something that Nilsson and Pelger never do. And no wonder. For Snyder then added the rather important caveat that bringing theory to bear on life “requires precise knowledge [of various optical parameters] in the various regions of the eye” (Snyder, p. 276, emphasis in the original).

If precise knowledge is needed in applying Snyder’s model, precise detail is what is lacking in Nilsson and Pelger’s paper. Precise detail? Any detail whatsoever.

And for obvious reasons. When tested, Snyder’s model turns out to be false across a wide range of arthropods. As Warrant & McIntyre note glumly, “The model, on the whole, works best for those eyes for which it was originally formulated—apposition compound eyes functioning according to geometrical optics—but recent careful and sensitive measurements of angular sensitivity reveal that even in these types of eye, the model often performs poorly.” Readers may consult figure 34 (p. 441) of Warrant & McIntyre’s paper to see how poorly the Snyder model does. In studies of the locust Locustia, real and predicted angular-sensitivity functions do not even share the same qualitative shape.

Responding to my observation that no quantitative argument supports their quantitative conclusions—no argument at all, in fact—Mr. Nilsson has thus (1) offered a mathematically incoherent appeal to his only equation; (2) cited references that make no mention of any morphological or evolutionary process; (3) defended a theory intended to describe the evolution of vertebrate camera eyes by referring to a theory describing the theoretical optics of compound invertebrate eyes; (4) failed to explain why his own work has neglected to specify any relevant biological parameter precisely; and (5) championed his results by means of assumptions that his own sources indicate are false across a wide range of organisms.

In acknowledgments to their paper, Nilsson & Pelger thank E. J. Warrant for help with their computations; in the acknowledgments to their paper, Warrant & McIntyre thank Mr. Nilsson for critically reading what they have written.

Schnapps all around, I am sure.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So can you rebut Berlinkski's claims, Ogee? If not, then his critique stands as the final word on the matter. Puttie or shuttie.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 14 2006,16:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you want to be molested by someone else, however, you can try David Berlinski, who has whipped a group of Talk Originers in an online debate over the Second Law...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paley, do you really think that life/evolution violate the Second Law?  ???
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 14 2006,16:38

Alan Fox:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr The Ghost of Paley

I have just wasted rather a lot of time skimming through the latter part of this thread. Other than pandering to your ego, what purpose do you think your comments serve? As Louis, Lenny and others have already pointed out, your comments are neither informative or amusing, and appear devoid of any other redeeming feature. It may be possible for you to produce an interesting comment, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it. Do you really have nothing better to do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi, Mr. Fox. Nice to see you drop in.

I'm disappointed you think that my comments don't delight or inform. It seems I have a dilemma on my hands: when people ask me to justify a belief, I can either ignore the request or try to answer. When I ignore people, they seem to get irritated, so that leaves the latter alternative.

Are my answers any good? All I can say is that I try my best. The anthropic coincidences seem to be a real problem in physics, with various attempts at resolution. I'm just trying to explain my interpretation.  What’s wrong with that?  Am I wasting my time any more than the people flogging Dave or Uncommon Descent?

Jeannot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley, do you really think that life/evolution violate the Second Law?   ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nah, but I agree with Berlinski that abiogenesis is still a mystery. Obviously, the mechanisms that drive the evolution of cellular critters don't violate the Second Law (#### they've been observed), but I don't think that scientists have a full handle yet on how natural processes were able to convert the Sun's energy into useful work during abiogenesis. I bet on naturalism here, but it's still an open question.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 14 2006,16:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nah, but I agree with Berlinski that abiogenesis is still a mystery. ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one said the contrary.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 14 2006,18:01

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2006,16:38)
Nah, but I agree with Berlinski that abiogenesis is still a mystery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No shit.  I suppose that's why researchers still have jobs, and haven't all retired to the Bahamas by now.

By the way, do you agree with Berlinski that ID is a load of horse crap?  Can you point to any contribution -- any at all whatsoever --- that ID is making to solving this "mystery"?

Me neither.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 14 2006,18:08

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2006,16:38)
Are my answers any good? All I can say is that I try my best
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cue Twisted Sister . . . . .


"If that's your best, your best won't dooooooooooo"
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 14 2006,18:15

Gimpy,

What universe are you living in? Oh yeah, right, now I remember.

Please point out where I have been inconsistent in my use of "reason" or moved any goalposts. Just saying it doesn't make it so you know.

Louis
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 14 2006,18:48

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2006,15:42)
Ha, Ha! Ogee, arguing with you is like cuffing a puppy around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?  How's that fine-tuning probability argument coming along?  :D  :D  :D   Shall we queue the violins for your next little bout of whining about being insulted?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So can you rebut Berlinkski's claims, Ogee? If not, then his critique stands as the final word on the matter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where did you get this infantile notion that whoever posts the most verbiage or posts the last word wins?  It explains much about your debating style, but doesn't hold water.  As for re-refuting DB, I lack your gusto for clogging the thread with tracts pasted from Google searches.  I am more than content to have pointed to the threads in question (and the talk.origins site) to let the interested reader see for themselves.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 14 2006,19:49

Yeah, that's what I thought.

No one can rebut the Big B's arguments, eh?

I even bolded the important bits. One-stop shopping.


Ogee:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2006,15:42)
Ha, Ha! Ogee, arguing with you is like cuffing a puppy around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

Really?  How's that fine-tuning probability argument coming along?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since I provided one of the best arguments against the fine-tuning interpretation (I-J's paper) while showing where that rebuttal went wrong (the authors didn't include the observation of low tolerances in the initial probability), I think I'm doing OK. As I-J themselves noted, failing to condition initially on all the relevant background information gets you nowhere in this type of analysis. They left out a key observation, and this cripples the rest of the proof. Trying to account for the observation later doesn't square the circle.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Shall we queue the violins for your next little bout of whining about being insulted?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That doesn't sound like a proper rebuttal to me..... it sounds like a change of subject instead. Why would you want to do that, seeing as how ya got Berlinski on the ropes and all?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where did you get this infantile notion that whoever posts the most verbiage or posts the last word wins?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If the last word shows where the first word screws up, then the last word wins. As for verbiage, the dingos gave more than they got, not that it did them any good. Face it, Nilsson-Pelger used a shaky model, their peers didn't call them on it, so Berlinski had to set things straight. Better luck next time.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for re-refuting DB, I lack your gusto for clogging the thread with tracts pasted from Google searches.  I am more than content to have pointed to the threads in question (and the talk.origins site) to let the interested reader see for themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your third link left out the crucial information, while the first two blew up in your face ACME-style. Larry Moran was ashamed at how his peers did, and so am I. It seems that Louis and Lenny debating tactics don't go over so well with some scientists. Good for them -- bullshit needs to be called regardless of which side of the aisle the odor's wafting from. I wish that there were more scientists like Dr. Moran.

Strange Fruit:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, do you agree with Berlinski that ID is a load of horse crap?  Can you point to any contribution -- any at all whatsoever --- that ID is making to solving this "mystery"?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What does this have to do with anything? You pull this tu quoque crap everytime scientists get caught with their pants down. ID might be worthless and some of its proponents dishonest, but that doesn't give real scientists permission to behave likewise. Personally, I'm glad that evolutionary biology has come of age, and can rely on real arguments rather than throwing stones at Genesis.

Personally, I think this forum needs more Berlinskis.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 14 2006,19:52

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2006,19:49)
Personally, I think this forum needs more Berlinskis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Personally, no one cares what you think.  (shrug)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 14 2006,20:22

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please point out where I have been inconsistent in my use of "reason" or moved any goalposts. Just saying it doesn't make it so you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your reference to emotion and literary criticism wrongly assumes, as I mentioned before, that these are not examples of the application of reason and observation. They are, and thus they are understandable by the scientific method, which ultimately it is after all the application of reason and observation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then in a later post:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) My argument is that reason, logically coherent rational though and honest reference to observation are the the only ways of knowing anything about anything. Science is a field in which this process is most closely applied. Read back, I've made this, oooooh perhaps slightly clear to anyone with a reading age of over 5.
[...]
3) I'll try to put a point I've mentioned before, but you've skipped, a different way for you. What does the subjective reasoning involved in literary criticism tell anyone? What knowledge does it garner? It tells you lots about the person expressing it, it can tell you lots of things about the social environment of the person making and perhaps also the subject of said criticism. And so on and so forth. This is reasoning and observation, this is making models and predictions about the universe (which after all includes humans) and hopefully, testing them. Postmodernist lit crit, or rather the extreme end of it, is really nothing more than fantastical mental masturbation. Look for example at the hilarious Sokal hoax, one example in a series which demonstrates very clearly that a lot of this stuff is academic window dressing, lots of arrogant people saying a great deal about nothing,.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not only is the little lecture about the pitfalls of postmodernism irrelevant to the point I'm making (I'm not a postmodernist, by the way....don't get caught up in catch phrases), these statements, taken collectively, render your argument (such as it is) incoherent. Is literary criticism based on scientific methodology or isn't it? If the reasoning behind it is "subjective", then it clearly isn't science, and the fact that we can use science to discuss the epiphenomena surrounding lit crit (social conditions, the mental states of the critic himself) doesn't change that uncomfortable truth. But wait....lit crit is "understandable by the scientific method, which ultimately [...] is after all the application of reason and observation". Unless the criticism is extreme, in which case it's fantastical mental masturbation. Not that subjectivity itself is bad, (I wouldn't want to insert the word 'objective' into your argument and run with a strawman), so subjective interpretation is science. Unless these subjective interpretations are made by Louis's critics, in which case it's trolling and wankery. You dig?

And these are Louis's good arguments. Embedded, as always, in a steaming pile of insults. Which he's allowed, since I'm obviously not being honest with my position, because if I was then Louis would agree with me and act civilised.

You dig?
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 14 2006,20:25

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2006,19:49)
Since I provided one of the best arguments against the fine-tuning interpretation (I-J's paper) while showing where that rebuttal went wrong (the authors didn't include the observation of low tolerances in the initial probability), I think I'm doing OK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Err.. you claimed they equivocated, then backpedalled and claimed that the fine-tuning argument is not a statement of probability, and asserted that conditioning on "brittleness" would change the outcome. The demonstration of any of this has apparently been lost in the mail.  If that's "doing OK", I shudder to think what your "doing badly" looks like.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the last word shows where the first word screws up, then the last word wins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, IF.  I'm glad you posted Berlinski's response (which I had not read before): it's quite telling, albeit not in the manner you think it is.  Again, I encourage interested readers to compare Berlinski's complaints to the paper itself and evaluate.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wish that there were more scientists like Dr. Moran.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This professed admiration of yours for Moran's high standards of conduct might ring a little truer if you were not a documented hypocrite, troll, bigot and liar.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Personally, I think this forum needs more Berlinskis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So do I: that we're stuck with the likes of afdave and you is depressing.  I would be delighted if some higher-grade pseudoscientists had the stones to operate in a forum like this.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 14 2006,21:12

Ogee:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Err.. you claimed they equivocated, then backpedalled and claimed that the fine-tuning argument is not a statement of probability, and asserted that conditioning on "brittleness" would change the outcome. The demonstration of any of this has apparently been lost in the mail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Didn't you understand their proof?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our main theorem
Having understood the previous discussion, and with our notation in hand, it is now easy to prove that the WAP does not support supernaturalism (which we take to be the negation ~N of N). Recall that the WAP can be written as P(F|N&L)=1. Then, by Bayes' theorem [see footnote 2] we have

P(N|F&L) =  P(F|N&L)P(N|L)/P(F|L)

       =  P(N|L)/P(F|L)

       >= P(N|L)
where '>=' means "greater than or equal to." The second line follows because P(F|N&L)=1, and the inequality of the third line follows because P(F|L) is a positive quantity less than or equal to 1. (The above demonstration is inspired by a recent article on talk.origins by Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com>; we have simplified the proof in his article. The message ID for the cited article is <5j6dq8$bvj@winter.erols.com> for those who wish to search for it on dejanews.)

The inequality P(N|F&L)>=P(N|L) shows that the WAP supports (or at least does not undermine) the hypothesis that the universe is governed by naturalistic law. This result is, as we have emphasized, independent of how large or small P(F|N) is. The observation F cannot decrease the probability that N is true (given the known background information that life exists in our universe), and may well increase it.

Corollary: Since P(~N|F&L)=1-P(N|F&L) and similarly for P(~N|L), it follows that P(~N|F&L)<=P(~N|L). In other words, the observation F does not support supernaturalism (~N), and may well undermine it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See the bolded part? That means, "the probability that the universe is life friendly given naturalism and the existence of life". "Friendly",as you've already admitted, is defined as life compatible. Oh, here, let me quote the < paper: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
b) Our universe is "life friendly," that is, the conditions in our universe (such as physical laws, etc.) permit or are compatible with life existing naturalistically.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, given those conditions, then the bolded probability equals 1, and cancels just like they said. But what if we add another observation:
B: "The constants that permit life have low tolerances"?

Then the probability becomes P(N|F&L&B) =  P(N|F&(L&B))=P(F|N&(L&B))P(N|(L&B))/P(F|(L&B))=P(F|N&L&B)P(N|L&B)/P(F|L&B). Can you cancel now without assuming what you're trying to prove? Remember, you admitted that the coincidences themselves were "observations", and as the authors remind us:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Third, we will show that for any argument to be sound, it must include all background information which is known to be true and which affects (changes) the likelihood. In the present situation, L has this status. This will motivate in a formal way our assertion that we must condition on L.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, we don't really know if my B truly affects the likelihood, but then you would be reasoning in a circle, since you're assuming brittleness is irrelevant to the problem, which is err....what we're investigating in the first place.

I could be wrong, but insults won't change the likelihood.  ;)

I've laid out my objection as clearly as I can. I'll retract it if you or anyone else shows me where I screwed up, but you need to show the flaws explicitly. Once again, I don't mind being wrong, but I need to see where. Emotives won't work.
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 15 2006,01:36

That's a shame: you almost figured it out for yourself, but let the instruction continue...

You can indeed cancel the first term on the RHS, because it also equals unity:

P(F|L&N&B) = 1.

Why?  Any natural universe known to contain life must be life-friendly.  The conditioning on B cannot reduce the probability of F once L is observed in a natural universe.   Not a good start for demonstrating B is relevant here.

Anyway, this leaves:

P(N|F&L&B) = P(N|L&B)/P(F|L&B)

P(F|(L&B) <= 1

Therefore P(N|F&L&B) >= P(N|L&B)

We once again must conclude that, no matter the degree of "brittleness" assumed or "observed", the additional observation of F cannot undermine N (but could support it). We find that B does not influence this conclusion at all, and that therefore conditioning on B is unnecessary.  Contrast this with conditioning on L, which has a dramatic effect on the probabilities (and, without which, the 1st RHS term could not be cancelled).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Didn't you understand their proof?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D  :D  :D
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 15 2006,02:45

{deep breath}

BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAA

1) First my argument never was that lit crit is based on science, but that it is based on reason and observation. So your strawman (pointed out pages ago by the way) is still irrelevant! What I HAVE said (very very clearly btw) is that both science and lit crit etc are based on the application of reason, and that reason and observation are used with varying degrees of ability and accuracy. Nice of you to ignore that Gimpy!

2) The extreme ends of postmodern lit crit are DEMONSTRATED mental masturbation. I'm not talking about subjectivity (already dealt with, sorry sweetheart), I'm talking about the puff pieces of people like Derrida, pieces in which they say nothing but cover it is obfuscatory verbiage. Like I said, these are the things exposed by the Sokal hoax. This is NOT simple subjectivity by the way, it's the extreme cultural relativism that claims that the scientific claim that the moon is made of rock is equally valid (i.e. representative of reality) to the claim that it is made of green cheese. This is essentially the claim that all mechanisms of acquiring knowledge about the universe are equally successful without ever being allowed to examine their products.

Nice try troll. You demonstrate your lack of ability to follow an argument, read for comprehension and do anything other than google trawl.....yet again.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 15 2006,03:15

Forgot my post script.

Is anyone else extremely amused by Gimpy's Black Knight act? "'Tis but a flesh wound", "Come back, I'll bite your kneecaps off".

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 15 2006,14:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's a shame: you almost figured it out for yourself, but let the instruction continue...

You can indeed cancel the first term on the RHS, because it also equals unity:

P(F|L&N&B) = 1.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's true, I forgot that life friendliness follows automatically from L&N&anything else. But let's see where this leads:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P(N|F&L&B) = P(N|L&B)/P(F|L&B)

P(F|(L&B) <= 1

Therefore P(N|F&L&B) >= P(N|L&B)

We once again must conclude that, no matter the degree of "brittleness" assumed or "observed", the additional observation of F cannot undermine N (but could support it).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But that's only because "Friendliness" can only help naturalism regardless of the other observations. Notice that B remains in the denominator on both sides, so this only shows that F increases --or does not decrease-- the likelihood of natualism if we compare our universe to a life-containing one whose laws may or may not be life friendly, but are brittle. You need to show that P(N|F&L&B) >= P(N|F&L) to show that B is unimportant. You have not done this. To be fair, that probably isn't your fault, because I'm skeptical that such a calculation is currently possible. Future discoveries may change this unhappy state of affairs.

To sum up, when B is included in the initial probability, then the proof evaporates, leaving Ogee's rather mundane conclusion. Bayes doesn't seem to be very informative here.
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 15 2006,17:07

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 15 2006,14:06)
Notice that B remains in the denominator on both sides, so this only shows that F increases --or does not decrease-- the likelihood of natualism if we compare our universe to a life-containing one whose laws may or may not be life friendly, but are brittle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nonsense.  "Brittleness" is not a property of a particular universe, but a statement on the range of physical parameters constants that will satisfy F, and thus applies for all universes.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You need to show that P(N|F&L&B) >= P(N|F&L) to show that B is unimportant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, I don't:

1)  The positive claim is that B (in conjunction with F) supports ~N.   This has been shown to be utterly unsupported, which is sufficient to reject the cosmological ID argument.

2) Your specific claim that conditioning on B will change the outcome of Ikeda-Jeffery's anthropic principle argument has been competely refuted.
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 15 2006,17:45

Worse yet, although it has been granted as an assumption for the sake of argument above, you still have not even established that B is a legitimate predicate, as opposed to a disguised statement about P(F|N).

That your argument fails even if this dubious assumption is granted is pretty indicative of its quality.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 15 2006,20:02

Ogee:

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 15 2006,14:06)
Notice that B remains in the denominator on both sides, so this only shows that F increases --or does not decrease-- the likelihood of natualism if we compare our universe to a life-containing one whose laws may or may not be life friendly, but are brittle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    Nonsense.  "Brittleness" is not a property of a particular universe, but a statement on the range of physical parameters constants that will satisfy F, and thus applies for all universes.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nonsense? Brittleness is simply the observation of low tolerances. Some universes could have tolerances within several orders of magnitude, while others may have very narrow ranges. The fact that a continuum exists does not forbid a qualitative statement. "Life", for example, is hard to define precisely. So is the concept of "species". Now look at your probability again:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore P(N|F&L&B) >= P(N|L&B)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This translates as: " The probability of 'naturalism' given 'life-friendliness', 'the existence of life', and 'brittleness' is greater than or equal to the probability of naturalism conditioned only on 'life' and 'brittleness' ". We are comparing one life-containing, brittle universe to another, and finding that additional knowledge of "friendliness" does not undermine N. As I've said from the beginning, of course it doesn't! In fact, if the laws are not friendly then the probability of naturalism goes to 0 under WAP. This assumption allows the cancellation to be made.

Of course, you dispute this statement in your last posts (for some reason, you think rewording the same objection leads to multiple objections). I understand that you disagree. But as I've shown in previous posts, "brittleness" is detachable from low probability statements, and it is also observed. Ask any physicist. Therefore, the original formulation is sound.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
You need to show that P(N|F&L&B) >= P(N|F&L) to show that B is unimportant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Actually, I don't:

1)  The positive claim is that B (in conjunction with F) supports ~N.   This has been shown to be utterly unsupported, which is sufficient to reject the cosmological ID argument.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



F in conjunction with any observation will not undermine N, because we know life exists. This shows how hollow the I-J proof really is, because it demonstrates that, say, finding a transcendental number encoded in DNA, or finding the first verse of genesis inscribed in a nebula, can only support N so long as it's coupled with life and life-friendliness -- or simply life alone!* Change B's definition and the proof marches on, undisturbed. But the true comparison is between brittle and tolerant universes, and not among brittle universes.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) Your specific claim that conditioning on B will change the outcome of Ikeda-Jeffery's anthropic principle argument has been competely refuted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then why are the final probabilities only comparing brittle universes? It's because "brittleness" is now a predicate instead of an assumption of a low P(N|F&L). The I-J proof is based on the belief that "brittleness" is simply a low probability argument. It is not; we cannot assume that P(N|F&L) << 1 from brittleness alone. You do realise that physicists didn't have to find low tolerances, don't you?

*[edit:Since I'm beginning to suspect that conditioning on N implies F. Sorry if I didn't make this clearer]
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 15 2006,21:10

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) First my argument never was that lit crit is based on science, but that it is based on reason and observation. So your strawman (pointed out pages ago by the way) is still irrelevant! What I HAVE said (very very clearly btw) is that both science and lit crit etc are based on the application of reason, and that reason and observation are used with varying degrees of ability and accuracy. Nice of you to ignore that Gimpy!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I haven't. I have consistently acknowledged that a loose form of reasoning can be applied to the analysis of literature. But it's qualitatively, and not just quantitatively different from the scientific reasoning that yields the objective information you admire. In addition, subjective judgements are hopelessly intertwined, so not only are the humanities "less accurate" than science, the term "accuracy" really has no meaning. That's why you keep referencing the epiphenomena surrounding literature; you can only make these items correspond to science, and not the study of literature itself.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) The extreme ends of postmodern lit crit are DEMONSTRATED mental masturbation. I'm not talking about subjectivity (already dealt with, sorry sweetheart), I'm talking about the puff pieces of people like Derrida, pieces in which they say nothing but cover it is obfuscatory verbiage. Like I said, these are the things exposed by the Sokal hoax. This is NOT simple subjectivity by the way, it's the extreme cultural relativism that claims that the scientific claim that the moon is made of rock is equally valid (i.e. representative of reality) to the claim that it is made of green cheese. This is essentially the claim that all mechanisms of acquiring knowledge about the universe are equally successful without ever being allowed to examine their products.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So do subjective experiences and statements have content, or not?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nice try troll. You demonstrate your lack of ability to follow an argument, read for comprehension and do anything other than google trawl.....yet again.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then make a coherent argument. Saying "It's all a form of reason, man" is not enough. Is emotional reasoning fruitful? Are subjective experiences fruitful? Please give straight answers.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 15 2006,21:27

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 15 2006,21:10)
Then make a coherent argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWA HA HA HA HA AHA  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's pretty #### funny, coming from the King of All Blitherers.
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 15 2006,22:31

More howlers from our village idiot:
   
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 15 2006,20:02)
Nonsense? Brittleness is simply the observation of low tolerances. Some universes could have tolerances within several orders of magnitude, while others may have very narrow ranges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, total fucking nonsense.  I challenge you to name just one physicist that supports such idiocy.  Absolutely staggering.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F in conjunction with any observation will not undermine N, because we know life exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Finally, you get something right (once more today and there's a nice, shiny Broken Clock medal with your pseudonym on it).  This is exactly I-J's point - and it critically wounds cosmo-ID, which holds that the combination of  P(F|N)<<1 and the observation of F undermine N.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This shows how hollow the I-J proof really is, because it demonstrates that, say, finding a transcendental number encoded in DNA, or finding the first verse of genesis inscribed in a nebula, can only support N so long as it's coupled with life and life-friendliness -- or simply life alone! Change B's definition and the proof marches on, undisturbed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Christ, you're dumb.  First, B cannot support N (or ~N) - a crucial consequence of its irrelevance.  Second, those other observations might have an influence on P(N), but which must be independently established: they have nothing to do with fine-tuning.  Ikeda-Jefferys deals with the cosmo-ID fine-tuning argument: that irrelevancies do not alter the conclusions is hardly a flaw.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then why are the final probabilities only comparing brittle universes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Brittleness" isn't a property of universes, dimwit, it is the constraints on life-friendly physical laws and constants.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 16 2006,03:31

Gimpy,

I HAVE made a coherent argument about precisely the "complaints" you make. Try reading for comprehension once in a while. Your monsterous lack of understanding and honesty is yet again horribly obvious.

I'm getting a sense of deja vu here: you get your argument demolished and just keep repeating your claims ad nauseum and claiming them unrefuted. No Gimpy, subjective and emotional reasoning in the arts is not qualitatively different from reason. You also haven't suppied any support for your claims, you just keep reasserting your original claim.

Look Gimpy, the reason you attract mockery and abuse is because you are thoroughly dishonest. You haven't successfully made one argument since you've been here as far as I (and indeed anyone else) is aware, at least partially because of this. This is a classic example. You keep referring back to your strawman version of my argument  being "objectivity and science underpin the arts", which it isn't. My point is that reason and observation underlie the arts and emotions, and that, whilst there are differences in the accuracy and conscious use of these tools, they are the same tools as those used in science. You've done nothing to demonstrate this is false except continually reassert your original claim.

It's amusing to see your level of cognitive dissonance go up a notch, so desperate are you to attempt to justify your existing prejudices (you do know what that word means right?). Also amusing to see it starkly delineated in your conversation with Ogee. Le Spectre de Paley, nil points.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 16 2006,08:47

Ogee:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, total fucking nonsense.  I challenge you to name just one physicist that supports such idiocy.  Absolutely staggering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let me know when you've replaced your temper tantrum with an actual objection.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
F in conjunction with any observation will not undermine N, because we know life exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Finally, you get something right (once more today and there's a nice, shiny Broken Clock medal with your pseudonym on it).  This is exactly I-J's point - and it critically wounds cosmo-ID, which holds that the combination of  P(F|N)<<1 and the observation of F undermine N.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Keep this in mind. Ogee does not.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christ, you're dumb.  First, B cannot support N (or ~N) - a crucial consequence of its irrelevance.  Second, those other observations might have an influence on P(N), but which must be independently established: they have nothing to do with fine-tuning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How would you know what B supports? The analysis only compares brittle universes, not brittle universes with non-brittle ones.

More later.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 16 2006,09:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But what if we add another observation:
B: "The constants that permit life have low tolerances"?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't KNOW what the "tolerances " for life are, and neither do I. Therefore your entire argument is held in abeyance.
Life is indeed hard to define, but I have used this one before, from the Santa Fe Institute: " living systems may be defined as open systems maintained in steady-states, far-from-equilibrium, due to matter-energy flows in which informed autocatalytic cycles extract energy, build complex internal structures, allowing growth even as they create greater entropy in their environments."

Here's another: "Living organisms are autopoietic systems: self-constructing, self-maintaining, energy-transducing autocatalytic entities” in which information needed to construct the next generation of organisms is stabilized in molecules that replicate within the context of protective cells and work with other developmental resources during the life-cycles of organisms, but they are also “systems capable of evolving by variation and natural selection: self-reproducing entities, whose forms and functions are adapted to their environment and reflect the composition and history of an ecosystem” (Harold, F.M. 2001. The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life. New York: Oxford University Press).


The debate over even this terminology is intense and has not been resolved. To include claims about "tolerances" of life in any theoretical discussion is unwarranted at this point, even if some universe constructs don't allow for the aggregation/increase of matter/energy. Would you use an undelimited variable such as this under other circumstances? And declare a positive answer?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 16 2006,11:07

Oooh oohh while I remember.

What are these "other ways of knowing", from where, when and how are they coming to "a country near me"? If you think that lit crit/art appreciation/emotion are "other ways of knowing" please explain how these things are not already in "a country near me" and where they are coming from.

YOU propose "other ways of knowing" Gimpy, the burden of proof rests on YOU to demonstrate them. As well as the fact that you have yet to address one single point of my argument, except of course to repeat your original unsupported claims and make up silly strawmen to bash about.

Are you going to get honest any time soon or are you content with trolling and making yourself look like a total moron?

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 16 2006,11:11

Deadman:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The debate over even this terminology is intense and has not been resolved. To include claims about "tolerances" of life in any theoretical discussion is unwarranted at this point, even if some universe constructs don't allow for the aggregation/increase of matter/energy. Would you use an undelimited variable such as this under other circumstances? And declare a positive answer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a very good point that goes to the heart of the matter. I'm skeptical about I-J's entire approach to the problem, because even if you define "low tolerances" as they do (P(N|F&L)<<1) this conditional probability doesn't say very much, because most reasonable people would agree that observing F (which we do, more or less) cannot decrease P(N) under any circumstances. But I'm arguing that we need to show that P(N|F&L) with low tolerances >= P(N|F&L) with high tolerances. Their formulation cannot show this. All it can say is, "well, if B applies, then the observation of F favours our lifey universe over another lifey universe where F is not observed. That's nice, but I'm worried about how brittleness affects the probabilities when contrasted with universes with larger tolerances.

This may not be possible to model (and please note that I have freely admitted this), but the problem doesn't go away just because we can't beat it into scientific form just yet -- or ever?

Neverhteless, I still think you should condition on B, even though this is a continuous variable. Perhaps give tolerance a numeric range?

More later.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 16 2006,13:59

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No[....], subjective and emotional reasoning in the arts is not qualitatively different from reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So does a theological debate qualify as a form of reason? Yes or no first, then explain.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My point is that reason and observation underlie the arts and emotions, and that, whilst there are differences in the accuracy and conscious use of these tools, they are the same tools as those used in science. You've done nothing to demonstrate this is false except continually reassert your original claim.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok, then, what disqualifies theological debate? God may not be able to be observed directly (assuming he exists), but both reason and observation are applied in this domain as well. People observe the structure of the universe, and use these observations to derive a theological conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence (no human observed the evolution of whales from artiodactyls, but by interpreting genes and fossils we can infer the event). See, by casting your net so wide you've captured everything, which means your argument goes hungry.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 16 2006,16:33

I'm getting into this debate a little late; sorry I'm responding to a post from three weeks ago.

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,03:54)
This is why they conditioned on L. Too bad they also didn't condition on Fine-Tuning, even though it's observed and is valid "background information".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




But I'm not sure "fine tuning" has been observed.

The prime candidate for a "finely tuned" constant is, of course, the Cosmological Constant. It's got to be what it is within 120 orders of magnitude (and, probably not coincidentally, is mispredicted by most current theories by about 120 orders of magnitude), or the universe would either have immediately recollapsed, or immediately have expanded to infinity.

As far as anyone knows, there are no constraints on what the cosmological constant could be. One of the principal objects to string theory as it's currently constituted is its inability to pick out one set of physical parameters out of 10^500 mathematically-consistent possibilities. But given our limited understanding of why any physical parameter takes the value it does in the observable universe, I think it's premature to take it as a given that fine tuning has been observed. For all we know (and this is certainly the fondest hope of the high-energy physics community), there may in fact be only one mathematically-consistent value for all or most physical parameters, which of course would render the fine-tuning matter moot (a point I-J make in their paper.)
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 16 2006,18:17

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 16 2006,11:11)
Neverhteless, I still think you should condition on B, even though this is a continuous variable. Perhaps give tolerance a numeric range?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D  :D  :D  (emphasis mine) I thought you said that B was a statement, and not a probability?  Statements are not "continuous variables", they are propositions like "the universe is natural in origin" which are either true or false.  Probabilities, on the other hand, are continuous variables, and you cannot condition on a continuous variable.  It's a shame that progress has to come because of your Google-scholar level comprehension, rather than an honest concession, but I'll take it.
   
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 16 2006,08:47)
Let me know when you've replaced your temper tantrum with an actual objection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me know when you've replaced your handwaving and whinging with some actual support for your claims.  

Since you dodged right past it, I'll have to repeat:

"Brittleness" isn't a property of universes, dimwit, it is the constraints on life-friendly physical laws and constants.

I accept your tacit concession that you will not find even one physicist to agree with your absolutely idioitic claim that it's universes that are brittle.  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How would you know what B supports?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I showed above that, even if we grant that B is a legit predicate,  conditioning on B has no influence on the Ikeda-Jefferys argument.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The analysis only compares brittle universes, not brittle universes with non-brittle ones.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since you respond to refutations of your nonsense with mere repetitions of the same claims, I see no reason not to simply cut-and-paste the points you can't answer:

"Brittleness" isn't a property of universes, dimwit, it is the constraints on life-friendly physical laws and constants.

Let's summarize Paley's foray into fine-tuning thus far:

1) Paley claimed that I-J equivocated on F. This was proven wrong - and shown to probably originate with the source of most all of Paley's "knowledge": Wikipedia. 0 for 1.

2) Paley claimed that conditioning on "brittleness" would collapse the I-J argument.  I proved above that it doesn't change it one whit.  Paley has provided exactly zero evidence in support of his assertion.  0 for 2.

3) Paley claimed that his (as-yet not precisely defined) "brittleness" statement is a legitimate predicate, which could be conditioned upon in Bayesian probability arguments.  He accidentally admitted that this is false.  0 for 3

4) Paley claimed that "brittleness" is a property of specific universes, as opposed to life-permitting physics.  Aside from its rather obvious inanity (and total lack of support among those who study "fine-tuning"), Paley has provided exactly zero evidence in support of this assertion.  0 for 4.

Ouch.  Given this kind of performance, it's understandable that Paley has attempted to distract from these failure and fallaciously shift the burden of proof regarding his positive assertion that "brittleness" changes the probability that the universe is natural in origin.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 16 2006,18:32

ericmurphy:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I'm not sure "fine tuning" has been observed.

The prime candidate for a "finely tuned" constant is, of course, the Cosmological Constant. It's got to be what it is within 120 orders of magnitude (and, probably not coincidentally, is mispredicted by most current theories by about 120 orders of magnitude), or the universe would either have immediately recollapsed, or immediately have expanded to infinity.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And what makes this matter especially confusing is that some models interpret the small positive value as provisionally ~F, i.e. as inconsistent with naturalistic origins. On the other hand, quintessence models with tracker fields use this value as evidence. Fortunately there are other coincidences to play with.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as anyone knows, there are no constraints on what the cosmological constant could be. One of the principal objects to string theory as it's currently constituted is its inability to pick out one set of physical parameters out of 10^500 mathematically-consistent possibilities. But given our limited understanding of why any physical parameter takes the value it does in the observable universe, I think it's premature to take it as a given that fine tuning has been observed. For all we know (and this is certainly the fondest hope of the high-energy physics community), there may in fact be only one mathematically-consistent value for all or most physical parameters, which of course would render the fine-tuning matter moot (a point I-J make in their paper.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, there could be an underlying natural principle, multiple universes, or even one self-tuning universe. The fine tuning argument implicitly assumes that the constants can take arbitrary values, and that there haven't been enough trials to "choose" a life-friendly universe. That's why I try to use terms like "low tolerances" instead of "fine-tuning".

I still think I-J show only that a lifey universe with friendly laws is at least as likely as a lifey universe with unobserved friendliness. This doesn't imply that brittleness doesn't significantly impact the probability of naturalism IMHO.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 16 2006,18:42

Another, rather conceptual as opposed to logical, problem I have with debates of this type revolves around the term "life-friendly." I think a better choice would be "life-permitting," since it seems far from clear that the universe we inhabit is in any way "life friendly." Surely the vast bulk of the universe is implacably hostile to any form of life familiar to us, and as far as anyone knows (I do not personally believe this to be the case), the only place life exists in the entire universe is right here on the surface of the earth.

It often appears that life exists in the universe in spite of rather than because of natural law. Surely a creator with an interest in life would not have been quite so profligate in creating life-hostile real estate. If the universe was created, the evidence seems to support the notion that life was not high on the list of desirable features. In fact, normal matter does not appear to have been too high on the feature list, either.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 16 2006,19:59

Ogee:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 16 2006,11:11)
Neverhteless, I still think you should condition on B, even though this is a continuous variable. Perhaps give tolerance a numeric range?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




     (emphasis mine) I thought you said that B was a statement, and not a probability?  Statements are not "continuous variables", they are propositions like "the universe is natural in origin" which are either true or false.  Probabilities, on the other hand, are continuous variables, and you cannot condition on a continuous variable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Two fallacies in your argument:

1) The fact that probabilities are continuous variables does not imply that continuous variables are probabilities, one only being the converse of the other. This is important, because I've said many many times that low tolerances are detachable from probabilistic statements (and certainly from any particular probabilistic value: competing physical models return conflicting interpretations about what the coincidences imply for our universe).

2) Adding a numeric range can turn a continuous variable into a qualitative statement. For example: "Changing a universe's cosmological constant by an order of magnitude will change its spatial geometry." Sounds like a true-false statement to me.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's a shame that progress has to come because of your Google-scholar level comprehension, rather than an honest concession, but I'll take it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, you're takin it, all right. But I can understand why you'd shy from "Google scholarship", as your last foray didn't turn out so well.  ;)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 16 2006,08:47)
Let me know when you've replaced your temper tantrum with an actual objection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let me know when you've replaced your handwaving and whinging with some actual support for your claims.  

Since you dodged right past it, I'll have to repeat:

"Brittleness" isn't a property of universes, dimwit, it is the constraints on life-friendly physical laws and constants.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not just life friendly laws, but laws affecting the creation and type of matter in the universe, its spatial geometry, age -- all of which can be studied independently of the existence of life. For example, universes that contain only hydrogen may be able to tolerate dramatic changes in their weak force parameters and remain hydrogen-only regions. Likewise for helium-only universes. But universes with heavier elements cannot tolerate large changes in this parameter.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
How would you know what B supports?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I showed above that, even if we grant that B is a legit predicate,  conditioning on B has no influence on the Ikeda-Jefferys argument.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which deals with relative likelihoods among like instead of unlike universes. This alone compromises the validity of their argument. I notice that you avoid this point, which is central to my argument. Why is this?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's summarize Paley's foray into fine-tuning thus far:

1) Paley claimed that I-J equivocated on F. This was proven wrong - and shown to probably originate with the source of most all of Paley's "knowledge": Wikipedia. 0 for 1.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, you could say that I attempted to tighten my argument. But my central point has never changed.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) Paley claimed that conditioning on "brittleness" would collapse the I-J argument.  I proved above that it doesn't change it one whit.  Paley has provided exactly zero evidence in support of his assertion.  0 for 2.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



On the contrary, adding B showed how empty their argument really is. After all, the final conditional probabilities could not cancel B, and was therefore left comparing the likelihoods of two flavours of brittle universes, which is not very informative.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) Paley claimed that his (as-yet not precisely defined) "brittleness" statement is a legitimate predicate, which could be conditioned upon in Bayesian probability arguments.  He accidentally admitted that this is false.  0 for 3

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See above.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4) Paley claimed that "brittleness" is a property of specific universes, as opposed to life-permitting physics.  Aside from its rather obvious inanity (and total lack of support among those who study "fine-tuning"), Paley has provided exactly zero evidence in support of this assertion.  0 for 4.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I just gave an example in this post. You could have discovered it yourself if you didn't disdain that Google thang.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ouch.  Given this kind of performance, it's understandable that Paley has attempted to distract from these failure and fallaciously shift the burden of proof regarding his positive assertion that "brittleness" changes the probability that the universe is natural in origin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What?? I said two times that this calculation might not even be possible. How does this place the burden on anyone's shoulders? I'm just disappointed that the Ikeda-Jeffries proof is so uninformative. I'm not saying that I can do any better.

Eric:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another, rather conceptual as opposed to logical, problem I have with debates of this type revolves around the term "life-friendly." I think a better choice would be "life-permitting," since it seems far from clear that the universe we inhabit is in any way "life friendly." Surely the vast bulk of the universe is implacably hostile to any form of life familiar to us, and as far as anyone knows (I do not personally believe this to be the case), the only place life exists in the entire universe is right here on the surface of the earth.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



True, and these observations sink any Earth-based anthropic coincidences.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It often appears that life exists in the universe in spite of rather than because of natural law. Surely a creator with an interest in life would not have been quite so profligate in creating life-hostile real estate. If the universe was created, the evidence seems to support the notion that life was not high on the list of desirable features. In fact, normal matter does not appear to have been too high on the feature list, either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It does seem rather wasteful, doesn't it? I have no explanation other than to note that nature (and Nature's God?) is smarter than we are.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 17 2006,05:27

Gimpy,

Is a theological argument based on reason and observation?

You want a yes or no answer I see, fallacy time! False dilemma much Gimpy?

As far as it goes the answer is mostly yes, it's possible to have a reasoned, logical discussion of a hypothetical, unobserved object. But that's not the point of a theological argument is it? Theology is a field which is based on a logical fallacy (at least one) and is based about establishing something as fact for which there is no evidence. And by the way if you think that evolution relies on circumstantial evidence in the manner you describe (your strawvolution!;) you are very sadly mistaken.

You're conflating several things, deliberately dishonestly in my view. Theology is by no means scientific, it lacks some of the key elements, reliance on physical observation and honesty for a start. However it is as reasoned as literary criticism for the very reasons I mention above. If one treats theology as a branch of lit crit and philosophy (which to an independant observer, i.e. one outside of the specific religion that theology is dealing with, it is) then it is no less reason based than those fields. The arguments about interpretations of texts are reasoned, logical models based on observation of those texts, no problems there.

The problem theology as a field has is when it strays into things llike theodicy and "proofs of god" etc, all of which have been demonstrated to be based on logical fallacies or are contrary to observation or both. No doubt these are reasoned arguments based in part on observation, but they are neither accurate nor honest nor without fallacy. So they are based in part on reason, in part on faith in the proposition they are trying to prove is true (affirmation of the consequent is a big problem in theology) and totally devoid of any physical accuracy or observation. Thus they are not science or scientific, but they are at least in part due to reason.

A good analogy here would be a mathematical model/system with no corroborating observations from the real world to back it up. The model/system can be logically coherent, entirely reasoned and based on reason, and fallacy free. This doesn't mean that it's representative of reality (or not) because no reference to reality has been, or can be made. Numerous theories in maths and theoretical physics have been through, or are in this phase of development. This distinction I want to draw here with theology I hope illuminates something for you. Note that the same can be said of any similarly structured philosophical or theological idea. However, and here's the crunch, while these things can be the product of reason, they are missing the key elements needed to go that step further and be scientific. They are missing an honest evalutation of the observed universe and phenomena they seek to describe. So nice fantasies, even possibly coherent fantasies, but indistinguishable from fantasies of any other type.

Why is this most commonly the case for theology? Typically theological arguments work from a starting point of unstated and unquestionable axioms based on faith alone. Not all of them do, just most. Theologians are more than capable and intelligent enough to create logically coherent, reasoned models based on entirely specious bases. The problem with theology is not so much the arguments, although in many cases even these are fallacious, it's the axioms. This is why the answer to your question is both yes and no depending on which aspects of theology you are asking about. Is theology based on reason and observation, yes in as much as lit crit is, no in the manner that science is.

The key point is that the tools are the same, or very similar (reason, observation, logic) but they are being applied to an unreasoned, unobserved, illogical series of axioms. As I said right at the very start, the only other "ways of knowing" we'll come across will reduce to faith or revelation, or in fact simply be these things. The problem of theology is starkly obvious: it starts from a premise based on faith and revelation and tries to use reason to form arguments to corroborate it and shield it from scrutiny. This simply doesn't work.

What you don't understand is that I am not casting my net wide at all, in fact since day one you clearly haven't understood the argument I'm making at all. Theology is actually a good example, it uses the tools of reason and observation but it also uses other tools, the tools I mentioned at the start of faith and revelation. Theological debates are fun and all, but they aren't garnering any knowlege of anything other than that of the protagonist's ideas and sociology. Just like in subjective debates about who's better Shakespeare or J K Rowling. The reason for this is that in theology the debates is usually based on unfounded axioms, and the simplest "who's better Shakespeare or Rowling" debate is at best poor understanding and misuse of the word "better" , i.e. a shallow treatment of a poorly defined and possibly irrelevant false dichotomy, and at worst a total non sequitur.

Simply because someone uses reason in an argument it doesn't make them right, look at you for example. You slither this way and that trying to prove the "evos and libruls" wrong, but you've yet to make one palpable hit on any argument at all. The fact that you are using top quality tools to fix you car does not make you a competant mechanic. Same applies to theologians and everyone else, they can use the right tools but make mistakes. This does not say anything about the nature of the tools, but only about the ability of the individual to apply them.

Lastly, your strawvolution example. No Gimpy, that's a bad Gimpy. As usual you have it all backwards. We don't infer the evolution of whales from artiodactyls by interpreting the results in light of the idea that whales evolved from artiodactyls, which is how your claim is structured. We observe certain similarities between artiodactyls and whales and have developed a parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon we currently observe (for all knowledge is provisional, you keep "forgetting" this, read dishonestly ignoring in order to attempt ludicrous point scoring. And failing as usual I might add). That explanation is perfectly capable of being wrong, new data might well refute it. However, therein lies the crux of the differences between science and other fields: honest and unbiased (in terms of developing a coherent explanation) appraisal and acquisition of the data. As usual Gimpy your missing the key point that nobody cares what IS the case, they just care HOW we claim to have some knowledge of what is the case. Evidence could come in tomorrow which overturns the entire state of evolutionary biology as we understand it today. In fact right now thousands of scientists are working their respective gonads off to do just this. Not out of prior commitment to any worldview, ideology or interpretation, but out of the sheer desire to find out what actually IS there, and to test every hypothesis, theory and model to destruction if at all possible.

I'll enjoy watching you distort this section of the argument as you have every other.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 17 2006,05:46

Time for some repetition. Gimpy,you are clearly a dishonest fruticake with an agenda. Not only are your arguments demonstrably erroneous and fallacious, but your motivations are clear. I'd cheerfully accept a change of one of these from you. Either make your arguments good, or change your ludicrously obvious motivations. Granted your arguments' falsity is in no way related to your motivations, but the reasons why you make such poor arguments are. Forgive me if, as usual, I seriously doubt your ability to understand the distinction.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It does seem rather wasteful, doesn't it? I have no explanation other than to note that nature (and Nature's God?) is smarter than we are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It only seems wasteful if one assumes as axiomic that life is some form of objective for the universe. The assumption that an anthropomorphised nature is smarter than we are as an actual argument (as opposed to a metaphor for the difficulty of research for examples) is yet another example of how backwards your thinking on the fine tuning issue is. Think of the puddle Gimpy, think always of the puddle.

Some things I've said before that you seem very keen to run away from:

I found this comment of yours in another thread telling:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Auster's attempt at Reductio ad absurdum isn't the best example out there, but his main point is pretty solid: science, being predicated on methodological naturalism, is often used to support metaphysical naturalism, and this is even more true for branches of science that deal with the origin and evolution of life. This conflation harms people because it delegitimises the intangible cultural and moral values holding society together. I don't believe all of this, but many people do assume that because science is the best strategy in its domain it should be the null strategy in all domains, including the realm of moral guidance. People then  replace one religion with another while rejecting the accumulated wisdom of societal selection. That’s why utopian ideas almost always fail –- they haven’t “proven” themselves over time like most traditional ideas have. The Law of Unintended Consequences ensues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bolding mine.

You are, as I have said many many times before, an enemy of reason. Your whole motivation is clearly not to "reclaim science for conservatives" or some such rot, but to destroy reason, the products of reason you don't like, and to assert your underlying subjective, unsupported claims as fact. Evolutionary biology does not in any way undermine or delegitimise any social, ethical or moral philosophy or system. You've made these sort of stupid comments before. Is does not equal ought. By the way, morals, ethics, social systems are products of reason and systems open to explanation and understanding by the process of reason and observation


And another repetition, just to remind everyone and your loathesome self of just how dishonest you are:

Oooh oohh while I remember.

What are these "other ways of knowing", from where, when and how are they coming to "a country near me"? If you think that lit crit/art appreciation/emotion are "other ways of knowing" please explain how these things are not already in "a country near me" and where they are coming from.

YOU propose "other ways of knowing" Gimpy, the burden of proof rests on YOU to demonstrate them. As well as the fact that you have yet to address one single point of my argument, except of course to repeat your original unsupported claims and make up silly strawmen to bash about.

Are you going to get honest any time soon or are you content with trolling and making yourself look like a total moron?


As with Ogee, and #### pretty much every "debate" you've got into here, when confronted with something you don't like you obfuscate, shift the goalposts, shift the burden of proof away from your claims, and lie. THIS is why you recieve mockery and abuse, and until this changes THIS is why mockery and abuse is going to be what you deservedly recieve. Like AirFarceDumbass and Trolldiddly and similar frothing loons you lack of comprehension, lack of ability to debate rationally and honestly and motivation for engaging in the proposals and claims you make are manifestly clear. You can blow clouds of ink as much as you like, you can try to turn the tables as much as you like, you can play your silly pretend make believe games as much as you like, but you are indistinguishable from the bigotted, creationist, geocentrist lunatic you falsely claim to have been parodying as a troll for the last year or so. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 20 2006,11:40

By popular request:

< GEORGES ST. PIERRE, KING OF THE WELTERWEIGHTS: >



< Check the current record. >
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 20 2006,12:08

Popular request? There was like one person you were talking sweaty wrestling with...

Is this one of the "other ways of knowing"?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 20 2006,13:57

Ved:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Popular request? There was like one person you were talking sweaty wrestling with...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, c'mon, Ved....even Louis missed my half-nekkid rasslers. I'll address his latest twaddle when I get a chance.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this one of the "other ways of knowing"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Apparently > < so. > Show some gratitude, punk.
Posted by: Faid on Nov. 20 2006,14:28

Oh boy. I did miss out on a lot of things, didn't I?

I was gonna type a (rather long) post apologizing for my long absense, but I thought I should read some of the the threads first... And I see that Ghost has come out! Amazing!
I literally gasped when I read this. Not because it seems that Ghost(s?) is/are 'evolutionists' after all- that wouldn't come as a surprise. Like I have said before, I never thought that (Troll) Paley actually gave a rat's arse about evolution; it was my opinion that he just wanted to "win at teh intarwebs", preferably against them libruls.
And he somehow believed that arguing against ToE in this forum helped in that... I guessed that, by successfully arguing for such an absurd opinion, he had thought he scored more points for his (obviously humongous) ego.
As a result, it was expected that he would do what he did at some point. When he had backed up into a corner in so many scientific issues (and he did, seeing as his latest attempts to support the creo position were utterly pathetic, the Geocentric Thread -his most ambitious project- being a perfect example), he would eventually have to say something like "haha j/k, I believe in ToE after all" and then he would be free to argue for his political views to his heart's desire.

BUT:

It turns out that Ghost (and Deep Mind???) was trolling about his political views as well, and seems to be, in fact, way milder than his racist persona.
Now THAT caught be by surprise. I would never have thought that someone would invest so much time (it's been like, a year?) and trouble to pretend something he has no affiliation with, let alone construct the full-of-issues persona he was faking in such an elaborate way (complete with all the "Snake Plisken" remarks about how he gave all those black boys that were harassing him a good showing to, or all the kickboxing posts that indicated a person with serious problems of self-confidence).
So, naturally, I totally fell for it. There's just no way 'round it; all I can say is: My hat's off to you, Sir Paley. You got me.

Well, I don't think we have much to discuss now; I'm ok with conservatives- he11, some of my best friends are conservatives (well one of them is). So cheers! And feel free to gloat about how you had me fooled: I deserve it.  :)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 20 2006,16:54

Faid:
Nice to hear from ya. I was half convinced that tragedy had struck, cause what else could keep someone from his Panda's Thumb fix? #### Wes and his intellectual heroin.....

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It turns out that Ghost (and Deep Mind???) was trolling about his political views as well, and seems to be, in fact, way milder than his racist persona.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, Deep Mind was someone else entirely....but his ideas didn't get included in the end. As far as my real politics....well, Louis and others will disagree on the racism issue. I'm more tolerant of Muslim immigration than TrollPaley, although like him I prefer the American to the European model. I believe that immigrants should be given time to assimilate, which implies cyclic restrictions. That's all I'll say on that subject.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now THAT caught be by surprise. I would never have thought that someone would invest so much time (it's been like, a year?) and trouble to pretend something he has no affiliation with, let alone construct the full-of-issues persona he was faking in such an elaborate way (complete with all the "Snake Plisken" remarks about how he gave all those black boys that were harassing him a good showing to, or all the kickboxing posts that indicated a person with serious problems of self-confidence).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Life supplies the best material for any parody. The attitude was a bit of a put-on, however, because I get along pretty well with almost everyone I encounter in the real world regardless of race or politics. Somehow, my personality sells better in meatspace (and in real life the Louises tend to leave me alone). Once again, prepare to get challenged -- some dislike me even more since I've come out (read Ved's sig).  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 21 2006,03:25

Awwwww sweaty wrestlers for me? You shouldn't have.

Gimpy, try getting things through your head, nothing that happens on here is because anyone doesn't like you. You get reemed because you lie, post crap and generally behave like a wanker. Dislike of behaviour does not equate to dislike of person. I'm sure in real life you're sweetness and light (with a sweaty wrestler shirt on. Mmmmm  Hmmm, gotta stay in that closet!;). I assure you that were you to behave in meatspace how you behave here and I were present, you'd get vastly more unpleasant treatment. I tend to be extremely blunt to liars and trolls, be they online or in the real world. Amazingly I meet very few people who would behave like you do online, offline.

Louis
Posted by: Faid on Nov. 21 2006,10:34

Well, Ghost, since you agree that Muslims can integrate, same as everyone else, I got no beef with you. At best, you may say I am somewhat more optimistic than you, especially recently, after reading < these > < sources > (*). So we can agree we (mildly) disagree. After all, only time will tell.
As for this recent fine-tuning thing: I have no strong opinion about it, and I must admit I got completely lost in all those equations to make a substantial comment (heh, I can almost imagine TrollPaley rubbing his hands and snickering reading that).
My views on this have always been that you cannot successfully disprove it, for exactly the same reasons that you cannot successfuly use it: Because we simply do not know anything about the conditions "required" for this, or any universe to exist, and therefore cannot apply any probability to them. We do not even know if there is only one universe (which would make any probability arguments moot), if there is an actual number of universes, we don't know if that supposed number is finite, we know JS. So it's pointless to argue for or against it. But that's just my opinion. Sorry if it's been addressed already.

As for the response to your coming out: Come on, you must have known this would happen- justifiably so, perhaps. When a Loki troll accepts his assignment, he must be aware of all the risks and eventual consequences- don't tell me you weren't?  It comes with the job. :)


(*) Yes, the very sources TrollPaley quoted on something trivial. Dammit Ghost, you were good!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 21 2006,11:23

Faid:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, Ghost, since you agree that Muslims can integrate, same as everyone else, I got no beef with you. At best, you may say I am somewhat more optimistic than you, especially recently, after reading these sources (*). So we can agree we (mildly) disagree. After all, only time will tell.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Like the parody, I believe that continuous, massive integration is counterproductive to the host nation. I also believe that some groups integrate better than others and should get the presumption (if you disagree, feel free to email). Nevertheless, selective immigration* + time to assimilate seems to work well enough even with "problem" groups, so that's what I embrace. Why mess with success?

In other words, I don't see the existence of white-majority nations as a "problem" that needs a "solution". Many lefties have admitted to me in private that they favour current policies because they want to see whites become a minority in every country. A couple of people on this board have conceded that whites need to be punished/bred out, and that immigration is a splendid way to accomplish this. All I've got to say is, "You first".

Please reply by PM if you disagree. Seriously, I'm done with this topic.

*with even stricter standards for immigrants from "problem" nations
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 21 2006,14:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many lefties have admitted to me in private that they favour current policies because they want to see whites become a minority in every country. A couple of people on this board have conceded that whites need to be punished/bred out
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please reply by PM if you disagree. Seriously, I'm done with this topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's fine, we don't have to discuss it or anything but since you mentioned it here, let me just say that I'm a "lefty" that doesn't agree with either of those statements.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
some dislike me even more since I've come out (read Ved's sig).  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. I dislike you more now. But to me you've always been this fat red thing with a shiny spinner, flying past my hook-scarred, bass-lipped face, that I just can't resist.

Are there still two of you posting under that name?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 21 2006,16:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are there still two of you posting under that name?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No. The other guy's got several boards he prefers over ATBC. To be honest, I don't think he's into evolution all that much, although he did read Dawkin's latest. Me likes evolution more. He's even more blunt than I am, so it's probably just as well.  ;)
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 22 2006,19:51

Oh this just cannot be let by:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many lefties have admitted to me in private that they favour current policies because they want to see whites become a minority in every country. A couple of people on this board have conceded that whites need to be punished/bred out, and that immigration is a splendid way to accomplish this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bull-fucking-shit.

In a word.

As per usual Gimpy you are talking through your readily wrestler rammed puckered browneye. Take a dollar and buy a fucking clue.

What is it with you white supremacist racist bozos? No sane human being on the planet wants to punish or breed out "whites" whoever they are. We haven't even had a descriprion of what "white" is, and since based on previous "conversation" it seems to include various Asians, people from the Mediterranean and the Mid-East as well as all of Europe then "white" is about as "white" as my arse. Which is still pretty well tanned at the moment ta muchly, sue to a fantastic Cypriot holiday mere months ago, i.e. about as "white" as MLK. Even if we all manged to interbreed and screw each other to some sort of coffee colour the bog standard factors of genetics would mean that some were more cappuchino than espresso. Wave that racial red herring Gimpy.

Isn't it time this pointless fucking troll with his asinine racism and arbitrary contrariness was gone? Those who even entertain the "two Paley parody" claims need their heads read. Get rid of this troll, he's taking everyone for a ride and is nothing more than a one trick moron.

Louis

P.S. We STILL haven't seen any support for his "other ways of knowing coming to a country near you" claim yet (amongst many many many others). I wonder why? Is it because, as usual, it's just more thinly veiled racist ideology that he's been warned off?

P.P.S. Pay attention Gimpy, I'll try to put this in terms even you can understand: You are not blunt. Your previous "persona" was not blunt. You are a moron who google trawls up any sparkly looking article which even appears at a cursory glance to shore up your prejudices. From the start you have fooled no one. Many people are blunt, implying a degree of bluff honesty. You are merely rude and shit ignorant, and certainly never honest.
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 24 2006,12:55

< Oh come on > Lou, clearly Paley is done talking about the topic. What he's not done with is merely mentioning his nasty thoughts about lefties and saying he doesn't want to talk about it.

Look, I can do it too: Fred Phelps is a right winger. I'm done with the subject. If you disagree take it to PM.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Nov. 24 2006,15:09

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 21 2006,03:25)
Gimpy, try getting things through your head, nothing that happens on here is because anyone doesn't like you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, Paley would be a lot less concerned what everyone here thinks of him if he really understood how rarely anyone DOES.

(shrug)
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 25 2006,06:18

LMFAO!

Very good Ved! I have a series of topics I am similarly done with:

1) The dishonesty of religious lunatics.
2) The dishonesty of bigots.
3) The closet homosexuality of pretenders to 19th century spectral vicar status.

Lenny, oh come now, surely you realise that in life's great biscuit barrel we are mere crumbs and Gimpy is a chocolate chip (i.e. thick and greasy)? We mere mortals must bask in the glow of his enormous talents. After all, hasn't he decimated every evil evolibrulleftycommieatheistamericahating point made with his devastating combination of google trawling, knowing fuck all and claiming victory in the absence of any actual evidence. Surely you can see that in Gimpy's world his cognitive dissonance, lack of ability to read for anything approaching comprehension, dishonesty and arrogance constitute evidence that he is correct?

Now, let us pray: Oh Gimpy, thou art wse and we art foolish. Cometh down from on high and deliver us from evil by telling us that niggers, wogs and dune coons are sub human scum in league with liberals and commies to destroy GOD'S CHOSEN WHITE RACE (hallelujahgobble). Lead us from our temptation to treat people with respect regardless of their creed or colour and instead to wank furiously over pictures of sweaty wrestlers. For thine is the dumbness and dishonesty, the closet homosexuality and denial. Forever and ever, Ah-design-and-geocentrism-are-obvious-but-what-I-really-like-are-men.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 26 2006,16:27

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As per usual Gimpy you are talking through your readily wrestler rammed puckered browneye. Take a dollar and buy a fucking clue.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[...]

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The closet homosexuality of pretenders to 19th century spectral vicar status.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[...]

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For thine is the dumbness and dishonesty, the closet homosexuality and denial. Forever and ever, Ah-design-and-geocentrism-are-obvious-but-what-I-really-like-are-men.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow, somebody thinks being a practicing (or closeted) homosexual must be a Really Bad Thing. This contrasts nicely with:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cometh down from on high and deliver us from evil by telling us that niggers, wogs and dune coons are sub human scum in league with liberals and commies to destroy GOD'S CHOSEN WHITE RACE (hallelujahgobble).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) The dishonesty of bigots.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Looks like you're the only bigot here. I was just reporting what many liberals say in private, and what a couple of liberals < say > < on this very board. > I'm not saying that I'm worried that these things will happen.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 26 2006,16:57

Oh, I almost forgot:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm sure in real life you're sweetness and light (with a sweaty wrestler shirt on. Mmmmm  Hmmm, gotta stay in that closet!. I assure you that were you to behave in meatspace how you behave here and I were present, you'd get vastly more unpleasant treatment. I tend to be extremely blunt to liars and trolls, be they online or in the real world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You must hate yourself quite a bit, then, as you do very little but misrepresent other people's < positions [scroll halfway down for a few examples] >, spew insults towards gays and people who disagree with your politics, and advocate violence against people you dislike (saying I need to be hit in the mouth, for example). All this after admitting that you did nothing while a potentially dangerous individual masturbated right in the middle of a packed subway. Certainly, neither you or anyone else rebuked Lenny for advocating violence against people he considers to be "aryan supremacists". I find the combination of your cowardice and barbarity highly amusing, but I sometimes wonder if others share my reaction to your childish temper tantrums.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 26 2006,17:36

No Gimpy, I don't have a problem with closeted homosexuality, nor with unclosted homosexuality. YOU do, which is why I keep making fun of it.

Remember YOU are the one who keeps posting these things. YOU are the one who gets all insulted whenever anyone makes a joke about it. YOU are the one who is making a value judegment. That's why it's funny to continually bait you. Notice you don't get bent out of shape about the dishonesty etc, just your little problem with manlove. Come out of the closet Gimpy, rush to a wrestling meet and make your botty available to a sweaty man.  You'll be amazed how happy it makes you. I think that being in the closet is terrible because there's nothing wrong with being gay. Stop living in denial Gimpy. Be all you can be!

Please seriously grow a fucking clue.

Oh and I LOVE your misuse of Lenny's comment (I seem to remember that the original stringing up comments originated elsewhere than Lenny) AND your attempt to quote mine me. By the way, advocating a lack of barriers to interracial breeding IF a certain unproven hypothesis were true is not the same thing as trying to eradicate the white race or being hostile to it as you claim above.

I also love the fact that you refer, yet again to your claim about muslim integration. A thread in which you had your arse summarily handed to you on a plate and yet you KEEP shifting the goalposts. Very funny.

Louis

P.S. The wanking tramp was a danger to nothing but the cleanliness of the seats. Or are all the tramps in the USA huge, muscley and well fed and you think the same thing happens here? The point of the story was, yet again, that people as a group will pretty much see what they want to and ignore those things that they don't like. (You're a fucking excellent example of this by the way. You've yet to score a palpable hit in any argument with anyone because you flail at strawmen and lack the intellectual gifts of a houseplant.) I LOVE the fact you keep returning to this as if beating up an elderly mentally ill person is somehow a good idea when what he was doing was, whilst unpleasant and shocking, utterly harmless.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 27 2006,10:16

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No Gimpy, I don't have a problem with closeted homosexuality, nor with unclosted homosexuality. YOU do, which is why I keep making fun of it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First of all, the term "gimpy" is offensive, and people with disabilities do not care for it. Trust me on this one. Second, you remind me of the racists who accused me of being "part black" (or even "Jewish") when I would defend racial minoritities. When I called them on their assumptions, they responded just like you: "Ain't nothin' wrong with being black [actually they used another word], I'm just doggin' ya." So you don't fool me. People don't tease someone about belonging to a particular group (and include belittling descriptions of that group's behaviour) unless they find that group disreputable. Once again, I don't care about your insults -- I just find your hypocrisy amusing. Why not throw in "half-breed" and "race-mixer" while you're at it? After all, I do have Amerindian blood and my gal's nonwhite, so these taunts would hit closer to the mark while also highlighting my alleged hypocrisy. The fact that you explicitly avoid these better, more relevant taunts while focusing on irrelevancies illustrates your prejudices better than I ever could.

Whatta punk. Not only a bigot, but a gutless one.  :D  :D

It seems that God has answered my prayers, because indeed my enemies are ridiculous. God must like Deists.  ;)
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 27 2006,12:21

No Gimpy, that's a bad Gimpy.

"Gimpy" refers to your sexual problems, i.e. you are a gimp. Nothing to do with handicapped people or anythign like it. I'm not responsible for the spins you want to put on things, those are your problem, and vastly more revealing about you than me.

As for the closet thing, you keep missing the point. Why am I not surprised? It's nothing to do with homosexuality, it's everything to do with being a closet case. Honestly Gimpy, you can't even work your way through a good insult, let alone an argument, what hope is there for you?

You could be a closet ........ (fill in blank). The blank isn't the important bit because it doesn't inform or cause your obviously deviant psychology. The closet part DOES. Get it yet? Honestly I have to explain everything to you morons! You could post up pictures of interracial porn and I'd make jokes about you choking for big black cock. The big black cock part is irrelevant, the fact that you deny what is plain based on your posting behaviour isn't. Get it yet? Nope I doubt it.

Remember Gimpy, YOU post the sweaty wrestlers and make ridiculously macho claims of whupping libruls, no one else. Your memory really needs some work Gimpy. You got your tiny nosey in a sling when you first posted them and many people coughed {closet case}, loudly claiming you weren't a homosexual and having a snit. Yet again Gimpy, you are the one in denial, not anyone else. We're all perfectly comfy with our sexualities ta very much, gay, straight or other. The question remains unanswered why THOSE photos? Why THOSE images? No one makes you post them, quite the reverse, most people bothered to comment mock you for them. The fact that this still bothers you is highly amusing. Nowhere have I or anyone else made any value judgement, we've merely offered highly tongue in cheek comments on your possible motivations. No one else but you has made the link gay=bad. THAT is the telling part.

I'm not accusing you of being gay for supporting gay rights, so your analogy (entirely fictional as it obviously is. You? Minority rights? Please, that's less believable than your geocentrism claims) is flawed. If you were being persecuted/abused for supporting gay riights then you'd have a point. Since I and as far as I can tell every other poster on this site is a supporter of gay rights your claim wafts airily into the wind. You are being mocked for your posting habits and subsequent denials. Of course you don't understand this distinction, but that's because, well you're just a bit thick really.

Who gives a shit if you're gay, closeted or otherwise? No one Gimpy, because no one gives a shit about you. Like I've said many times, you're a rather paultry chew toy. Fun to bat around a bit, but no substance at all. You love to make grandiose claims but lack both the wit and wisdom to support them, or even make, understand, or follow anything approaching a coherent point. To be blunt, you're a bit pathetic. However, it's still fun to mock you. You're attempts at outrage are hilarious, as are you attempts to turn tables.

Tell me Gimpy have you ever actually made a coherent and supported point about anything anywhere? Many months ago I paraphrased the Bard in describing you:

"GoP's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a role
Played by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

You have only reinforced that opinion.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 27 2006,12:51

Louis:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No Gimpy, that's a bad Gimpy.

"Gimpy" refers to your sexual problems, i.e. you are a gimp. Nothing to do with handicapped people or anythign like it. I'm not responsible for the spins you want to put on things, those are your problem, and vastly more revealing about you than me.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's true that the word can mean other things in urban slang, but the traditional definition < remains: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. A limp or a limping gait.
2. A person who limps.
intr.v. gimped, gimp·ing, gimps
To walk with a limp.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's sort of like "Gyp", or "Jew someone down". I've heard people use both while maintaining innocence about the origins of these terms. Doesn't change reality, though.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for the closet thing, you keep missing the point. Why am I not surprised? It's nothing to do with homosexuality, it's everything to do with being a closet case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then why not tease me about being part nonwhite? After all, it's all about me being a closet case. If I'm a white supremacist, then by definition I'm rejecting part of myself (heck, I might even be part black, but I don't have any evidence of this). So why not apply your nonprejudicial teasing to my racial background? I'm sure Crabby and Deadman won't mind....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who gives a shit if you're gay, closeted or otherwise? No one Gimpy, because no one gives a shit about you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well obviously you care, or otherwise you wouldn't keep bringing it up. After all, I haven't even mentioned my real views on gay rights -- how do you know I don't support them? My parody is not me. In any case, my sexual orientation has nothing to do with my Deism, which is the current topic of this thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me Gimpy have you ever actually made a coherent and supported point about anything anywhere?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As you know very well, I'm censored on several topics. Nevertheless, ask Eric and Flint about our tax debate -- I made several good points there. Oh, and there's several good points on the Dave thread on gene duplication and whatnot. I'm still waiting for Ogee's response to my last rebuttal....so what's your point again?
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 27 2006,14:28

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 27 2006,12:51)
I'm still waiting for Ogee's response to my last rebuttal....so what's your point again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was a rebuttal?  You've convinced no one: no further response will be required, if that's the best you've got.  Why on Earth would I waste more time prompting repetitions of inane bullshit from a discredited, iron-skulled cretin?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 27 2006,15:04

Ogee:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That was a rebuttal?  You've convinced no one: no further response will be required, if that's the best you've got.  Why on Earth would I waste more time prompting repetitions of inane bullshit from a discredited, iron-skulled cretin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And yet you find the time to insult me. That says something, I think.
Posted by: Ogee on Nov. 27 2006,15:44


Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 27 2006,16:20

Louis:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Theology is by no means scientific, it lacks some of the key elements, reliance on physical observation and honesty for a start. However it is as reasoned as literary criticism for the very reasons I mention above. If one treats theology as a branch of lit crit and philosophy (which to an independant observer, i.e. one outside of the specific religion that theology is dealing with, it is) then it is no less reason based than those fields. The arguments about interpretations of texts are reasoned, logical models based on observation of those texts, no problems there.

The problem theology as a field has is when it strays into things llike theodicy and "proofs of god" etc, all of which have been demonstrated to be based on logical fallacies or are contrary to observation or both. No doubt these are reasoned arguments based in part on observation, but they are neither accurate nor honest nor without fallacy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You claim that theology is as reasoned as literary criticism, but since it's lacking observation, it can't be scientific. On the other hand, literary criticism is based on observation, so there's no qualititative difference between lit crit and science -- it's all a matter of degree:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My point is that reason and observation underlie the arts and emotions, and that, whilst there are differences in the accuracy and conscious use of these tools, they are the same tools as those used in science. You've done nothing to demonstrate this is false except continually reassert your original claim.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that Louis thinks that theology is dishonest, at least when it tries to prove God's existence. So Louis is saying that the substantive difference between lit crit and science lies in accuracy levels as well as how these domains apply reason and observation. Meanwhile, theology must struggle at a lower level since it possesses only one of these tools.

Now here's a few questions:

1) How do you know that the disparate way the tools of reason and observation are applied in lit crit and science are quantitative, rather than qualitative? And if these disciplines are different in kind as well as degree, then why couldn't you classify the literary approach as "another way of knowing"?

2) You claim that theology lacks observation. What about circumstantial evidence like the anthropic coincidences, or science's failure to explain certain phenomena? In fact, some scientists believe that we will never have a complete theory of say, abiogenesis. Why can't theologists use negative evidence in addition to (or even the exclusion of) positive evidence? "Just you wait -- I'm sure we'll figure it out someday" isn't based on anything more than an inductive inference, which is either tentative or fallacious no matter how you look at it. Why treat hopes as guesses as facts? Because there sure ain't much else when it comes to life's origin.

3) You apparently claim that an individual can only "know" something by applying reason or observation. But then you admit that theology is based on reason alone. Wouldn't this qualify as another "way"? And what about people who rely on < dreams as a source of inspiration, > < or even "delusions" about past lives? > Some of these may have been hoaxes or due to humdrum mental phenomena, but nobody really knows what happened in some of these cases.

4) What if some things exist, but are unobservable by human minds? How can we decide if this situation applies? Especially since we're using the same tool we're allegedly testing?

5) What about the limitations of certain branches of mathematical logic as elucidated by Gödel's incompleteness theorems? What, if any, connections can be made to human intelligence?

More later.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 27 2006,16:59

Ogee:

<yawn>. I guess we need a better class of atheists on this board. I'm bored already!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 27 2006,21:09

I would like to spend a few minutes demonstrating how Louis is precisely what he accuses me of being. For example:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You love to make grandiose claims but lack both the wit and wisdom to support them, or even make, understand, or follow anything approaching a coherent point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's see how Louis demonstrates his abilities in this matter:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I found this comment of yours in another thread telling:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Auster's attempt at Reductio ad absurdum isn't the best example out there, but his main point is pretty solid: science, being predicated on methodological naturalism, is often used to support metaphysical naturalism, and this is even more true for branches of science that deal with the origin and evolution of life. This conflation harms people because it delegitimises the intangible cultural and moral values holding society together. I don't believe all of this, but many people do assume that because science is the best strategy in its domain it should be the null strategy in all domains, including the realm of moral guidance. People then  replace one religion with another while rejecting the accumulated wisdom of societal selection. That’s why utopian ideas almost always fail –- they haven’t “proven” themselves over time like most traditional ideas have. The Law of Unintended Consequences ensues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Bolding mine.

You are, as I have said many many times before, an enemy of reason. Your whole motivation is clearly not to "reclaim science for conservatives" or some such rot, but to destroy reason, the products of reason you don't like, and to assert your underlying subjective, unsupported claims as fact. Evolutionary biology does not in any way undermine or delegitimise any social, ethical or moral philosophy or system. You've made these sort of stupid comments before. Is does not equal ought. By the way, morals, ethics, social systems are products of reason and systems open to explanation and understanding by the process of reason and observation

And another repetition, just to remind everyone and your loathesome self of just how dishonest you are:

Oooh oohh while I remember.

What are these "other ways of knowing", from where, when and how are they coming to "a country near me"? If you think that lit crit/art appreciation/emotion are "other ways of knowing" please explain how these things are not already in "a country near me" and where they are coming from.

YOU propose "other ways of knowing" Gimpy, the burden of proof rests on YOU to demonstrate them. As well as the fact that you have yet to address one single point of my argument, except of course to repeat your original unsupported claims and make up silly strawmen to bash about.

Are you going to get honest any time soon or are you content with trolling and making yourself look like a total moron?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's funny is that Louis criticises me for agreeing with him: the point of the bolded bit was that many advocates of evolution conflate methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism, and this causes them to improperly derive moral lessons from evolutionary biology. Not only was I not defending the statement "is = ought", I was specifically criticising some scientists for engaging in this fallacy, while decrying conservatives who present this "false dilemma" to their readers. So his tirade about me being an "enemy of reason", having been based on this gross misreading of my position, collapses. And yet this is the very type of tainted evidence that "supports" Louis's right to behave like a jackass! Let's examine another misreading. First, here's my statement:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
My point is that reason and observation underlie the arts and emotions, and that, whilst there are differences in the accuracy and conscious use of these tools, they are the same tools as those used in science. You've done nothing to demonstrate this is false except continually reassert your original claim.



Ok, then, what disqualifies theological debate? God may not be able to be observed directly (assuming he exists), but both reason and observation are applied in this domain as well. People observe the structure of the universe, and use these observations to derive a theological conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence (no human observed the evolution of whales from artiodactyls, but by interpreting genes and fossils we can infer the event). See, by casting your net so wide you've captured everything, which means your argument goes hungry.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The bolded part is pretty straightforward: many events of evolution are not directly observable, but can be inferred by recourse to fossil and genetic evidence. Likewise, theological arguments can be built on circumstantial evidence such as anthropic coincidences, etc. Now many people might disagree with my conclusion, but certainly most would agree with my characterisation of whale evolution. Now let's see how Louis handles this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lastly, your strawvolution example. No Gimpy, that's a bad Gimpy. As usual you have it all backwards. We don't infer the evolution of whales from artiodactyls by interpreting the results in light of the idea that whales evolved from artiodactyls, which is how your claim is structured. We observe certain similarities between artiodactyls and whales and have developed a parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon we currently observe (for all knowledge is provisional, you keep "forgetting" this, read dishonestly ignoring in order to attempt ludicrous point scoring. And failing as usual I might add). That explanation is perfectly capable of being wrong, new data might well refute it. However, therein lies the crux of the differences between science and other fields: honest and unbiased (in terms of developing a coherent explanation) appraisal and acquisition of the data. As usual Gimpy your missing the key point that nobody cares what IS the case, they just care HOW we claim to have some knowledge of what is the case. Evidence could come in tomorrow which overturns the entire state of evolutionary biology as we understand it today. In fact right now thousands of scientists are working their respective gonads off to do just this. Not out of prior commitment to any worldview, ideology or interpretation, but out of the sheer desire to find out what actually IS there, and to test every hypothesis, theory and model to destruction if at all possible.

I'll enjoy watching you distort this section of the argument as you have every other.

[my bolding]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that Louis doesn't bother to quote the offending passage, a sure sign that the game is afoot. Once again, you can say that my analogy missed the mark, but there is nothing in the passage to support Louis's wild tirade. I wasn't accusing scientists of circular reasoning, but only saying that scientists can use indirect observations (and by necessity, their interpretative abilities) to derive models even when the direct evidence is unavailable. Unless the whales have been keeping records....

See? Louis is what he accuses others of being. And he's one of this board's heavy hitters.

:O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O

Wow.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 28 2006,02:21

Unless you show us some evidence that the universe had to be life-friendly (or anything else), beyond the implicit "God wanted it so", your fine-tuning argument won't go anywhere, GoP.

I'm still waiting for your refutation of my objection regarding this tautology.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2006,12:14

jeannot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless you show us some evidence that the universe had to be life-friendly (or anything else), beyond the implicit "God wanted it so", your fine-tuning argument won't go anywhere, GoP.

I'm still waiting for your refutation of my objection regarding this tautology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If I recall, we had a slight language gap. So why not restate your objections in French? If necessary, I'll get a friend to translate the parts I don't understand. That way you can state your case just the way you want. Unfortunately, I'll need to respond in English, but hey -- it's better than nothing.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 28 2006,13:10

I'll restate my objection in English.
You take some alleged low probabilities as evidences for design. But your argument can only work if we consider the universe as the result of an experiment, in the litteral sense (done by a conscious being who expect results).

You will admit that this reasoning is tautological.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2006,14:35

Jeannot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll restate my objection in English.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My French isn't that bad.....but OK.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You take some alleged low probabilities as evidences for design. But your argument can only work if we consider the universe as the result of an experiment, in the litteral sense (done by a conscious being who expect results).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why can't the experiment (or "trial", if you prefer) be performed by an unconscious entity? For example, imagine a universe that explodes, expands, slows down, and then contracts to a point. The constants are scrambled when it reaches maximum contraction. This cycle is repeated a finite number of times. Wouldn't each expansion count as a different "experiment"? Each new universe has a fresh set of constants.

     Now suppose only a very small range of constants will lead to a universe with heavy elements. Would you expect to get a universe with heavy elements in a limited number of trials? Sure, it can happen, but I would be surprised to see a heavy-element universe from a random expansion. Therefore, I suspect that Something is guiding the process.

  I'm not saying that this is the way it happened. But the most recent evidence argues against an infinite number of cycles, so the only way to get a huge number of trials is with a multiverse, or a universe that is self-tuning. Almost everything else requires one heck of a coincidence.

Or you can argue that a heavy-element universe is not "special" enough to engender surprise in the observer. I would disagree with this because this universe is qualitatively different from the set of hydrogen or helium-filled universes.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 29 2006,16:37

Jeannot:GOP=AF:JAD?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 29 2006,19:31

Speaking of Fine Tuning, let me try a different tack in demonstrating why I-J's conclusion doesn't address this issue. First, let's review their conclusion:

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P(N|F&L) =  P(F|N&L)P(N|L)/P(F|L)

       =  P(N|L)/P(F|L)

       >= P(N|L)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Once again, P(N|F&L)>= P(N|L) translates as, "the probability of Naturalism (N) assuming both Life-Compatibility (F) and Life (L) is greater than or equal to the Probability of Naturalism given Life alone".

Let us compare an observer in our universe (where the left-hand side probability applies) to an inhabitant in another universe where the laws are unknown (the right-hand side). Now one thing is for certain: either the inhabitant's universe has life-compatible laws, or it does not. If the alien subsequently discovers that his universe's laws don't support life, then the probability becomes P(N|~F&L), which is 0. On the other hand, if the laws are consistent with life, then the probability becomes P(N|F&L), which matches the conditions for our universe.

At this point, the alien doesn't know which applies, so he wants to condition on both possibilities. This is appropriate, since P(N|~F&L) and P(N|F&L) are the only two possible choices given P(N|L). He surmises:

P(N|L) = P(F|L)P(N|F&L) + P(~F|L)P(N|~F&L)

         =(P(F|L))P(N|F&L) + (1 - P(F|L))P(N|~F&L) [By the Complement Rule]
           
         = P(F|L)P(N|F&L) + (1 - P(F|L))(0) [Because ~F makes N impossible by definition]

         = P(F|L)P(N|F&L).

P(F|L) must be between 0 and 1, therefore:

P(N|F&L)>=P(N|L) [because we have to multiply the greater quantity by a fraction between 0 and 1 to get it = to a smaller quantity].

Life friendliness can only help a naturalistic universe with life, because once you have life, you need friendly laws if you assume naturalism. And you can't narrow the options to those universes with life if you're trying to demonstrate the relative likelihood of life-compatible universes vis-à-vis inhospitable ones.

So what was the probability of that friendly, lifey universe arising in the first place?

Until this question gets answered, atheists cannot assume their scenario is more likely.

[edit: made small correction to proof]
Posted by: skeptic on Nov. 29 2006,20:23

GoP, I know this is a stupid question but how can the alien possibly discover that his universe does not support life?  If that is indeed the case he doesn't exist.  

Sorry for the injection, just trying to follow along.
Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,20:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now one thing is for certain: either the inhabitant's universe has life-compatible laws, or it does not. If the alien subsequently discovers that his universe's laws don't support life, then the probability becomes P(N|~F&L), which is 0. On the other hand, if the laws are consistent with life, then the probability becomes P(N|F&L), which matches the conditions for our universe.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um...
I dunno, maybe it's because I'm late in this, but...
...

If that universe's laws are incompatible with life, then what the he11 is the alien doing there in the first place?

???


<edity edit> Er, well, I never thought I'd say that, but- what skeptic said.  ;)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 29 2006,21:10

Skeptic and Faid:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If that universe's laws are incompatible with life, then what the he11 is the alien doing there in the first place?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The software ate a longer reply, so:

1) The laws can be inconsistent if Jesus < glues the atoms together after all. >  :D  :D  :D

2) The laws really can derive inconsistent values, at least in principle. Some supersymmetric theories demand a zero cosmological constant, which is inconsistent with the small positive value we actually have. Others give values that are too big. If the laws don't match observations, then naturalism, but not life, is defeated.
Posted by: Jay Ray on Nov. 29 2006,22:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the laws don't match observations, then naturalism, but not life, is defeated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Temporarily stymied, yes.  But defeated?  *chuckle*  We'll get 'er figured out.
Posted by: Ved on Nov. 29 2006,23:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Until this question gets answered, atheists cannot assume their scenario is more likely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But atheists can say "So what? Oh Lord thank you for making the universe life-friendly, or at least holding the space-time envelope open with your mind. Amen. Pass the whores."
Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,08:17

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 29 2006,21:10)
Skeptic and Faid:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If that universe's laws are incompatible with life, then what the he11 is the alien doing there in the first place?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) The laws can be inconsistent if Jesus < glues the atoms together after all. >  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ohhhhhkay. Please put the troll back in the doghouse now, it drools on the carpet.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) The laws really can derive inconsistent values, at least in principle. Some supersymmetric theories demand a zero cosmological constant, which is inconsistent with the small positive value we actually have. Others give values that are too big. If the laws don't match observations, then naturalism, but not life, is defeated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shouldn't that be "if the theories don't match observations, then the theories are wrong?

In short: Still don't get it.  :(
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 30 2006,11:44

Faid:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
1) The laws can be inconsistent if Jesus glues the atoms together after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   
Ohhhhhkay. Please put the troll back in the doghouse now, it drools on the carpet.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I admit the answer was a little flippant. I was trying to say that an intervening deity could set up a universe whose laws conflict with the creation and existence of its own matter. For example, scientists could find that the attractive forces within an atom are too weak to counteract its natural repulsive forces (protons, for example, have positive charges and don't like to be close to each other), and that atoms "should" break apart*. Observations show that the atoms do not fly apart. Therefore, a mysterious glue must bind the atoms -- yet this mysterious glue thwarts all investigations. Sure, scientists can play the "just you wait" game, but if the reigning model explains everything else, and predicts that the glue shouldn't exist, then why should we assume that there's a better natualistic model on the horizon? Perhaps there isn't one, and God is doing the work himself, but hiding his "force" from us.

We may assume that naturalism must have the answers in principle, but then we can't use this assumption to argue against theism, because then we're reasoning in a circle. Perhaps God really is in the gaps. Who can tell when our models fail? We're left with inductive inferences that turn into special pleading as the failures pile up.

*This is not the case in the real world -- I'm using a hypothetical example.
Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,13:14

I still don't understand how this has any relevance. The fine-tuning argument is a probability argument, not a "god of the gaps" one: It should not use theism for support any more than its opponents should turn against theism to fight it.

In your hupothetical universe, the issue is not that we cannot find a THEORY (it's not a law, a law must agree with empirical evidence and observation) to explain how atoms exist.
The issue is that atoms exist.
Now that can be because the aliens are missing something, and that something is either a flaw in their theories, or a different theory that eludes them (Ether, relativity?), OR some alien can propose that the Great Bearded Gray in the Sky is tampering with the subatomic particles (and that is, of course, a "god of the gaps" argument), but that is a different debate: For our subject, it doesn't change the fact that this hypothetical universe's conditions are life-friendly, one way or another. THAT is what matters in the fine-tuning argument.
That is why, IMO, this hypothesis makes no sense, at least in trying to calculate odds between different possible universes. Either you accept that that universe's laws, whatever they might be, support life, since life appears in it, or you essentialy say "now let's assume there is a universe that cannot support life, but does anyway because its god makes it so"- and that is, of course, assuming what you are supposed to prove.

Hypothetical impossibilities are irrelevant; the whole argument is a question of the probability of certain conditions arising. Saying that these conditions need not arise (and providing theistic arguments to support that) renders the whole argument moot.


PS. Sorry about the caps. I'm not overly emotional on this subject or anything- like I said, I believe it's not possible to successfully argue for or against it. It's just that AFDave's writing is starting to have an effect on me...  :(
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 30 2006,13:50

Faid:

The funny thing is, I agree with part of your objection. A while back I said:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This shows how hollow the I-J proof really is, because it demonstrates that, say, finding a transcendental number encoded in DNA, or finding the first verse of genesis inscribed in a nebula, can only support N so long as it's coupled with life and life-friendliness -- or simply life alone!*
[...]
*[edit:Since I'm beginning to suspect that conditioning on N implies F. Sorry if I didn't make this clearer]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I suspect that I-J's conclusion is not only limited, but tautological, because the existence of life implies "life-friendly" laws. Therefore, conditioning on Life (not Naturalism as my footnote says) is implicitly conditioning on Friendly as well. The inequality becomes:

P(N|F&L)>= P(N|L)


P(N|L)=P(N|F&L) [because L implies F]


P(N|F&L)>= P(N|F&L) [by substitution on the right-hand side]


P(N|F&L)= P(N|F&L) [by the reflexive property].

No disrespect intended, but I-J's proof is like cotton candy: It starts all pink & fluffy, but dissolves on contact.

Nevertheless, I'm trying to use their definitions.

I'll show later how I would calculate the probabilities.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PS. Sorry about the caps. I'm not overly emotional on this subject or anything- like I said, I believe it's not possible to successfully argue for or against it. It's just that AFDave's writing is starting to have an effect on me...   :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's to be expected when you brush up against THE GREATEST THREAD OF ALL TIME.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 30 2006,15:55

Faid:

I'll address the rest of your post later, but let me note that laws can be violated by subsequent observations, at least in principle. Of course, scientists would just change the domain of applicability for the law, or find reasons why the violation isn't really a violation, but the observations still conflict with the law. If the exceptions are limited in number or scope, they ain't gonna jettison the law IMHO.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 03 2006,15:43

Faid:

 Instead of using Bayes, I would calculate the probabilities with a uniform distribution. For example, if a random generator can choose any number between 0 and 10 inclusive, then the probability of getting a number less than or equal to 2 would be 2 out of 10, or 1/5. For a number between 0 and 1, then the probability shrinks to 1/10. So the narrower the range of life-permissible values relative to inhospitable values, then the less likely the universe would select these values if each value is equally likely to be chosen.

I hope this helps.
Posted by: Ogee on Dec. 03 2006,19:42

This was just too stupid to let slide:
   
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 30 2006,13:50)
I suspect that I-J's conclusion is not only limited, but tautological, because the existence of life implies "life-friendly" laws.

P(N|L)=P(N|F&L) [because L implies F]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You cannot make that equation unless L requires F (that is, P(F|L)=1), which is only the case if N is true (this cannot be assumed when evaluating conditional probabilities of N!;)   Of course, what follows is trivial due to this fallacy.  Your 'suspicions' are once again shown to be based on pure ignorance.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 04 2006,08:35

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 30 2006,12:44)
Faid:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
1) The laws can be inconsistent if Jesus glues the atoms together after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   
Ohhhhhkay. Please put the troll back in the doghouse now, it drools on the carpet.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I admit the answer was a little flippant. I was trying to say that an intervening deity could set up a universe whose laws conflict with the creation and existence of its own matter. For example, scientists could find that the attractive forces within an atom are too weak to counteract its natural repulsive forces (protons, for example, have positive charges and don't like to be close to each other), and that atoms "should" break apart*. Observations show that the atoms do not fly apart. Therefore, a mysterious glue must bind the atoms -- yet this mysterious glue thwarts all investigations. Sure, scientists can play the "just you wait" game, but if the reigning model explains everything else, and predicts that the glue shouldn't exist, then why should we assume that there's a better natualistic model on the horizon? Perhaps there isn't one, and God is doing the work himself, but hiding his "force" from us.

We may assume that naturalism must have the answers in principle, but then we can't use this assumption to argue against theism, because then we're reasoning in a circle. Perhaps God really is in the gaps. Who can tell when our models fail? We're left with inductive inferences that turn into special pleading as the failures pile up.

*This is not the case in the real world -- I'm using a hypothetical example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Normally I'm an observer to this type of tripe.  However, I couldn't let this one pass.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Experimental observations
The first direct experimental evidence of gluons was found in 1979 when three-jet events were observed at the electron-positron collider called PETRA at DESY in Hamburg. Quantitative studies of deep inelastic scattering at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center had established their existence a decade before that.

Experimentally, confinement is verified by the failure of free quark searches. Neither free quarks nor free gluons have ever been observed. Although there have been hints of exotic hadrons, no glueball has been observed either. Quark-gluon plasma has been found recently at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon >
And there is a LOT more physics you need to go through before making conclusions about fine-tuning.
How about a high-energy environment? (where EM and Weak forces combine)
How about a higher-energy environment? (where three, or four fundamental forces combine)
How about Si-based lifeforms? (chemically possible but environmental conditions not well understood)

Also, physicists have postulated the graviton and have started experiments to detect the graviton energy.  However they calculate that you would need a detector the size of Jupiter (filled with Deuterium of course) to have any chance of even detecting one graviton particle in one year.

Debate the present model all you want, I won't get involved because I think your debate model doesn't capture the complexity that actually exists.

Mike PSS
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 04 2006,09:56

Ummm, Mike, you do understand the meaning of the word "hypothetical", don't you? Why do you think the footnote was there?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, scientists could find that the attractive forces within an atom are too weak to counteract its natural repulsive forces (protons, for example, have positive charges and don't like to be close to each other), and that atoms "should" break apart*
[...]
*This is not the case in the real world -- I'm using a hypothetical example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Even if you missed the term "hypothetical", how could you miss:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*This is not the case in the real world
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




So your little gluon lecture missed the point. Boy, did it ever.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And there is a LOT more physics you need to go through before making conclusions about fine-tuning.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? I thought I-J's proof was the final word.  :p



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Debate the present model all you want, I won't get involved because I think your debate model doesn't capture the complexity that actually exists.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I never said my model did capture the complexity. I'm just saying that I-J's model doesn't either. Apparently, you agree.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 04 2006,11:09

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 04 2006,10:56)
Ummm, Mike, you do understand the meaning of the word "hypothetical", don't you? Why do you think the footnote was there?

{snip the snark}

I never said my model did capture the complexity. I'm just saying that I-J's model doesn't either. Apparently, you agree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I won't explicitely appologise for getting lost in this convoluted discussion.  Just to admit that I can't quite comprehend what your arguing for or against sometimes.

I started trying to understand your point < here where you summarized your position. >
At he bottom is a 'line-in-the-sand' statement that clarifies your postion...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since we would not assume that life is the goal of our universe, then we should not expect our universe to take the values that it has due to blind chance. This implies that the constant was not randomly selected, which leads to the possibility of a Designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you let the cat out of the bag here...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not assuming God to prove God. I'm saying that observations imply that random chance alone can't explain our universe. Therefore, there must be an organising principle (doesn't have to be God, could be a natural law we haven't discovered, or perhaps our universe has had trials that are currently hidden from us). I interpret this principle as God. But God was not the presumed hypothesis, atheism was.
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=38564 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is simply an argument from personal increduality.
However, you do admit the boundry limits of your own (humanities) fallible insights here in a response to Louis...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can do a lot with what we have, and what we have just might be enough, but there is a good reason to assume that we're just simplifying (and thereby distorting) certain aspects of reality that our brains can't comprehend and that our senses can't investigate.
............
I'm sorry, but your assurances are not enough to overturn my skepticism about the limits of human inquiry. Heck, most scientists admit up front that science cannot handle questions about God's existence.
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=38684 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, rereading the past four pages I've found numerous examples of your personal increduality as it relates to the whole I-J thingy.
I tend to agree that the I-J model doesn't capture the complexity of the moment.  But that's not what your arguing...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suspect that I-J's conclusion is not only limited, but tautological, because the existence of life implies "life-friendly" laws.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think the following will clarify my point.

Your whole basis against the I-J model seems to be an argument about boundry limits (assumptions).  If you want to include your own assumptions (i.e. "an intervening deity could set up a universe whose laws conflict with the creation and existence of its own matter") then you cannot compare the results because the original I-J model didn't draw conclusions from using your assumptions.

I was blindered in my initial response.

I'll try harder next time.  :D

Mike PSS
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 04 2006,13:12

Mike PSS:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I won't explicitely appologise for getting lost in this convoluted discussion.  Just to admit that I can't quite comprehend what your arguing for or against sometimes.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, I butchered my explanation at first, so that's why I'm trying to clarify my objection. My key point hasn't wavered, however: I-J's proof only compares life-containing universes to each other, and not life-containing universes to barren ones as it should (in my opinion). This alone compromises their argument; the rest is just piling on.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[Paley's argument] is simply an argument from personal increduality.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps, but there's a good reason for my incredulity.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I tend to agree that the I-J model doesn't capture the complexity of the moment.  But that's not what your arguing...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
I suspect that I-J's conclusion is not only limited, but tautological, because the existence of life implies "life-friendly" laws.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This was never my main point (notice the context of this remark -- it was an aside agreeing with one of Faid's objections) but I think it's a valid objection. I think Faid has a point -- how can we really say "the laws" rule life out when God's action (if leads to measurable effects) would be incorporated into naturalism anyway? In other words, God's actions are hard to distinguish from the acts of nature, so any interference will be interpreted as lawlike. So whether or not it's God keeping things together, we can only interpret his work as the application of a mysterious force or law we haven't discovered yet.
Posted by: Louis on Dec. 04 2006,19:11

Since I have discovered a moment or two...

1) Gimpy do you know what a strawman is? You use them left and right so you should. If someone is openly and statedly using a word in ONE of its defined contexts it does not follow that it is to be taken in ALL of its defined contexts. That would be equivalent to asserting that a comment that "I'm in the black" in a conversation about bank balances means that I am currently in side a specific person of African heritage. Nice try. Score for Gimpy: Nil points.

2) Why not tease you about being part non-white? Because I don't know if you are or not. Get this straight Gimpy, you are a proven and self confessed liar. End of story, no equivocation. I don't belive your claim. If you said the sun was going to rise tomorrow, I'd fucking check it. Twice. With expensive kit.

You CLAIM to have been perpetrating a parody but I sure as #### can't  tell the difference between "new and improved Gimpy" and "old and dumb as a bag of rocks Gimpy", and I am FAR from the only one. The arguments are equally poor, the total lack of familiarity with simple things like intellectual honesty and evidence are the same, and even the CLAIMS are the same. You've just skipped the really bonkers stuff about geocentrism etc. My guess on that little evasion of yours is because you have a total inability to admit when you are wrong, which you were and are. Want evidence? Just one piece for you, of many: the entirety of the "muslim integration thread". You made a VERY specific claim which you were held to. Your claim was very clearly demonstrated to be false, so you moved the goalposts to wider immigration related issues. THAT, incidentally, is at least partially why you have been told to shut your yap on that topic. The other reasons being that a) your bigotry shines through, b) you are and were being openly dishonest, c) if you're going to do a and b, at least do it vaguely on topic. As I've said many times Gimpy, were it up to me you'd be gone. You add nothing but annoyance and dishonesty, neither conducive to any form of discourse.

3) Abuse and homosexuality. You recieve my unending contempt and abuse because you lie. I'm a big enough boy to change my mind on the basis of evidence, give me the evidence and I'll change my mind. Pretending to play nice nice as if the past never happened, or as if your posts are not a matter of easily recovered record is not evidence. How about an apology Gimpy? For trolling and lying and being a dishonest fucker? You want to whine about being abused and insulted? Stop being such a fuckwit, stop lying, start having a reasoned honest debate, stop obfuscating, stop posting silly witterings about "evos and lefties and liberals", stop attributing views that people don't hold to people simply because they disagree with you.

As for being a closet case, Gimpy you total fucking imbecile I don't know if you are or not, and I really couldn't care less. If you are GOOD, if you're not GOOD. The WHOLE and total point of that abuse (actually mocking humour rather than abuse, I don't expect you to see the difference) is because you post silly pictures of sweaty men and make silly macho comments. Nobody else does this. The purpose of mocking this behaviour that you (and no one else) exhibit is to highlight how ridiculous it is, and because based on your previous posting habits and comments, I and others assume that being accused of closet homosexuality is something that would annoy you. It seems that I and others scored a hit since you keep wanking on about it, keep deliberately dishonestly attributing attitudes to it that statedly don't exist, and fail to get the point of it (i.e. that it's the CLOSET element that makes you behave like a total arsehole, not the homosexual element). I know you don't understand this. I know you will yet again try to spin this into bigotry, the problem you have is that the only way you can do this is to lie, since no evidence for said bigotry exists (because there isn't any bigotry to start with) and you are dishonestly trying to obfuscate the fact that you cannot support a single claim you've made and this is a convenient distraction.

4) You've made a couple of good points on economics? Wow (colour me doubtful in any case). You've posted in excess of 1400 posts, the vast majority of them either part of some trolling campaign/claimed parody (bullshit), dishonest, attention whoring, thinly veiled bigotry, asinine antiscience or sweaty wrestler based and you think that the fact that one or two competant comments have accidentally crept in turns you into a human being as opposed to the witless excrescence you demonstrably are (or wish to appear to be, 'tis the net after all)? Fucking #### Gimpy, that's the best delusion you've managed yet. Even less evidence than geocentrism. Some say a stopped clock is right twice a day, you've yet to acheive those lofty heights. The simile I would use is that the sun shines on every dog's arse some day. Shit my standards aren't high Gimpy, but I was expecting better than the intellectual equivalent of amoebic dysentery and a whine from a spoilt child.

5) Smacking you in the mouth. Sorry where have I advocated this? What I HAVE said is that if you behaved in real life like you do here, you would recieve a well deserved smack in the mouth from an unspecified, but probably irritated, listener. Are you somehow above an arse kicking Gimpy? Shit I know I'm not! If I behaved offline like you do online I'd employ a secretary to organise all the extremely well deserved smacks in the mouth I would undoubtably have people queueing down the road to administer.  Your rather pathetic paranoia and out of context use of Lenny's comments speak volumes, especially added to the fact that you think beating harmless, elderly homeless people is a good idea, and you continually post wrestler pics and make comments of beating/crushing etc evos/liberals/lefties etc. Like I've said about ooooooooh a gazillion times now (no exaggeration) these things speak VOLUMES about your psychology. No one makes you do them. No one else here does them. Just you. THAT FACT ALONE SHOULD MAKE YOU PAUSE FOR THOUGHT.

6)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You claim that theology is as reasoned as literary criticism, but since it's lacking observation, it can't be scientific. On the other hand, literary criticism is based on observation, so there's no qualititative difference between lit crit and science -- it's all a matter of degree:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is not precisely what I said and you know it. Theology, lit crit of fiction are identical in many respects.  They are based, as I said pages ago, on the observation of the texts, and reasoned arguments derived from those points. The fact that they deal with fictional topics isn't the issue at all, again as explained pages back (and I didn;t say that theology is at a lower level than lit crit, nice lie Gimpy, gotcha again). The point is that the tools being used in these fields are not qualitatively different from those being used in science. Their mode of application and subject matter are different, and that is what accounts for the superficial differences of field and method we see, but the underlying mechanism of elucidating knowledge about their respective targets (reason and observation) are the same. The DIFFERENCE with things like theology and fiction is that they deal sometimes with items that are not only unobserved but unobservable. The difference between theology and some fictional literature is that in theology certain faith based axioms are assumed to be absolutely true and unquestionable and are, I'm sad to say, defended by dishonesty and obfuscation at worst, and poor reasoning at best. Again as I said before.

Also as I said before, but you STILL are dishonestly evading, is not all knowledge=product of science, but all knowledge=product of reason etc.

So with that in mind again, let's deal with your asinine questions based on your dishonest deliberate ignorance yet again (for if you could read for a modicum of comprehension, you'd already have your answers).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) How do you know that the disparate way the tools of reason and observation are applied in lit crit and science are quantitative, rather than qualitative? And if these disciplines are different in kind as well as degree, then why couldn't you classify the literary approach as "another way of knowing"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My first thought is that since you made the claim that they are not the same originally, the burden of proof remains upon your shoulders. All we've had from you that far is stamping of your feet and crying "IS IS IS IS IS", no actual argument.

My second thought is read my fucking posts, I've answered this.

My third thought is what is lit crit etc telling you about? Precisely what are you gaining knowledge about? I've already been over this posts ago (again, sigh will you ever learn to read?). What knowledge are you getting fromlit crit? Are you getting any knowledge about the universe around you? The answer is perhaps. If one is examining the use of effective literary hooks in stories then one is learning important things about human psychology and sociology. If one is examining a painting one can learn about vanishing points, optics, the limitations of human visual systems etc. The whole point is that the valuable information one garners from examination of art is in some fashion reproducible and evidence based. Granted, not in exactly the same manner as a chemical reaction or a physical system, but then that's to be expected, we're dealing with less well defined phenomena.

Doubt this? Look at fields like etymology and linguistics, or (a personal favourite) abstract art and WHY it is abstract (subverting the tradition lines of art by distorting vanishing points and perspectives).

Yet again, as said in previous posts, the superficial or emotional responses to art are reasoned responses to observed stimuli no matter how unconscious they are.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) You claim that theology lacks observation. What about circumstantial evidence like the anthropic coincidences, or science's failure to explain certain phenomena? In fact, some scientists believe that we will never have a complete theory of say, abiogenesis. Why can't theologists use negative evidence in addition to (or even the exclusion of) positive evidence? "Just you wait -- I'm sure we'll figure it out someday" isn't based on anything more than an inductive inference, which is either tentative or fallacious no matter how you look at it. Why treat hopes as guesses as facts? Because there sure ain't much else when it comes to life's origin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Firstly no I don't claim theology lacks observation, all I said was that the subject matter of theology are based on unobserved, axiomic faith based articles of unquestionable dogma. The lit crit aspects of theology, or the downstream logical justification of these axioms is just as reasooned an observation based as any other philosophical field. Stop lying Gimpy.

The anthropic coincidences you claim are fictional, products of your own asinine argument from personal incredulity. This has been pointed out to you several times before, yet you ignore it and prefer to obfuscate with maths you clearly don't grasp. The coincidences you claim are not coincidences, you're forgetting Adams' puddle Gimpy, I told you not to.

Why can't theologians use negative evidence instead of evidence? I can't believe you asked something that fucking stupid. Considering my already abyssal opinion of your intellectual abilities, that's quite something. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is why for example I do not claim there absolutely is no god, or no teapot orbiting Titan, or no FSM.  What I DO claim, and on the basis of some excellent data, is that these things are vanishingly unlikely based on the definitions of them given to date. Of course in one o those three cases dishonest fuckers like you move the goalposts continually to avoid the obvious.

Have you seen my garage? In my garage I have a dragon, come and have a look. Can't see it? That's because it's an invisible dragon. Can't feel it? That's because it's an invisible, intangible dragon. Put flour on the floor to detect it's footprints? Well obviously it's a flying invisible, intangible dragon with no mass. Try to feel the heat from it's dragon flame? Obviously it's flame is magical and can't burn you, how silly of you to even think it would, you're so literal! (With apologies to Carl Sagan).

Do you believe I have a dragon in my garage Gimpy? Give reasons. Obviously it's POSSIBLE that I have such a dragon in my garage, but based on the evidence it is AT LEAST equally possible (even probable) that I am either mistaken, stupid, misled, dishonest or wicked when I am advocating my dragon's existance. Is absence of evidence for my dragon proof of its non-existance? No, because (as we know from Bacon) if you don't see a black swan and all you see are white swans, it doesn't conclusively prove that black swans don't exist. What it DOES prove is that thus far we have only seen white swans. If you are claiming that black swans exist then you'd better have some evidence to back that claim up.

In the case of my dragon I can provide no such evidence because each time my dragon's existance is probed I move the goalposts. However this also renders the question of said dragon's existance moot: how is an utterly undetectable dragon different from a non existant one? Both COULD exist, but surely you need more than my unsupported say so to claim that one does. Simply because a claim can be made, it doesn;t follow that this claim is equally well supported by the evidence as other claims are.

Science's failure to explain certain phenomena? Since when has anyone claimed to have all the answers right now? It's called an ongoing process Gimpy, and we ain't at the end. I've made this point about a half dozen times in this thread alone. Do I really have to reiterate it because you're too stupid and dishonest to read? All knowledge is provisional, but we can have some idea of how reliable it is. Read back, this element is answered.

The "Just wait, we'll figure it out" answer is NOT an answer to the question, it is an admission of current ignorance (and some optimism!;). Current ignorance doesn't equal non existant. However, the caveat is that simply because all things are POSSIBLE, not all things are EQUALLY possible, no even PROBABLE. Very very very very key distinction Gimpy, forgive me if I doubt you'll get it, based on the evidence you have provided so far nof course.

As for abiogenesis, we're in better shape than you know. Do we have mechanisms that we know can create complex self replicating molecules? Yes. Have we seen these things in the lab? Yes. Is it likely that we will be able to reproduce the exact path that life on earth followed?  No, verging on perhaps. Could we perhaps develop analogous systems? Yes. The current lack of a concrete idea of precisely how abiogenesis proceeded on earth is NOT evidence for any alternative claim you dream up. We currently know all about every mechanism required to produce self replicating molecules from common chemicals found in space/on earth etc. What we don't know is the precise details of which of several possible routes it took. Think of it like a painting: we can see the artist's rough sketches in charcoal, not all of them, but enough to know the layout of the painting and that it is a portrait of a face. The colours, details and precisely who's face it is we cannot yet tell, but we also know a thing or two about painting.

All though this, your painfully obvious quest for certainty is clear. There is none. There is no absolute certainty for you.  We are on shifting sands, some more solid than the rest, but all shiting to various degrees.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) You apparently claim that an individual can only "know" something by applying reason or observation. But then you admit that theology is based on reason alone. Wouldn't this qualify as another "way"? And what about people who rely on dreams as a source of inspiration, or even "delusions" about past lives? Some of these may have been hoaxes or due to humdrum mental phenomena, but nobody really knows what happened in some of these cases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No Gimpy you stupid, lying fuck that is NOT what I said about theology. Read it again.

Dreams and revelations are exactly what I was referring to as other ways of knowing. See right back at the start, thanks for catching up at least on one tiny point. But what do they tell us? Nothing whatsoever by themselves. My revelation that we were shat out of the arse of a gigantic space trucker is no more or less valid than your revelation that we were produced by the vaginal discharge of a mutant star kangaroo. That is until we look up into the night sky and see a huge marsupial clopper staring back at us. The only way we can verify any revelatory experience or faith based claim is by reference to observation. The only way we can know if that observation is reliable at all is to be honest and rigourous in our making of it. The only way we can know anything is by reasoned, rational observation of the universe around us.

If you claim your deist god exists and has certain attributes and I claim my different deist gods exist and have different and mutually contradictory attributes how do we know if either claim is representative of reality in any way? We resort to reason and observation. Faith and revelation alone can tell us nothing about the universe. Oh they MIGHT be correct, but only by coincidence. Back to my dragon again.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4) What if some things exist, but are unobservable by human minds? How can we decide if this situation applies? Especially since we're using the same tool we're allegedly testing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Like for example alpha radiation. Can you see alpha radiation? Can your human mind sense it? Mine can't and I doubt yours can either. What we CAN do is design a series of experiments that render alpha particles, or rather their down stream effects on certain physical processes like fluoresence, detectable to our human minds.

If something is totally beyond observation in any manner at all, if it in no way interacts or intersects with the material universe then how is it different from not existing at all? The second it interacts, it falls into the domain of reasoned enquiry and observation. I ask again, does my garage dragon exist?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5) What about the limitations of certain branches of mathematical logic as elucidated by Gödel's incompleteness theorems? What, if any, connections can be made to human intelligence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah zombie Gödel, the last refuge of the scoundrel. I have yet to see ANYONE arguing as you have invoke Gödel's theorems correctly. You might as well as wittered on about quantum uncertainty...oh wait you have elsewhere. Gödel's theorems refer only to specific first order logical systems with stated axioms.

What you are drving at here is are there things we don't know? The answer is yes. Is it possible that {insert claim here}is the case? Yes. Is it therefore the case that {insert claim here} is equally valid as the current state of rationally obtained knowledge? No. Possible =/= probable.

The connections of Gödel's theorems to human intellect...... probably yet another tiresome irrelevance of yours. The only possible connection I can see is to do withh Turing machines and the halting problem, but then my understanding of this is admittedly very sketchy so it's probably best left to better mathematicians than I.

7) You're accusing ME of being dishonest with regards to your comments about evolutionary biology? YOU ACCUSE ME OF DISHONESTY? I am actually genuinely outraged. Firstly, not only did I not in any way misrepresent your claim, I don't need to Gimpy, but you have lied continually and shifted the goalposts here yet again. Amusingly in your attempt to claim I am a liar you have to lie to accomplish it! Irony much? Not only have you NOT proven your claim, but you proven (yet again) my contention that you are a dishonest prick who'll stoop to any level to "win at that intarnetzzz". Your pathetic motivations are as usual clear.

What game is a foot? Gimpy I don't need to play games with you, you're too dumb to read plain text, games are beyond your meagre ken. Yet again, as usual, you try dishonestly to move those goalposts. The comments you were making were to do with the similarity of processes of inference in science and theology. My point is that in the example you gave the inferences being made are not of the same type, nor being made in the same way, nor on the same basis. You're strawman of how science works is what I was taking issue with.

Take your comments in context Gimpy. You were arguing that because in science some things are indirectly observed and based on inference that similar indirectly observed inferences from fields like theology could be considered to be similarly valid. My point is they cannot for several key reasons (reasons I note you admit, gods you are dishonest cunt aren't you?). We don't claim that whales absolutely definitely evolved from artiodactyls because of certain DIRECT observations of fossils and genes etc. What we DO say is that the most parsimonious model we can build for whale evolution based on current evidence is that artiodactyls are in the ancestral line (direct or indirect) of modern whales. That is LIGHT YEARS different from what you said. The nature of the inference being made is wildly different. THAT is why your false equivalence is wrong, and no doubt in your case deliberately dishonest.

The "wild tirade" as you call it is no such thing. It is a refutation of the claim you were making about the equivalence of data from disparate fields. What observations about the universe support a theological claim? None! Not one. Not even a sausage. Why? Because as you've had pointed out to you about a billion times now personal incredulity does not constitute evidence. Also good to remember is the plural of anecdote is not data. Theology uses observation and logic in reference to works based on it's own dogmatic, unquestionable axioms. As has been explained to you several times. This does not mean that the claims of theology are on equal footing with those of science. What it means is that in some areas of theology the tools that underpin science are used. The problem with theology is that it uses faith and revelation also, and they fuck the whole picture up, as explained above.

The false comparison you are making is that because we didn't see whales evolve from artiodactyls that the evidence is circumstantial thus circumstantial evidence from theology is as valid. First of all the relationship proposed between whales and artiodactyls is not as simple as your strawman (as pointed out). Second of all the evidence is not at all circumstantial but direct. You don't understand what is being discovered in the whale/artiodactyl example. The point is NOT that whales evolved from artiodactyls, but that similarities between two groups of organisms have been directly observed. That's it. One possible secondary implication of this is that the two populations could be related, but this is a probablistic argument based on the construction of parsimonious clades, not a concrete or tentative claim based on circumstantial evidence.

8) Me, one of the board's heavy hitters? Bwaaaahahahahaha. Hardly. Thanks for the flattery Gimpy, sadly for you, it's just another piece of taawdry bullshit from a practicallt sub-human piece of bigotted scum. Now do us all a favour and fuck off. There's a good troll.

Louis
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Dec. 04 2006,19:37

Is the barmy old racist still trolling??...

hope the entertainment's been good, although I rather expect it hasn't.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 04 2006,20:26

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Gimpy do you know what a strawman is? You use them left and right so you should.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK, folks, here's a challenge:

Summarise Louis's position on the different ways of knowing -- and remember that Louis has to accept the synopsis. Anyone care to give it a shot? Because I'm through with Louis's shell games.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) Why not tease you about being part non-white? Because I don't know if you are or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You don't know my sexual orientation either, but that didn't stop you from ridiculing gay sex. So why not broaden your horizons?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) Abuse and homosexuality. You recieve my unending contempt and abuse because you lie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The point is that you're abusing gays as well. Personally, I think you have the right to ridicule any individual, group, or practice you choose, but don't expect me to ignore your hypocrisy. Once again, if you're not being bigoted, why not make jokes about my Amerindian heritage? After all, it's about me being closeted, and not the group you're disparaging, correct?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for being a closet case, Gimpy you total fucking imbecile I don't know if you are or not, and I really couldn't care less. If you are GOOD, if you're not GOOD. The WHOLE and total point of that abuse (actually mocking humour rather than abuse, I don't expect you to see the difference) is because you post silly pictures of sweaty men and make silly macho comments. Nobody else does this. The purpose of mocking this behaviour that you (and no one else) exhibit is to highlight how ridiculous it is, and because based on your previous posting habits and comments, I and others assume that being accused of closet homosexuality is something that would annoy you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In other words, gay sex should be ridiculed when I post pictures of scantily-clothed men, make macho comments, and get annoyed (well, two out of three ain't bad). This isn't helping you any. You obviously have issues with gay men, and you use any excuse to vent your dislike.

Personally, I don't care what your feelings are, and I respect your right to share them, but what you're doing is bigoted. Sorry if that hurts, but the truth does that sometimes.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4) You've made a couple of good points on economics? Wow (colour me doubtful in any case).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then why not PM Eric Murphy or Flint? Or ask them publically? Please note that I'm only claiming that I made several good points, not that Flint and I "won" the "debate". It was more like a discussion than a debate, and I wasn't trying to convert Eric to my point of view anyway.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5) Smacking you in the mouth. Sorry where have I advocated this? What I HAVE said is that if you behaved in real life like you do here, you would recieve a well deserved smack in the mouth from an unspecified, but probably irritated, listener. Are you somehow above an arse kicking Gimpy? Shit I know I'm not! If I behaved offline like you do online I'd employ a secretary to organise all the extremely well deserved smacks in the mouth I would undoubtably have people queueing down the road to administer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's examine Louis's statement:

1) He has never advocated smacking me in the mouth;

2) Nevertheless, he's currently stating that I deserve to be smacked in the mouth for my behavior.

Message to lurkers: don't smack Paley around unless he behaves this way in real life. Then I am "not above" a good arse kicking. But Louis isn't advocating that you should kick my ass! Unless you're unspecified and angry. Then go ahead. Except Louis doesn't think you should, even though I deserve it.

Dig?  :D

If anyone can summarise Louis's half digested crap that he cribbed from Skeptical Inquirer, I'll address more of Louis's drooling. Somehow, I don't think anyone will rise to the challenge.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 04 2006,20:45

Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your rather pathetic paranoia and out of context use of Lenny's comments speak volumes, especially added to the fact that you think beating harmless, elderly homeless people is a good idea, and you continually post wrestler pics and make comments of beating/crushing etc evos/liberals/lefties etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You just can't help it, can you? I've already said several times that I advocate forcefully removing public wankers from the subway instead of beating them. You do realise that people acting with no sense of restraint are potentially dangerous, don't you? As for taking things out of context, where's the context in saying you would help a mob string someone up? I might be paranoid, but that doesn't mean I'm without enemies.


Or so I've been told.


By the way, notice that no one is visibly disturbed by Lenny's explicit threat. Yep, atheists have got it goin' on in the morals department. I don't know why you guys have such a bad rep. ;)
Posted by: Louis on Dec. 05 2006,06:54

Gimpy,

1) Hmmm did I misrepresent your comments about wanking tramps? Gosh! Unpleasant and dishonest isn't it? Dare I suggest that you possibly get it now? Although let's be blunt I didn't misrepresent what you originally said did I?

Here's the < thread >.

Here's the actual comment from Gimpy:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So a whole trainload of "men" just averted their eyes while a guy masturbated right in front of them, their women, and their children. Wimps.

[edit: Well, on a commuter train there probably weren't too many families. I stand behind my opinion. Wimps.]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, Louis, if you're wondering if I back up my tough talk, the answer is yes. In fact, on separate occasions I've had thugs (one of them about 6'5'' or so) attempt to target me for racial violence. Nothing came from it when they saw I was ready to fight. In addition, I have to tell people to take their cell phones outside from time to time when I'm posting from this library. Then, there was the incident when....well, ya'll get the point. Accept it or reject it, the truth is there are still real men in the world, and almost all of them are conservative. I've seen too many video clips of strangers standing by while someone gets assaulted or even murdered. In fact, I once saw a clip where a young man was stabbing an elderly fellow on a bus. People were just quickly deboarding as if nothing serious was happening. One young gentleman just stood there, watching the assault. What cowards we've become!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bolding mine.

A clear advocacy of violence against the mentally ill? Hmmm. Who'd have thunk it. Surely Gimpy if it's ok for you to spin Lenny's comments into a personal threat, when they're not, then isn't your comment about backing up your tough talk and fighting big 6'5'' muscley men (that must have excited you) an equally vile advocation of violence against the mentally ill? Tsk tsk Gimpy. You seem unaware that people have a) memories and b) the ability to Google at least as well as you.

2) Please go right ahead and summarise my arguments, anyone, please do. There's no shell games, no bait and switch, I've been saying the same darned things since the start. As of course Gimpy you would know if you could read for a modicum of comprehension.

Cribbed from the Skeptical Inquirer? LMFAO, naaaaah. It's called "having a memory" and "actually knowing what you're talking about" Gimpy. Two concepts I realise you are unfamiliar with.. This argument has been hashed out and won decades ago. Sorry but your ignorance and lack of familiarity with the basics of the claims you make will-he nill-he doesn't constitute either an argument or originality.

As for the rest of your schtick, you simply cannot follow an argument, despite having it explained to you at length several times in several different ways. With examples! Your stupidity does not constitute a contrary point.

3) As for Lenny's comments shall we see them in context?

(Oh and not everyone here is an atheist btw. I am, some others are, but many aren't. I would also argue that, despite my love of profanity and great annoyance at sub-human lying scum like you Gimpy, my ethics and morals are so far out of reach of someone like yourself that we border on being different species. After all, I at least can manage to be honest on an internet message board, make coherent arguments, admit where and when I am wrong or uncertain. All things that elude you Gimpy. I remember (vaguely) the school vicar at my prep school saying something (a quote I think) about one's moral character not being tested when someone is watching, but when no one is watching. Something along that line. Let's see, do you self confessedly troll message boards? Check. Do you dishonestly make straw versions of people's arguments? Check. Do you hide behind the distance and anonymity of the internet to talk trash, lie and obfuscate? Check, checkety check. Looks like nil points to you AGAIN Gimpy. Want me to go on? I have your whole posting history at ATBC to use as evidence. You on the other hand have naught but lies and deliberate distortions. Sucks to be you eh Gimpy?)

See it all < here >.

Lenny:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As the population of the US recently passes 300 million, it occurs to me that, in the US, good white aryans like Paley will very soon be . . . well . .  a minority.

One wonders how well Paley himself will then integrate into the, um, majority culture.

Or will Paley then advocate his own good white aryan version of "ethnic cleansing" . . . . ?

How about it, Paley?  Would you want your daughter to marry one of "those people" . . . . . . ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gimpy's reply:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
As the population of the US recently passes 300 million, it occurs to me that, in the US, good white aryans like Paley will very soon be . . . well . .  a minority.

One wonders how well Paley himself will then integrate into the, um, majority culture.


This fact distresses more whites than you think. As for me, I don't care so long as the minority-majority culture doesn't find Western values evil white abstractions. If so, you'll be swinging next to me. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Quote  
Or will Paley then advocate his own good white aryan version of "ethnic cleansing" . . . . ?


If ethnic cleansing ever happens (doubtful), it will be based on Mugabe's, not Hitler's, model. What's more likely is a heightened level of strife, with SWAT teams being a fixture in many high schools, not just California's. Hope it doesn't come to pass, but the preliminary evidence doesn't look so hot (heh).

 Quote  
How about it, Paley?  Would you want your daughter to marry one of "those people" . . . . . . ?


Since my future daughter will be mixed, she'll probably marry another mixed individual. But whomever she marries, (s)he has my support so long as (s)he's not someone like you. You know, an angry person who writes deceptive, poorly researched essays. If that ever happens, then you bet I'll be pissed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Lenny's reply:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,14:56)


[This fact distresses more whites than you think.]


I live in Florida, Paley.  I'm quite aware how "distressed" "whites" are by it.

And I laugh at them and their "distress".


[As for me, I don't care so long as the minority-majority culture]

Wow, you can't even bring yourself to SAY it, can you, Paley . . . even when they are "the majority", you will STILL continue to view them (and speak of them) as "minorities", and will STILL see yourself as their superiors. . . .

They will be "the majority", Paley.  YOU will be the "minority".  Get used to it, and pray they will be more merciful towards you than your ilk have been towards them.  Me, I think turnabout is fair play.  And you might even learn a lesson or two from it.

I think you and your fellow aryans are in for some awfully rough times in the next few decades, Paley. . . . .

[doesn't find Western values evil white abstractions.]

I see, so it's OK for YOU to think THEIR values are evil, but it's *not* OK if THEY think YOUR values are evil.  They have to integrate into YOUR culture, but YOU don't have to integrate into THEIRS.  I guess you're too good for that or something, huh.

And, uh, what again did you and your fellow aryans plan on doing if the majority DO decide to make you integrate into their majority culture (ya know, Paley -- like the way you want the Muslims to integrate into yours, and then bitch and complain when they don't do it to your satisfaction . . .?)

I do not think you are going to enjoy the next few decades, Paley. . . .

[If so, you'll be swinging next to me.]

No, Paley --- I'll be helping them string you up. I don't like aryan supremacists very much. And I take great pleasure in their "distress".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Stephen Elliot then said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just woke up so maybe I am not comprehnding this corectly.

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 21 2006,16:57)
They will be "the majority", Paley.  YOU will be the "minority".  Get used to it, and pray they will be more merciful towards you than your ilk have been towards them.  Me, I think turnabout is fair play.  And you might even learn a lesson or two from it.


Are you saying that it is ok to discriminate on race, providing it is done against whites?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To which Lenny replied:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 21 2006,22:52)
Just woke up so maybe I am not comprehnding this corectly.

 Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 21 2006,16:57)
They will be "the majority", Paley.  YOU will be the "minority".  Get used to it, and pray they will be more merciful towards you than your ilk have been towards them.  Me, I think turnabout is fair play.  And you might even learn a lesson or two from it.


Are you saying that it is ok to discriminate on race, providing it is done against whites?

Go back to sleep.  

I am saying that the good white aryans are not going to like what happens when they are the minority.  And it might teach them a lesson or two.

And I will laugh at them the entire time.  I think turnabout is fair play.

What I think is OK or not, matters not a whit. No one is going to ask my permission beforehand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This has morphed into your new sig:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A lefty confesses:

"I do not think you are going to enjoy the next few decades, Paley. . . ."
[If so, you'll be swinging next to me.]
"No, Paley --- I'll be helping them string you up. I don't like aryan supremacists very much. And I take great pleasure in their 'distress'."

Any questions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First and foremost, as can be seen from the linked thread and the in-order reposts and quotes above, the [If so, you'll be swinging next to me] comment was made by Gimpy BEFORE Lenny's "decades" comment.  Also the topic of this subsection of the thread was about the  "white, aryan supremacist" subset of "white" people, not the whole "white" people group. A fact clarified several times, not least in the reply Lenny made to Stephen Elliot above.

Remember Gimpy brought up the hanging imagery when referring to a shift in the racial makeup of American society.

You are quoting Lenny's words out of context in order to perpetuate a fictional, universal anti-white discrimination you believe exists on the basis on no evidence whatsoever.

While I don't agree with stringing anyone up, even racist bigots like you Gimpy, Lenny's comments were in context, based on an extension of a metaphor you used. Taking them deliberately out of context is dishonest. Gee what a surprise.

4) In my re-reading of certain threads, I came across a piece of profound and humbling wisdom from Shirley Knott:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Louis, and others, I share your frustration with Paley's Ghast, and have been wrestling with appropriate responses.
When someone so egregiously abuses the hospitality and good will of so many for so long, it seems that exclusion of the abuser is the only remedy with any hope of preserving the sociality of the gathering.  Banning would give him far more attention than the miserable little twunt deservers.
Therefore, I can only suggest that the only legitimate response is emphatic shunning.
GoP should be ignored, no responses to his lies and drivel should be posted -- aside from at most a note to 'see previous behavior patterns for a full explanation of why this wanker is being ignored'.  He is not a member of the community, he is not a welcome participant, he is not even so respectable as that complete loser afDave.  So, ignore him utterly and completely.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I hate to cede the "last word" (or in Gimpy's case, last lie) to a dishonest bigot, but there really is no point discussing anything with you. You are a proven self confessed lair and troll. It is a waste of my time to deal with you. Shirley is right. Good bye.

Louis

P.S. It always pays to remember that if one anally fists a donkey one comes away with only two things: a shitty fist and a pleased donkey. I'm tired of pleasing the donkey and getting shit on my fist.

P.P.S. "I might be paranoid, but that doesn't mean I'm without enemies." You grant yourself vastly more significance than you deserve. The fact that you are a demonstrated narcissist as well as bigot and liar has been mentioned before. Get help. I mean that both sincerely and seriously.

P.P.P.S. I've long thought that you are another datapoint in the nutter camp of "my views must be important because you're debating them". Looks like I was right. Again.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 05 2006,12:21

Um, Louis, how do anecdotes involving self-defense morph into beating up the mentally ill? The only time I would "beat up" a mentally ill person is if that individual attacked me, and even then I would only do enough damage to stop the attack, and no more. As I've said before (and you continue to ignore), I only advocate escorting potentially dangerous people off crowded subways, not beating them. But please don't take my word for it -- ask Stephen Elliot.

As far as the Lenny comment is concerned, I'm glad you included the context, because it proves my point: that Lenny, in fact, wishes to string up me and other crime thinkers when he gets the opportunity. That is all I've been saying, and that's all my sig says. No quote-mine.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First and foremost, as can be seen from the linked thread and the in-order reposts and quotes above, the [If so, you'll be swinging next to me] comment was made by Gimpy BEFORE Lenny's "decades" comment.  Also the topic of this subsection of the thread was about the  "white, aryan supremacist" subset of "white" people, not the whole "white" people group. A fact clarified several times, not least in the reply Lenny made to Stephen Elliot above.

Remember Gimpy brought up the hanging imagery when referring to a shift in the racial makeup of American society.

You are quoting Lenny's words out of context in order to perpetuate a fictional, universal anti-white discrimination you believe exists on the basis on no evidence whatsoever.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice how the bolded bit distorts my position. I only claimed that Lenny wants to lynch me & other unspecified "bad" whites, and the context proves just that. I never said that Lenny wants to lynch or discriminate against white people in general -- only the ones he deems bigots:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They will be "the majority", Paley.  YOU will be the "minority".  Get used to it, and pray they will be more merciful towards you than your ilk have been towards them.  Me, I think turnabout is fair play.  And you might even learn a lesson or two from it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He also thinks its OK if the majority culture reduces all white people into subservient status:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, uh, what again did you and your fellow aryans plan on doing if the majority DO decide to make you integrate into their majority culture (ya know, Paley -- like the way you want the Muslims to integrate into yours, and then bitch and complain when they don't do it to your satisfaction . . .?)

I do not think you are going to enjoy the next few decades, Paley
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Making someone integrate =forcing them to integrate -> punishing/discriminating against whites who want to maintain their own culture. Dhimmitude, in other words. So even your attempt to mischaracterise my position backfires, as Lenny actually does seem to think that white culture should be eradicated (although he thinks that nonwhites should get to make that decision....awww, how nice of him).

Don't ever become a defense attorney, Louis.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 05 2006,18:10

Is Paley  ***STILL***  yapping . . . . ?  (yawn)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 06 2006,14:31

Louis in another thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By denying reality, by preferring fantasy and dogma to a reasoned understanding of the world around us we hasten the last days of our Rome. Our current comfort is a very recent and very very hard won luxury, that facets of it are unsustainable is undeniable, but that really doesn't mean too much. We're an inventive bunch. The fact is that we don't have the luxury of entertaining creationist propaganda in science class, or faith based programmes or selective faith schooling. We don't have the luxury of zionist foreign policies, abolishment of double jeapordy, abolishment of right to a free trial, the open use and support of torture, the derogation of dissent, the state control of an otherwise "free" press (no matter how vile or low brow). These are luxuries we don't have because they are incredibly hard won. They have been bought on the backs of generations, bought in blood.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mel, is that you? You're supposed to be laying off the sauce!

 :D  :D  :D
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 16 2006,15:49

This might be juuuuust a bit off-topic, but here's an example of evolution in action, with a high selection coefficient for one-dimensional organisms:

< Just for Seizure Salad. >

Incidentally, Mirko might be coming to the UFC. That would be pretty cool.
Posted by: Faid on Dec. 18 2006,02:56

Meh. Chuck Norris would have had him at 00:01 with a roundhouse kick to the face (and no nut shots).

He's like the genetically rich Prototype of the Designer to your devolved, degenerate mutants, Ghost.
He's got like, 9,146 alleles for every gene- and 8,732 of those are poisonous.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 18 2006,14:31

Faid:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meh. Chuck Norris would have had him at 00:01 with a roundhouse kick to the face (and no nut shots).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, even Hughes admitted in the post-fight conference that he overreacted the second time, and that the shot actually hit the thigh. The reason for the skittishness is that Matt came close to losing a match against Frank Trigg when the ref missed a foul to the groin.

Besides, everyone knows that Jean-Claude Van Damme's dim mak and blind Drunken Master ninjutsu make him the true king of MMA (Movie Martial Arts) -- just ask Bolo Yeoung!  :p

< Here's another exciting fighter. >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's like the genetically rich Prototype of the Designer to your devolved, degenerate mutants, Ghost.
He's got like, 9,146 alleles for every gene- and 8,732 of those are poisonous.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dat's why dey can't 'andle de riddim!


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 18 2006,17:52

Hey Paley -- I'm curious.  When you finally come out of the closet, who do you think will be more supportive of that -- us, or your ID pals?

Other than laughing at your extreme hypocrisy, I mean.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 19 2006,15:45

Lenny:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Paley -- I'm curious.  When you finally come out of the closet, who do you think will be more supportive of that -- us, or your ID pals?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think IDers are too enthralled by Deism, but judging by the masculinity issues you dudes have, I wouldn't want to come out on this board. But it's not something I'm worried about either way.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 27 2006,17:06

Here are a few choice aphorisms from the < king of sting: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The great majority of people will go on observing forms that cannot be explained; they will keep Christmas Day with Christmas gifts and Christmas benedictions; they will continue to do it; and some day suddenly wake up and discover why." - "On Christmas," Generally Speaking

"Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities." - What's Wrong With the World

"What we call emancipation is always and of necessity simply the free choice of the soul between one set of limitations and another." - Daily News12-21-05

"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." - Christendom in Dublin, 1933

"The whole curse of the last century has been what is called the Swing of the Pendulum; that is, the idea that Man must go alternately from one extreme to the other. It is a shameful and even shocking fancy; it is the denial of the whole dignity of the mankind. When Man is alive he stands still. It is only when he is dead that he swings." - "The New House" Alarms and Discursions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Dec. 27 2006,21:16

Hmmmm . ..  VMartin suddenly disappears . .. .   Paley suddenly reappears . . . . . .

Coincidence . . . . . . . ?
Posted by: Faid on Dec. 28 2006,13:54

Aaah... Chesterton. I always had a fondness for the old man.

When Ghost's trollish persona was mumbling about existentialism once, I almost posted this lovely part:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The taller priest nodded his bowed head and said:

"Ah, yes, these modern infidels appeal to their reason; but
who can look at those millions of worlds and not feel that there
may well be wonderful universes above us where reason is utterly
unreasonable?"

"No," said the other priest; "reason is always reasonable,
even in the last limbo, in the lost borderland of things.  I know
that people charge the Church with lowering reason, but it is just
the other way.  Alone on earth, the Church makes reason really
supreme.  Alone on earth, the Church affirms that God himself is
bound by reason."


The other priest raised his austere face to the spangled sky
and said:

"Yet who knows if in that infinite universe--?"

"Only infinite physically," said the little priest, turning
sharply in his seat, "not infinite in the sense of escaping from
the laws of truth."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If only all religious people were more like Father Brown...
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 08 2007,19:53

Hey Louis, if you ever get tired of your pasty-puss-talkin-trash avatar, < here's > a guy you can replace him with. He's even got some < lefty tendencies! >

Or you can stick with the magician.

Whatevah.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 08 2007,19:58

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 18 2006,14:31)
Dat's why dey can't 'andle de riddim!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Paley, do you still like to hang out at the gymnasium?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 08 2007,20:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, Paley, do you still like to hang out at the gymnasium?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't even have time for a Turkish prison, although I do like movies about gladiators.

........

Homology links for possible future thread:

< Philosophical background. >

< Evo-devo a bridge? >

< Another, older summary. >

< Hox genes and homology. >

< Classic paper. >

< Application of idea. >

< SINE insertions as phylogenetic helpers. >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 09 2007,16:43

< Overview. >

< SINEs and Afrotheria >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 11 2007,20:40

Oh god, Louis is indeed the master at self-immolation:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Experiencing the Dirk Gentlian fundamental interconnectedness of all things, at least for me, didn't require hallucination or even meditation. It required education. As I learnt more about the universe through science classes at school and through my own reading (I too am an autodidact with an IQ north of 150**, but I don't think it's significant!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, of course not, you just happened to let it slip. Well Louis, since you're directing these barbs at me, let me just say that you hit the mark with this one, if not for the reason you think. After sparring with you a couple of times, all I can say is, "If true, is that all a 150+ IQ can bring?" Christ, Louie, I thought an IQ like that was....special, yet you've conclusively demonstrated otherwise (unless half my friends have stratospheric IQ's, because they sure as #### can debate/think better than you can)*.

Wow, just.....wow.

Sorry, Faid. I couldna help myself. Perhaps IQ is just a number after all.


*I have no idea what my IQ is, let alone my friends'. Then again, they're not concerned with things like that -- weird, I know.

P.S. Don't get riled, Louie, I'm know you're a brilliant guy. But you sometimes remind me of < this dude. > Don't laugh, cause if you ever get mugged by a phonebook, then where will you be?

Wonder what he can do to a packet of IQ tests?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 12 2007,03:42

1) Wrong thread.

2) Snipped from context.

3) Ignored the fact that a) high IQ (meaningless as it is, for reasons mentioned umpteen times before) isn't unusual for the members of this board, and b) it was openly stated, deliberate mockery of Dave "I'm a Tard" Springer.

Way to go Troll. Yet MORE evidence of your total lack of honesty or ability to contribute an even remotely substantial comment. You do know cut and pasting stuff you've googled and sweaty wrestler piccies don't count, right?

{golf clap}

Louis

P.S. Oh and Troll, since you've had your arse handed to you on a gilt edged platter in every "debate" you've had here with everyone, me included, were I you I'd worry more about my own debating skills before I point fingers at others infinitely more capable than I. And these friends, you know the ones in your head don't count, right? Neither do your good friends Madam Palm and her five lovely daughters. Or is that Mr Palm and his five muscley gym buddies?

P.P.S. Should you object to being dealt with abruptly, tough. You're a demonstrated liar, troll and bigot. And yes, like AFDavey we know you lack the ability to comprehend this and keep trying to turn tables and weasel out of it. Unlike you Troll, I and the other human members of this board have no need of revisionist history, another fact you don't appreciate. In the words of a Wimbledon groundsman to Ilie Nastase (who was acting up and complaining about being referred to as Nastase rather than Mr Nastase and not being allowed into the player's area long after he ceased to be a player) "The only people referred to as Mr are the gentlemen and the only people allowed in there are the players. You are neither, Nastase, good day." Troll, you are most certainly not a gentleman, and in no sense of the word could you be considered a player. Go away or behave like a rational adult. The choice as always is yours.

P.P.P.S. D4MN, talking to the twat again. Fifty Hail Dawkins and an Our Feynman.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 12 2007,14:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) Ignored the fact that a) high IQ (meaningless as it is, for reasons mentioned umpteen times before) isn't unusual for the members of this board, and b) it was openly stated, deliberate mockery of Dave "I'm a Tard" Springer.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep, you're right about this. Since you bait me so often and I don't keep up with all the UD stuff, I didn't catch the reference. Sorry.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P.S. Oh and Troll, since you've had your arse handed to you on a gilt edged platter in every "debate" you've had here with everyone, me included, were I you I'd worry more about my own debating skills before I point fingers at others infinitely more capable than I.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't sell yourself short, Hoss. You're the Pigmeat Markum of the debating world! Will you sign my Yellow Pages?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 12 2007,14:21

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 12 2007,14:04)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) Ignored the fact that a) high IQ (meaningless as it is, for reasons mentioned umpteen times before) isn't unusual for the members of this board, and b) it was openly stated, deliberate mockery of Dave "I'm a Tard" Springer.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep, you're right about this. Since you bait me so often and I don't keep up with all the UD stuff, I didn't catch the reference. Sorry.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P.S. Oh and Troll, since you've had your arse handed to you on a gilt edged platter in every "debate" you've had here with everyone, me included, were I you I'd worry more about my own debating skills before I point fingers at others infinitely more capable than I.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't sell yourself short, Hoss. You're the Pigmeat Markum of the debating world! Will you sign my Yellow Pages?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


GOP,
I believe that you could be interesting. Please understand that you have upset a lot of people here. That is your fault. It will take time to build credibility from what YOU have wrought.

Continuing to look like a troll does not help your cause.
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 12 2007,14:27

...and if Paley has "come clean" and is done trolling, why on earth is he continuing to use his original troll thread?

It would be puzzling if I didn't think he was still just trolling.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 12 2007,14:56

Yeah, I know I'm being immature, and I realise there are consequences for my actions. I think I'll listen to some of the more sensible posters here and grow up.

Nevertheless, I like this thread cause it allows me to make comments without "forcing" myself on others (if that makes any sense). But I don't wish to exclude anyone.

So crap wherever you want, guys (you know who you are), and I'll do my best to tiptoe around the patties.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 12 2007,17:41

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 12 2007,14:56)
Yeah, I know I'm being immature, and I realise there are consequences for my actions. I think I'll listen to some of the more sensible posters here and grow up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, puh-leeze.

Now you remind me of "Uncle Davey".
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 12 2007,18:39

Holy Cow, I think my avatar just got thwacked!

Ah, well.  I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.   ;)
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 13 2007,03:18

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 12 2007,18:39)
Holy Cow, I think my avatar just got thwacked!

Ah, well.  I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.   ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks pretty much the same as normal to me.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 13 2007,07:41

Troll,

All the regular posters here are sensible, some are less tolerant of trolls than others, that'll be the only major difference. Guess what Troll, you've behaved, and continue to behave, like a total wanker and you seem to expect people to forgive and forget because you want them to, and with no effort from you. No dice.

If you want to change people's astonishingly low opinion of you, and you can leave my opinion out of that equation if you wish, then it is up to you to change it. YOU are responsible for making people think you're a pointless, trolling wanker and thus treat you as such. Give them an excuse NOT to think that of you, or treat you like that. You haven't so far, and based on your most recent efforts, probably won't.

You should note that not one poster on this board treats you with anything like the respect other posters get, all you get is mockery and irritation. It is up to you, if you so desire, to change that. I have my doubts that you desire changing it, and I certainly have my doubts about your ability to change it, but I am more than happy to be proven wrong.

Everyone gets a second (third, fourth, fifth etc) chance, like I said above:

"You're a demonstrated liar, troll and bigot. And yes, like AFDavey we know you lack the ability to comprehend this and keep trying to turn tables and weasel out of it. Unlike you Troll, I and the other human members of this board have no need of revisionist history, another fact you don't appreciate.

<snip Nastase story>

Go away or behave like a rational adult. The choice as always is yours."

Trolling a board really doesn't serve any purpose other than being childishly irritating. You aren't making new and interesting points, you aren't introducing novel and exciting topics, you are merely spouting trite crap and being an irritating wanker. Your posts are flamebait, nothing more. Your delusions of adequacy simply don't constitute evidence.

So perhaps rather than pissing about with sweaty wrestlers, goggle trawled contrarian bullshit try to demonstrate that you are an intelligent and honest contributor. I personally don't hold grudges so you'll get me on side at least, whether or not you care about that is immaterial. But don't for a second expect that anything less that a full apology and demonstrable improvement in posting habits/content will grant you the grace you appear to think you deserve.

A good start would be a post acknowledging your trolling past, openly apologising for it, and stating that from that point on that you, regardless of differences of opinion (all of which are fine) you will attempt to behave honestly and with some modicum of intellectual rigour. Humour is good, mockery is good, disagreement is good, your conduct thus far is not good. And it really really isn't just me that thinks this. Most people don't bother to give you the time of day Troll, consider that, and consider why.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 13 2007,10:58

Louis:

Don't make me laugh. You will never be civil regardless of what I do, and you know why? Because I tipped your sacred cows. Now there might be other issues going on (you seem to be insecure about your intellect, and I think my mockery of your logic has sorta fucked you up, but I'm not sure about this because I can only go by your posts), but that fundamental fact will never change.

If that weren't enough (and of course it is), there's also the fact that Stevestory rewards your (and other people's) behaviour by banning/restricting the objects of your abuse. Don't want Dave around? No problem! Just hurl brickbats and rotten tomatoes and then whine about the level of incivility, and presto! Dave's World is closed. So now you apply the same strategy to others. That's why I'm turning in, tuning in, and dropping out of your game: I've got better things to do than flog blowhards. So flame away and drop turds to your heart's content; I'll talk with the adults. There are plenty of mature people here and maybe I can reach them. Get this straight, however: I have no interest in "patching things up" with the likes of you, Lenny, or Fishy. You're not worth the trouble; ####, you're not even very interesting. I don't care if you participate in my threads but don't expect a reply. If that sounds snarky it isn't meant to be -- I don't find you irritating, just boring.

This is my last post to you.
Posted by: Faid on Jan. 13 2007,13:03

:O



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If that weren't enough (and of course it is), there's also the fact that Stevestory rewards your (and other people's) behaviour by banning/restricting the objects of your abuse. Don't want Dave around? No problem! Just hurl brickbats and rotten tomatoes and then whine about the level of incivility, and presto! Dave's World is closed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ghost: I appreciate your promise to not give into (or resort to) flamebait from now on, but this was startling at best.

Please tell me you are joking.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 13 2007,13:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please tell me you are joking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess I'm still a little pissed about the whole situation.

It's certainly true that Dave had thousands of posts to make his point, an opportunity he proceeded to squander in an occasionally jaw-dropping fashion. It's also true that there were a lot of side issues involved. But Stevestory clearly stated that one of the reasons for removing Dave was he was tired of dealing with the sniping and possible defamation by PT contributors, and that he thought it made the anticreationist side look bad. He didn't punish the offenders, he PUNISHED DAVE. Now what kind of message does that send to the jackals?

By the way, the only reason I'm talking about these issues is because it's been brought up in several threads, so I assume that the normal restriction has been waived in this instance. Nevertheless, I'm not going to dwell on it anymore because it's not my site. The only vote that counts is Wes's, and he has made his decision.
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 13 2007,13:43

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 13 2007,13:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please tell me you are joking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess I'm still a little pissed about the whole situation.

It's certainly true that Dave had thousands of posts to make his point, an oppurtunity he proceeded to squander in an occasionally jaw-dropping fashion. It's also true that there were a lot of side issues involved. But Stevestory clearly stated that one of the reasons for removing Dave was he was tired of dealing with the sniping and possible defamation by PT contributors, and that he thought it made the anticreationist side look bad. He didn't punish the offenders, he PUNISHED DAVE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the other side, you are the example of a troll who has been acting for a whole year on a forum, without being banned. Consider yourself lucky. ;)

And Steve closed Dave's thread partly because the guy was unable to learn and support his hypothesis.
I also remember him censoring a few posts containing insults.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 13 2007,14:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other side, you are the example of a troll who has been acting for a whole year on a forum, without being banned. Consider yourself lucky. ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



True, and I do. But remember that I've been muzzled on some topics. Not complaining, just reminding.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Steve closed Dave's thread partly because the guy was unable to learn and support his hypothesis.
I also remember him censoring a few posts containing insults.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Admittedly, it's hard to regulate a thread when it's nothing but insults.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 13 2007,14:37

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 13 2007,13:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please tell me you are joking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess I'm still a little pissed about the whole situation.

It's certainly true that Dave had thousands of posts to make his point, an opportunity he proceeded to squander in an occasionally jaw-dropping fashion. It's also true that there were a lot of side issues involved. But Stevestory clearly stated that one of the reasons for removing Dave was he was tired of dealing with the sniping and possible defamation by PT contributors, and that he thought it made the anticreationist side look bad. He didn't punish the offenders, he PUNISHED DAVE. Now what kind of message does that send to the jackals?

By the way, the only reason I'm talking about these issues is because it's been brought up in several threads, so I assume that the normal restriction has been waived in this instance. Nevertheless, I'm not going to dwell on it anymore because it's not my site. The only vote that counts is Wes's, and he has made his decision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I quite liked the AFDave thread. Not because of Dave though. Some of the replies where very informative and useful.

On the other hand, Dave was behaving in a very bad way. Refusing to answer questions, dodging etc. Is bad manners when you consider how much thought was put into the replies.

Whilst I did not like the insults, I can completely understand why people lost patience and resorted to using them.

Now consider this before you criticise moderation policy here. You are still being allowed to post, yet you spent about a year trolling this forum. The difference between you and AFDave? You stopped arguing once you painted yourself into a corner.

Unfortunately, you would then start another thread and persue the same tactics. Do you not think that you owe an apology to people that spent time refuting you? Time they could maybe have used more productively.

*sorry for any spelling/grammatical mistakes but days off start tomorrow and a tad drunk.*

*saying that, I make them when sober anyway.*
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 13 2007,16:52

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 13 2007,03:18)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 12 2007,18:39)
Holy Cow, I think my avatar just got thwacked!

Ah, well.  I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.   ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Looks pretty much the same as normal to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it was all of YOU guys who thwacked it . . .   ;)

It's stored on my website, and when y'all exceeded the hourly bandwidth limit by looking at my gorgeous face  (tee hee), it shut off my avatar too.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 13 2007,16:56

Of course you're free to believe whatever you like Troll. You're free to make up whatever little fictions you think will help you get through the day. The simple fact that I'm telling the truth, and telling it like it really is will obviously never cross your mind.

So sad.

Louis

P.S. Oh and you weren't muzzled, you were comprehensively shown to be talking through your arsehole, yet again, and like Thordaddy and other concern troll bigots you were told to either acknowledge the evidence against your claim and the illogic of your claim or shut up. Since you couldn't do that, WE were all prevented from discussing the topic with you. Not due to any sacred cows, due to your ability to be totally oblivious to evidence and reality. Spin that any way you like, it doesn't and won't change the facts. People have been banned for less Troll, you got a #### of a lot of tolerance. All undeserved.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 13 2007,16:57

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 13 2007,10:58)
You will never be civil regardless of what I do, and you know why? Because I tipped your sacred cows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess we simpletons just don't appreciate your genius, eh Paley?

So why bother with us?  Why not just go somewhere else, where your stunning intellect will be more readily worshipped?  Why bother casting pearls at us swine?

Bye.  (Waving as you ride off into the sunset on your snow-white horse.  Again.)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 13 2007,16:59

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 13 2007,10:58)
This is my last post to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Paley, could you, uh, make it your last post to *me*, too?

Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 13 2007,17:16

Lenny,

You know what irritates me about the troll, it's that he really doesn't think that the standards of honesty that apply to everyone apply to him.

People get understandably frustrated with a lying sack of shit like Dave. In trollworld: BOING hey presto Dave is "punished" (the poor innocent lamb) for being a creationist.

Real world version: regardless of how limited,  perhaps inexcusably so, people's patience can be, Dave was given the better part of a year to express his CGH in several threads. In that time he did no more than cut and paste AiG boilerplate, quote mine, distort people's comments, lie, ignore critical issues, and repeat the same unsupported blather. Calling him a fuckwit is pretty mild!

In trollworld: Getting annoyed with a self confessed liar and troll is more reprehensible than the trolling. In the real world the troll refuses to take any responsibility for its own actions, and bleats persecution when called on its bullshit.

In trollworld: Disagreeing=hatred. In the real world: disagreement=opportunity for discussion and furthering of views. Trolls seem unaware that, for example you and I disagree on much of religion (I'll be making a post in the Honest xtians thread at some point).

In trollworld: ....

Ach you know what.The lying piece of semi human shit is not worth the effort. The troll isn't capable of reason or honesty.

Louis

P.S. If ANYONE thinks the post which started "All the regular posters here are sensible..." is flamebait, take it up with me publicly or privately, because flamebait that ain't.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 13 2007,17:40

Hey Troll,

I know you've got your pathetic nose in a sling 'cause you can't out argue a dead whelk and don;t like being called on the pathetic piece of shit you are, but play the game fucko*. Same questions to you as Davey, modified for your benefit:

Tell me, at which point do people tell you that you are ambulatory fecal slime (or whatever)**:

1) When you initially announce your presence and creationist/racist beliefs.

2) When you start to try to debate topics in evolutionary biology/anthropology.

3) When you have been debating for some time, and (fairly or unfairly) some members of the debate start to think you have been less than honest in your treatment of the evidence and in your conduct in the debate.

4) After a considerable amount of time in a debate, after several topics, and after several other members of the debate have either given up on debating with you (again fairly or unfairly) because they consider you to have been dishonest.

5) At any point they choose, they're just irrational because you have the truth and they are blinded by demons/Darwin/Satan/Lenin/political correctness whatever.

6) None of the above, insert your own answer here.

Bear in mind that your threads are all a matter of unaltered, plain, public record. Your answer can be shown to be mistaken.

Louis

*Flamebait

**Not flamebait

P.S. Added in edit: There is one thing I "admire" about you, well perhaps admire is the wrong word. One thing "impresses" me, well again perhaps impresses is the wrong word. Hmmmm we'll go with amazes. There is one thing that AMAZES me about you, it's your total inability to face reality, your own actions, and anything contrary to your viewpoint in any way honestly. Your blinkered, stubborn,"I must be right at all costs, regardless of how dishonest I have to be to manage it" attitude is so contrary to reality that it truly amazes me that you've lived this long.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 13 2007,18:12

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 13 2007,17:16)
You know what irritates me about the troll, it's that he really doesn't think that the standards of honesty that apply to everyone apply to him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What irritates me is his constant insecure begging to be stroked.

Here he is, threatening yet again to leave, hoping that SOMEONE will say "ohhhh noooo, PLEASE don't leave us, Paley !!!!!!!!!"

I say, "Bye".  (shrug)

He seems to crave attention like a tapeworm craves shit.  

For anyone out there who has been unfortunate enough to make the cyber-acquaintence of "Uncle Davey", it's the same schtick.  Act like an ass, get called on it, apologize profusely and tearfully, then do it all over again.  And again.  And again.

Screw that.  Let the tapeworm find some *other* intestine to suck on.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 13 2007,18:51

Lenny,

Has he threatened to leave? Fuck me does that loon's ego know no bounds? You say "bye", I'm not so nice as you.

Uncle Davey apologised for something? When, where? Were there aerially acrobatic swine involved? Oh wait, I remember now. Ewww I feel dirty. Naaaah UD ain't like GoP. GoP's too insecure to apologise. GoP cannot allow himself to be wrong.

I've been wondering for some time who GoP is. Is he an old chum in a new guise, or is he a Loki (and excellent one) from a more sane member of the community? Either way, I'd actually like to meet him in person, it would be an interesting encounter. I remember hearing of Howlerfests where McNameless turned up and was an quiet unassuming and quite nice bloke. I wonder what GoP is like in real life because I am certain he lacks the balls to behave like he does here.

Louis
Posted by: Faid on Jan. 14 2007,06:19

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 13 2007,13:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please tell me you are joking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess I'm still a little pissed about the whole situation.

It's certainly true that Dave had thousands of posts to make his point, an opportunity he proceeded to squander in an occasionally jaw-dropping fashion. It's also true that there were a lot of side issues involved. But Stevestory clearly stated that one of the reasons for removing Dave was he was tired of dealing with the sniping and possible defamation by PT contributors, and that he thought it made the anticreationist side look bad. He didn't punish the offenders, he PUNISHED DAVE. Now what kind of message does that send to the jackals?

By the way, the only reason I'm talking about these issues is because it's been brought up in several threads, so I assume that the normal restriction has been waived in this instance. Nevertheless, I'm not going to dwell on it anymore because it's not my site. The only vote that counts is Wes's, and he has made his decision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry Ghost, I just don't get it.

Are you really saying that dave was PUNISHED for the mistakes of others? How can you (disengaged from your trolling persona, that is) say that with a straight face?

Dave has been here for months, falsely claiming that he was just an honest researcher who could be convinced by arguments and reason... and was allowed to argue for his "hypothesis for nearly 500 pages, when in other blogs his posts wouldn't even show up. Do you deny this?

He has spent all these months (instead of trying to conduct an actual honest debate), displaying a huge amount of combined ignorance and arrogance, as well as deliberate dishonesty. Do you deny this?

At the end of the thread, having exhausted his useless arsenal (and everyone's patience), he had resorted to trolling himself: Lying from one day to the other, claiming he answered questions, childish trolling of the "oh oh silly evos my sides hurt" variety, personal attacks specificaly against the scientists in this forums, questioning their expertise...
...He was trying to get banned to claim martyrdom, and it was obvious. Either way, he had ceased to even try and offer food for debate. Do you deny this?

All this triggered angry responses by many (including me, I have to admit), as was expected.

But tell me: What were Steve's options?

He could keep the thread going, pointless as it was, give dave even more special treatment than he was already receiving, and delete or edit improper comments- and that would create more discomfort, and the future of the thread (the thread with the greatest waste of bandwidth in the forum) would be nothing but a huge flame war with attacks against moderation. And dave would be snickering in the back.

Or, he could give dave what was long overdue to him. Close this humongous, evidently pointless thread, stop the uneeded turmoil, restore civility and let dave go be childish and arrogant somewhere else.

What would you do as a mod, Ghost?

And it's not just that: Even when he had no more choice as a moderator, Steve STILL was generous towards our last pet troll (after you came out :) ): He gave him almost 300 posts to get out of his trolling loop, and present a subject for debate.
Dave could discuss the ice age, dinos and humans, any other point in his  "hypothesis" he had not touched... Or he could at least pretend to try and answer all the questions that had piled up.
Instead, he spent that time babbling about dogs, AiG's profits and high-tech alien spaceships.

...And he eventually got what was coming to him. And not too soon.

No I know that I have repeatedly said that I wanted that thread to continue. BUT, I have also explained the reasons why; and they have nothing to do with HonestDave.
I enjoyed that thread because it served as a kickstart for me to remember much science I had forgotten, and learn much more that I never knew- just by trying to show dave what a clown he was being.
To that point, the thread served me well. But, in retrospect, I have to say that, if I was Steve, I would have to do what he did- and probably be more harsh about it.






What would you do, Ghost?
Because seriously, if you really think that someone PUNISHED dave, DAVE of all people, and you're not just putting us on again, then I will have even stronger doubts about your "coming out" than I had with your OOL thread.
And we both understand what that means.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 14 2007,16:54

Stephen Elliot:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you not think that you owe an apology to people that spent time refuting you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First of all, I would take your umbrage a lot more seriously if you wouldn't say things like this:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Being serious, you [Louis] don't really swear too much. The people it is aimed at, deserve it. You wanker! [my addition -- Paley]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This was on the "Civility" thread. I realise you were discussing Louis's treatment of Dave Springer, and "people" may have been a careless error, but it sounds like you're defending Louis's behavior towards me as well.

If so, then here's a question: Do you defend Louis when he calls me "subhuman scum" and repeatedly lies about my arguments? < Here are four lies in one thread alone. > < Ved catches Louis in another lie (and yes, I believe Louis was attepting to lie here: how could he not know that Stevestory had changed his mind about closing the thread? After all, the thread was locked. Not only was this a lie, it was a stupid one)? > Notice Louis's weak-assed < apology. > He could have just said "sorry" like I did when I made a < mistake of my own. >

Do you defend Lenny when he admits that he would lynch me if given the chance? Or how about when Stevestory has to < lock a thread > because < he insults a fifteen-year-old boy? > Or did the kid have it coming because of his creationist beliefs? Gee, I'm glad none of us ever believed anything stupid at that age.  ;)

So tell me, do you defend this behaviour? Please give a straight answer, because if you do defend it then I'm afraid I'll just have to shake your hand, thank you for your past contributions, and part ways. If not, then why do you think people like that deserve an apology?

Please forgive me if I've mischaracterised your position on anything. I really am confused here. And I'm not dismissing the possibility that others do deserve an apology, I just want a straight answer about Lenny and Louis.

Once again, I'm only bringing this up because I can't believe you of all people are defending such behaviour, so I must be misinterpreting you.

Gotta run. Faid, you bring up good points and I'll address them when I can. I also haven't forgotten my fossil thread. I just want to do it right.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 14 2007,17:47

Posting things out of context won't save you Troll. Sorry. Nice try, no dice. Read those threads, read the context and I am proven totally innocent of your latest attempt to tar others with the brush you liberally paint yourself.

When will you get it that I don't have to lie to refute your bullshit?

Louis
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 14 2007,17:50

(yawn)

Paley, has it not yet occurred to you that, uh, no one here cares what you think . . . . ?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 14 2007,18:09

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 14 2007,16:54)
Stephen Elliot:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you not think that you owe an apology to people that spent time refuting you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First of all, I would take your umbrage a lot more seriously if you wouldn't say things like this:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Being serious, you [Louis] don't really swear too much. The people it is aimed at, deserve it. You wanker! [my addition -- Paley]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This was on the "Civility" thread. I realise you were discussing Louis's treatment of Dave Springer, and "people" may have been a careless error, but it sounds like you're defending Louis's behavior towards me as well.

If so, then here's a question: Do you defend Louis when he calls me "subhuman scum" and repeatedly lies about my arguments?...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK GOP,
I will answer you.

Yes, I do defend Louis's behaviour. Here's why. You trolled this forum for about a year so you have no right to expect Louis to read your posts carefully any more. If somebody missrepresents what you (or anyone else) has said (and I notice it) I will point out that misstake.

You know that I do that. I have done it before and would do it again.

What I will not do is demand that people be civil towards you. You lost that right through your own actions. I will remain civil to you but that is just the way I am.

However, unlike Louis I am not here wanting serious scientific conversations (I am not qualified). The reason I am here is that I drifted onto this site due to the ID mission of trying to get religious ideas taught as science. ID is now dead as a religious/political movement but I like the posters here so I have stayed on.

Louis on the other hand is a chemical scientist and enjoys talking to other scientists/profesionals here. You have deliberately wasted a lot of his time and he is angry with you. Not surprising really.

Now Lenny.

I think that Lenny went completely OTT in his reply to that young man. However I do understand why he did so. Lenny has been in the anti-creationism fight for over 20 years and so I can understand his complete lack of patience at seing the same arguments being regurgitated. Do I like his reaction? NO! Can I understand the reaction? YES!

Stringing you up? No, I didn't like that comment. I considered it wrong on many levels. But you provoked it...you!

In summary, I will be polite to you GOP but I don't really have a dog in the race. I will not expect anyone else to be polite however as it is through your own actions that people are pissed off with you.

What I will do is point out to people if I spot them claiming stuff about you that demonstrably untrue. That is all I will do though.

The trolling you did hasn't anoyed me. I learned stuff from peoples responses. However I will not condemn those people that are anoyed, they wasted time (probably valuable) in responding to you.

I have met Louis. He is an OK guy and not 1 bit as nasty as you try to make out. But he is a busy man with a demanding job/vocation. I am not a bit surprised that he is pissed off with having his time wasted.

That is all for now. If you do not like my reply then feel free to say why. I don't mind having my time wasted here. After all, I am just here for fun now ID has been blasted away as a serious threat to education.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 14 2007,18:35

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 14 2007,16:54)
First of all, I would take your umbrage a lot more seriously if you wouldn't say things like this:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Being serious, you [Louis] don't really swear too much. The people it is aimed at, deserve it. You wanker! [my addition -- Paley]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BTW. You do realise that was just a joking throwaway line do you not? Louis did. I think. I am of course refering to the comment "You wanker".

Never mind hey.
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 14 2007,20:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ved catches Louis in another lie
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your interpretation.

I stand by what I actually said.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 15 2007,02:48

Cheers for your comments Steve.

One thing: Ok guy? Just ok, after all we shared, I'm so hurt. That's it, I'm never playing Mummies and Daddies with you again!

Louis

P.S. Hey Troll, in case you're reading, this too is humour. Get it yet? Nope didn't think so.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 15 2007,03:58

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,02:48)
Cheers for your comments Steve.

One thing: Ok guy? Just ok, after all we shared, I'm so hurt. That's it, I'm never playing Mummies and Daddies with you again!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shhhhhhhhh! Stop giving out our secrets. You promised to tell no-one.

Anyhow, what is wrong with being described as OK. It is OK to be Ok, OK?

On a more serious note though in GOP's defence. I can't recall seing anything that he posted as being specifically racist.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 15 2007,04:04

Stephen (and I guess, All),

Whilst your defense was admirably accurate, I thought I'd clear a few things up for the Troll's benefit:

1) No I am not angry with the Troll. I get annoyed when he thinks he deserves to be held to different standards of honesty than everyone else, and I am not impressed with his level of honesty. The Troll is far too insignificant for me to be angry with him.

2) Yes I am a working research scientist, but I think anyone can tell from the majority of my posts I am more than happy with knob gags and banter. Don't make a big deal of what I do, if I discuss work it's not to bash people over the head with what I do, it's because I'm genuinely interested and excited about it, and like to discuss things to do with it with like minded people. Don't sell yourself short by the way, you're a mighty fine conversationalist over a beer or a network. Life isn't all science science science (did I just say that? Wow, I must be ill).

3)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You trolled this forum for about a year so you have no right to expect Louis to read your posts carefully any more. If somebody missrepresents what you (or anyone else) has said (and I notice it) I will point out that misstake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I do read the Troll's posts very carefully, just like I read everyone's posts very carefully. If anyone cares to read back over the post the Troll refers to and over the thread it contains they will clearly see that it isn't me misreading or distorting things. I'm exceedinly confident about that. The Troll crying "lie" and "misrepresentation" does not equal these things actually happening. Surel;y everyone has noticed that this is his way of trying too cover his own dishonesty by claiming others do it. The Troll has a hard on for Lenny and me because we simply refuse to let him get away with it and have no compunction about being blunt about it.

Regardless of my enjoyment of mocking the troll I do hold myself to a higher standard of intellectual honesty and personal integrity than he appears capable of. Perhaps this is because for him this is a game of "win at teh intarnetz" whereas for me it is yet another discussion in which I wish to learn something. Take for example his comment earlier about "sacred cows". What he doesn't get is I don't have any. The Troll's cognitive dissonace is such that everyone HAS to be like him, issue ridden and "win" at all costs. The idea of changing one's mind on the basis of evidence clearly frightens him.

Take again the comment he has seized on by Ved. Ved does not agree with him, neither does the comment from Steve support his emphasis of what happened with Dave. When Ved drew the second post to my attention I immediately said that it could be considered to give the Troll more benefit of the doubt. There was no apology because even the second comment does not support the Troll's emphasis or distortion of what Steve said. End of story. The Troll is, as I said above, simply crying "persecution". He thinks that this board is a collection of conspiratorial Lefties because we don't agree with him about his claims and politics. Just like he claims this board is a conspiratorial cadre of Evos and Liberals. It's HIS paranoia and HIS agenda that's showing. He is projecting this because he thinks that by muddying the waters he will "win at teh intarnetz". Never forget that's his only goal.

4) As I said before there really is no emnity here on my part. Like I said above I am MORE than willing to give the Troll yet another chance to demonstrate he's a human being, and not a lying sack of shit. Let's be honest, everyone has given him a whole series of chances to do this. He hasn't even taken one of them. Look, as a recent example, at his comments about my talking about IQ recently. I pointed out he had wrongly attributed my comments on the subject to intellectual dick waving when actually what I was doing was mocking DaveTard's pseudointellectual claims. He said sorry but then went on to have yet another tanturm brought on by his assumption of emnity and inability to read the English language for anything approaching comprehension and repeat exactly the same nonsense. The fact that he treats an honest (albeit unsympathetic) attempt to get him to realise that it is HIS responsibility to change HIS awful behaviour as hostile is just yet another example of the fact that he really isn't interested in discussion

5) Again, never forget that for the Troll this is some sort of "game" to be "won". Note comments about "battering Evos" or "beating libruls" or some such twaddle. Note piccies of sweaty wrestlers and muscley cartoon characters. Note declarations of victory and points scored where none exist. This is personal for the troll. He is trying to validate his views and himself by desperately trying to "win at teh intarnetz" against people who don't agree with him. The almost epicly tragic part is that he really doesn't have the ability to do this. He sees complex words and phrases and thinks that if he googles for them, or things that appear to dispute them, and spews what he finds right back that he has scored some sort of point. I would speculate that, like AFDave, he knows he cannot support his views but is too monumentally arrogant to change them on the basis of the evidence. All the subsequent shennanigans he plays are simply blatant attempts to divert from ever having to deal with reality. This latest tu quoque shite is a case in point. Even if he were right and I am some evil bastard lying and abusing across the web (and let's be honest I'm not in any way) this does not in any way at all excuse his awful behaviour, pointless trolling, rampant dishonesty etc.

6) Don't believe the hype. This latest cry of persecution is the latest in a series of childish shell games. The part is a corrollary to part 5. Don't believe this "I was trolling the board for a year with a buddy" crap. It is a lie. The Troll has repeatedly demonstrated his total lack of willingness to engage in a rational discourse with anyone. Especially anyone who has the temerity to remind him of his conduct and responsibility. It's the same with Davey, their egos will not allow anything different.

It's like a game of "Battleships", any time you get the cries of "persecution" or "tu quoque" or any of the other distractions and nonsense we get from Davey and the Troll, you know you've scored a "hit". Just remember that this is what we have to deal with: people so insecure, so vested in their egos that they cannot and will not allow reality or evidence to change their fixed ideas. They will make any excuse, lie about anything, twist, turn, wriggle, obfuscate and blather to avoid the hook that they themselves put in their own mouths.

An excellent example of this is the "GoP Muslims" thread. The Troll was making claims that no one had ever refuted a political claim he had made. So muggins here, ever hopeful that the cretin possessed a SHRED of honesty, steps up with a claim he himself made. That thread could be one page long. Instead what we have is miles of the Troll trying to change the claim, avoid the data and twist things to suit his prejudices. We also have miles of me and others not letting him get away with it. What he doesn't get, STILL, is that there's nothing personal about it, nothing he needs to get stressed about. He was defending a very narrowly defined claim (which he couldn't do) not overturning his worldview. This is key to his problem: wrong on one thing, wrong on the lot. He cries persecution for the topic being silenced (to all, not just him you'll note. Although of course it's just him being persecuted, in his  "mind") and claims that we poor liberals and lefties and evos were being "protected". Again, I invite everyone to read back over the thread. The Troll had his arse handed to him on a platter on that claim. As usual. All his whining about persecution, protectionism, and his false claims of victory are just his way of letting us know that he is an ego ridden, dishonest semi human who cannot for one second appreciate he might be wrong about anything. It's a terrifying state of mind to be in, one synonymous with massive insecurity, and almost always a total lack of education or humility.

As I have said many times before the Trolls and Daveys of this world are to be pitied for their mental weakness, and pitilessly opposed.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 15 2007,04:24

Stephen,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On a more serious note though in GOP's defence. I can't recall seing anything that he posted as being specifically racist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then I invite you to read back over the multifarious threads the Troll has been touting his racial segregation and immigration policies on. You don't have to say "I hate niggers" to be a racist. Read the weasel words in the Daily Mail once in a while. People are more subtle about their racial bigotry nowadays. Homophobia is blatant, it's the new racism after all! Racism was stomped on too long ago for anyone to be openly comfortable with it (beyond the nutters, who interestingly have moderated their message to win votes, a tactic that appears to work btw). We are ALL racist to an extent. It's hardwired into us to fear what is different, to be cautious in the face of outgroup threats, real or imagined. Not one person on the planet doesn't have the occasional guilty thought. Realising this, realising that we are all vulnerable, realising how irrational such fears are and how little evidence they have is what seperates a non-racist from a racist.

People like the Troll are too wrapped up and too stupid to be able to break their own cycle of fear. They are simply too dumb to realise how unreal and insignificant their fears are, so they try to justify them by fitting whatever evidence seems to support them, and ignoring or defaming anything that doesn't. Look at nutcase animal rights activists on the political left, or extreme beardy weirdy nature loving enviromentalists. Look at creationists, dominionists, reconstructionists or racists, homphobes and social conservatives on the right. It's the same mouthful of mouthwash being swished from cheek to cheek. It's fear, pure and simple. That doesn't mean to say that SOME of the fears these people have are not justified, some of them really are. But you don't find that out by listening to their bleating, you find that out be considering the available evidence. Evidence first, then agenda, not the other way around.

Unlike the Troll, I lack the time (or to be honest the inclination) to trawl back through months of posts to pick a few choice vignettes unless I really have to. Since the Troll get's his little pecker stiff for Lenny or me oncer a month, it's water off a duck's back, and not worth my while. Anyone curious is welcome to go back over a few months and see that the Troll has his little erotic fetish moment once a month or so and stomps his dishonest little feet and makes some noise. It's all a bit obvious and all a bit pathetic. Frankly I am amzed that he is still allowed to post here, which does make me wonder who is operating him, or if he's for real. I've seen too many lovely Lokis on the net to ever be comfortable when a gilt edged total shithead like the Troll appears.

As for me, I know I'm honest, and I know I don't have to stoop to the sort of gamesy tactics that the Troll does. Not because I am right about anything, but because I am happy to go where the evidence leads, no matter how uncomfortable (see for example my annoyance with liberal weakness, a weakness I posses might I add, on the "Civility" thread). The Troll simply doesn't get this. He assumes that the world is like him: "agenda first, then fit evidence accordingly". He cannot grasp that some people are "evidence first, then fit agenda accordingly".

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 15 2007,04:40

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,04:04)
Stephen (and I guess, All),
...
Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know what Louis?
I do not dissagree with anything you said in that post.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 15 2007,04:42

Stephen,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know what Louis?
I do not dissagree with anything you said in that post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bugger.

I was trying really hard too!

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 15 2007,04:49

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,04:42)
Bugger.

I was trying really hard too!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obviously not hard enough.
Whatya doin, warming up for Leicester square?
Agh! That image hurts my brain.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 15 2007,04:53

It hurts YOUR brain? Just think of the poor people in Leicester Square who are treated to it weekly.

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 15 2007,05:02

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,04:53)
It hurts YOUR brain? Just think of the poor people in Leicester Square who are treated to it weekly.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But why Leicester square? A quick stroll could take you to Covent Garden south food hall. There you could do it to music (usually excellent) that may do wonders for your rythym but may have a negative effect on the musicians earnings. Aghh! I see now. You considerate bastard. You are such a nice guy that you will accept reduced pleasure to protect the earning power of some poor busker.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 15 2007,05:15

You have hit the nail on the head. So to speak. Plus the Japanese tourists in Leicester Square tip so well.

Also, there's this fundy that tours the square telling people they are going to ####. It occasionally amuses me to upset him. Not by wanking, but by arguing with him.*

Louis

*This part is true, I once chased him out of Victoria tube station with a copy of "The Selfish Gene" when he started his "You're going to ####" routine on me for the third time that week. He runs pretty well for a guy carrying a big folder full of images of #### and a placard.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 15 2007,05:24

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,05:15)
You have hit the nail on the head. So to speak. Plus the Japanese tourists in Leicester Square tip so well.

Also, there's this fundy that tours the square telling people they are going to ####. It occasionally amuses me to upset him. Not by wanking, but by arguing with him.*

Louis

*This part is true, I once chased him out of Victoria tube station with a copy of "The Selfish Gene" when he started his "You're going to ####" routine on me for the third time that week. He runs pretty well for a guy carrying a big folder full of images of #### and a placard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the good time just keep on truckin.
Perhaps I should pop into central London more often. Sounds like endless free entertainment.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 15 2007,05:35

Stephen,

Incidentally, you live in Windsor don;t you? Have I remembered that correctly?

The beloved Mrs and I are moving to that part of the world in the next few weeks. Beers?

And yes, you should make it to central Londinium more often. It's fantastic. Such an old city, redolent with history and nutters on every street corner. The streets of London are paved with loons!

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 15 2007,05:40

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,05:35)
Stephen,

Incidentally, you live in Windsor don;t you? Have I remembered that correctly?

The beloved Mrs and I are moving to that part of the world in the next few weeks. Beers?

And yes, you should make it to central Londinium more often. It's fantastic. Such an old city, redolent with history and nutters on every street corner. The streets of London are paved with loons!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, Windsor is where I live.

Why the question mark after the word beers? ####, I had to do it too.

Whereabouts are you moving to dude? BTW I would definately be up for a pub meet. There are quite a few to choose from here.

EDIT: Windsor also has a fair bit of history. If you didn't know any better, you could be forgiven for thinking you was in central Londinium. Although it only about 1000 years old. Windsor only became a town after the castle was started. Built to be the Western defensive point for London along the Thames. IIRC the Tower of London was the equivalent for the East.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 15 2007,06:03

Not entirely sure precisely where moving to. Maidenhead/Bray/Windsor/Upminster dunno yet. Mrs works in Maidenhead so probably near there.

When we arrive (next month) BEERS.

(note capital letter, no question mark)

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 15 2007,06:22

Maidenhead is quite nice as is Windsor not sure about Upminster or Bray as I have never been. If you need to be in central London for work then Slough aint a bad place to be.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 15 2007,06:34

Betjemen did Slough for me:

"Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough...."

Louis

P.S. For our American chums "Slough" is pronounced like "Plow" not like "Tough"
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 15 2007,06:40

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,06:34)
Betjemen did Slough for me:

"Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough...."

Louis

P.S. For our American chums "Slough" is pronounced like "Plow" not like "Tough"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"It's not fit for humans now".
You should fit right in ya weirdo.

Seriously though. Slough-London Paddington, about 20 mins by train.
Maidenhead is the next reasonable sized town to Slough and about 5-10 mins by train.
Driving at busy times is a nightmare.
Windsor-Maidenhead 5 miles and easily cycleable.
Windsor-Waterloo by train about 1 hour
Windsor-Paddington about 30 mins by train.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 16 2007,12:10

Stephen Elliot:

I thought you said you would correct Louis's "mistakes" when you caught them. Well, < this post > contains a rather egregious mischaracterization of my political views. How ever did you miss it?

If you don't correct him, I will later. But if you're the honest person you say you are, then you need to sack up and point out Louis's boo-boos.  :)

Anybody else is welcome to help out. Eric Murphy, care to give it a whirl?

I know, Faid....don't say it. But I'd like to think Stephen is honest; it would depress me if he wasn't.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 16 2007,12:34

{whistles}

Hey Troll,

When are you going to work out that your asinine attempts at revisionist history don't work? Do you have Altzheimers? Does your huge ego cause your memory to reset every day? Anyone who wants to go back and honestly look at the threads about your ideas is welcome to. Whether or not YOU think you're a racist, by pretty much any definition of the word you've proven yourself to be one. Pretending otherwise won't work. It hasn't worked yet, it won't work now.

You are of course more than welcome to waste your time trying. You should also note that that post is not a representation of your political views. It would appear that, as usual, your total lack of ability to be even remotely honest and read for any form of comprehension just shows you up to be a pointless fuckwit. Again. If I were you Troll, I'd stop out of consideration for myself, let alone anyone else.

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 16 2007,13:25

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 16 2007,12:10)
Stephen Elliot:

I thought you said you would correct Louis's "mistakes" when you caught them. Well, < this post > contains a rather egregious mischaracterization of my political views. How ever did you miss it?

If you don't correct him, I will later. But if you're the honest person you say you are, then you need to sack up and point out Louis's boo-boos.  :)

Anybody else is welcome to help out. Eric Murphy, care to give it a whirl?

I know, Faid....don't say it. But I'd like to think Stephen is honest; it would depress me if he wasn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello again GOP,
I do not think that you have said anything that is directly racist. That is my POV. I have said as much.

Louis has picked up on some of the arguments that you use. Some of those arguments are used by racists that try to sound nice/educated/using evidence etc.

What do you want me to do GOP? I have made my comment. Did you miss it? Louis acknowledged it.

Please think a bit before responding. You are the person that has lied to us all for about a year. What is worse. Calling people names or wasting their time? You have wasted peoples time GOP.

You claim that people are missrepresenting your views and you are complaining about it. Fair enough (normally), but YOU missrepresented your own views by choice did you not?

I will say this to you again in case you missed it. I do not think that you have ever posted anything that is specifically racist. What do you want from me GOP? Louis is nasty to you because of your own actions. How could I possibly criticise his reaction to disshonesty when I do not like lying myself?

BTW. I do not want you banned or cencsored in any way. But please don't expect me to criticise Louis' behaviour (to you) as it is a rational response to your behaviour.

If you don't like it (and I assume you don't), change your ways and people will come around...Eventually. Just acept some responsibility.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 16 2007,13:29

BTW GOP. In the post that you linked to. Did you see the quotation?

It was a response to me defending you!
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 16 2007,15:41

Stephen,

The Troll has advocated (repeatedly) determining immigration policy based on differences between racial groups. When he isn't doing that he's advocating determining immigration policy on religious grounds.

(Aside: As a case in point, note the BNP's use of "muslim" as a weasel word, the law protects racially identifiable groups in the UK from harassment based on their race, but it doesn't protect them from harassment on the basis of ideas they may hold. Because in the UK the majority of muslims could be described as "black" or "asian", the BNP have been caught on tape openly admitting to using the term "muslim" as a placeholder for other more racially identifiable terms.)

The Troll has repeatedly asserted that immigration policy based on loosely defined racial characteristics/differences is valid despite a wealth of contrary evidence. This is the latest weasel word incarnation of racism, like I said, read the Daily Mail or the Express for excellent examples. Race based fear mongering pure and simple. The Troll has a vested interest in overemphasising differences, and/or making them up, in order to justify his fear. This is precisely what racism is. Like I said above a "No Blacks or Irishmen" sign on the Troll's forehead isn't required. His arguments display his racist views. But don't take my word for it, look 'em up. Remind yourself.

What the Troll is doing now is trying to muddy the waters again because he cannot stand the fact that a) he has lost every single "debate" on the issue he has raised (by the way, his status as a "race concern troll" is also undeniable), b) he (and indeed everyone) was prevented from discussing his hot button concern issue (race etc).

Should he deny it, his own words are easy to find, I suggest rather than entertain his ego driven need for attention, you look them up yourself and PM me if you wish to discuss anything about it.

Also, I am not angry with the Troll, nor am I nasty to him. I simply refuse to let dishonest, racist, deliberate trolling liars get away with attempting to rewrite history. I'm curious why anyone does anything different? The Troll has conclusively demonstrated he holds everyone here, you, me, everyone in contempt. Well perhaps AFDave is an exception.  Again, don't for a second believe this latest act, it's another gutless ploy in a shell game. The Troll is the same person who thinks the sun goes round the earth or that if you eat something its genes enter your gametes. He need little provocation to go off onto a rant about "Evos", "lefties" or "liberals", just like when he first came here. I don't buy for a second his "there were two of us trolling" lie, and neither should anyone. His behaviour hasn't changed one bit. He is an unrepentant, mentally disturbed, deluded inadequate. He has a hard on for this board and he won't leave unless pushed. Perhaps not even then. Best thing to do is ignore him, I'd love to be able to, but I hate liars, so I don't find it easy.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 16 2007,15:44

Stephen Elliot:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW GOP. In the post that you linked to. Did you see the quotation?

It was a response to me defending you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I understand that, Stephen. I never said you were misrepresenting my views, only that I was disappointed that you didn't correct Louis's lies. Like what, for instance? Like this [bolding mine]:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stephen,

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

On a more serious note though in GOP's defence. I can't recall seing anything that he posted as being specifically racist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 


Then I invite you to read back over the multifarious threads the Troll has been touting his racial segregation and immigration policies on. You don't have to say "I hate niggers" to be a racist. Read the weasel words in the Daily Mail once in a while. People are more subtle about their racial bigotry nowadays. Homophobia is blatant, it's the new racism after all! Racism was stomped on too long ago for anyone to be openly comfortable with it (beyond the nutters, who interestingly have moderated their message to win votes, a tactic that appears to work btw). We are ALL racist to an extent. It's hardwired into us to fear what is different, to be cautious in the face of outgroup threats, real or imagined. Not one person on the planet doesn't have the occasional guilty thought. Realising this, realising that we are all vulnerable, realising how irrational such fears are and how little evidence they have is what seperates a non-racist from a racist.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is from the link I gave above. Now let's compare the part I bolded with some things I actually wrote [my bolding]:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Restrict immigration to those nations who respect our culture.
2) Buy out those immigrants who don't, and send them back to their countries of origin (where they won't be held back by the BEDs who torment them so). Perhaps an average bribe of $5000/yr for every year spent in the host country (up to 10 years), plus all their liquified assets of course
3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.
What are the advantages of this model? I'll fill in the details later.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From < here. >

< or (rebutting a Louis-like allegation): >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Are you saying that school integration was the problem?  Because this is such a laughable explanation that I don't even know how to respond without being insulting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Not to be rude, but are you really from the United States? You certainly don't seem very conversant with our history. The Great Society program postdated Brown V Board of Education by at least six years. My public shool certainly taught this. Boy, did it ever. [this proves that my beef was not with integration, but some of the later social-engineering programs. Also see the civil rights timeline in the same thread. -- Paley]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



or how about < here: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you have read the thread from beginning to end, then how did you miss my three-part essay detailing my argument, consisting of:
1) Cash bribes to encourage emigration of people who hate our guts
2) Heavy immigration from Europe, Israel, and Northeast Asian countries to replace our departing malcontents
3) New legislation repealing all race laws
4) Letting the resulting freedom of association weed out the bad cultures amongst our remaining malcontents

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And just in case anyone missed it, I clarified my views < later: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Flint, I warned you about lying about my politics. You know #### well that I believe in equal civil rights for all American citizens, and that I despise any form of "race law". The existence of racial categories in no way implies different treatment under the law, and only an imbecile would believe otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By the way, Flint clarified his point so I'm not accusing him of that now.

< Here's his response. Notice that while he criticises my immigration plan as discriminatory, he doesn't accuse me of supporting segregation. Then again, he's not a lying sack of shit like your bud is, Stephen. :) >

Notice that Louis participated in the thread, and he claims < that: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do read the Troll's posts very carefully, just like I read everyone's posts very carefully. If anyone cares to read back over the post the Troll refers to and over the thread it contains they will clearly see that it isn't me misreading or distorting things. I'm exceedinly confident about that. The Troll crying "lie" and "misrepresentation" does not equal these things actually happening. Surel;y everyone has noticed that this is his way of trying too cover his own dishonesty by claiming others do it. The Troll has a hard on for Lenny and me because we simply refuse to let him get away with it and have no compunction about being blunt about it. [my bold]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So Louis's mistakes are no mistakes.

There's more where that came from, but the references above should be enough. Oh, buy the way, Stephen: tell your bud that he should practice what he preaches on the antibigotry front. It seems he's got < issues > of his own. Check the word I bolded. And yes, Louis tried to deny that his remark was antisemitic, but I've run Louis's unhappy phrasing past several Jewish friends and aquaintances (some of them who are severe critics of Israel themselves), and they've all agreed that Louis's remarks indicate a probable antisemitic mindset. They also agreed that Louis's use of "zionist" was highly inappropriate.

Just thought I'd bring that up. Hey Louis, ya like apples? How about them apples?



Poor Louis. Not only a liar, but a rather stupid one. But his lies do keep me from better things, so I'll just link to this post from now on whenever Louis needs a slappin' down.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 16 2007,16:05

I noticed that Louis (from now on Mel) is busy spinning more lies:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Troll has repeatedly asserted that immigration policy based on loosely defined racial characteristics/differences is valid despite a wealth of contrary evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. My Troll Persona argued against immigration from certain nationalities. He specifically argued that some black nations (Barbados, for example) were acceptable. My true views aren't even that harsh, although I do believe that higher standards/scrutiny should be placed on certain nations. For example, Russian immigrants should be treated with more skepticism than, say, immigrants from Barbados (Barbados has a much lower crime rate, less organised crime, and less civil unrest). Immigration is not a right -- it's a priviledge. Or are Mexico and Japan racist nations? According to Mel, they would be.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 16 2007,16:23

Ok Troll. You want it. You got it.

You see I don't lie, unlike you I don't need to.

See you tomorrow.

Louis
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 16 2007,17:51

(yawn)  Is Paley ***STILL*** fucking whining . . . .?  Geez.  He's worse than the crybabies at DI.

Does anyone else find it amusing that Paley comes here specifically to pick fights, and now he wants to weep like a little girl when he GETS them?

Let the troll find another bridge to live under.  (shrug)
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 16 2007,18:15

By the way, a good example of my plan in action is America's policy towards Muslim immigrants as opposed to, say, Mexican immigrants. America quite obviously subjects Muslim immigrants to a much stricter standard of scrutiny than Mexican immigrants (for example, America is much more relentless about expelling illegal Muslims/Arabs). Yet we don't ban Muslim immigration. And yes, I'm pretty sure I stated (post-coming out) that I think America's Muslim immigration policy is a good model to follow (although I can't find where....I think I was answering a question from Faid). The point is, I do believe that America's plan is a good one to follow.

Oh, here's the < smoking gun that Louis knows that he's lying about my position on segregation. I caught him lying about it much earlier. Louis did not respond then --  he simply waited for people to forget his lie, and then repeated it in this thread. >

< Here's another post comparing my actual views to TrollPaley's views: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorta a weird blend of mild religious conservatism and libertarianism: clean up the public square and then let people do what they want in private. In other words, a return of socially-sanctioned hypocrisy. At least this lets people to pursue their interests without polluting the public culture.



As far as the taboo stuff is concerned (let's face it, that's what everyone really means)....I can't speak for B&F Paley but here's my take. I think that it's likely that group (ie racial) differences in physical and mental abilities exist, but our laws should proceed as if they don't. Let people be judged as individuals, especially since that's the package citizens come in anyway. I dislike affirmative action, Jim Crow, and all other racial shenanigans. The government has no business telling me or anyone else who I may hire, live with, or marry. I believe this is not so far from creoPaley, although he added plenty of racial paranoia to the mix. [my current bold]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 16 2007,18:25

(yawn)  Would someone please explain to Paley, using very small words, that nobody here gives a flying #### WHAT he thinks?

That simple observation seems to be escaping him, for some reason. . . .
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Jan. 16 2007,19:02

I second that yawn.
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Jan. 16 2007,19:09

Oops!

My bad!  That word "second," was on the long side.

It did have more than one syl.la.ble.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 16 2007,19:19

< Here's a followup that demonstrates that TrollPaley did favour the exclusion of certain nationalities. That's why I volunteered my real views on this thread, > which are < outlined here. >

Ahhhh....here is where I renounce TrollPaley's exclusion by < nationality: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Faid:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Well, Ghost, since you agree that Muslims can integrate, same as everyone else, I got no beef with you. At best, you may say I am somewhat more optimistic than you, especially recently, after reading these sources (*). So we can agree we (mildly) disagree. After all, only time will tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





Like the parody, I believe that continuous, massive integration is counterproductive to the host nation. I also believe that some groups integrate better than others and should get the presumption (if you disagree, feel free to email). Nevertheless, selective immigration* + time to assimilate seems to work well enough even with "problem" groups, so that's what I embrace. Why mess with success?

In other words, I don't see the existence of white-majority nations as a "problem" that needs a "solution". Many lefties have admitted to me in private that they favour current policies because they want to see whites become a minority in every country. A couple of people on this board have conceded that whites need to be punished/bred out, and that immigration is a splendid way to accomplish this. All I've got to say is, "You first".

Please reply by PM if you disagree. Seriously, I'm done with this topic.

*with even stricter standards for immigrants from "problem" nations [bolding mine]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Louis < inadvertently proves that he's read this very post. >


Steviepinhead:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I second that yawn.[about Paley's views]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, then sack up the next time Louis lies. I told you I would expose Louis for what he is if Stephen, Eric, or anybody else didn't do it. Show some courage next time.

:p
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 16 2007,19:28

To anyone even remotely interested.

1) The Dictionaries:

rac•ism         - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uh m] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

[Origin: 1865–70; < F racisme. See RACE2, -ISM ]

—Related forms
racist, noun, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
rac•ism   (r&#257;'s&#301;z'&#601;m)  Pronunciation Key        
n.  
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


From the OED:

“The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race”


2) A Rapid Selection from The Troll:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties.”

“My hypothesis, however, is that all Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as a group, are incompatible with Western societies regardless of nationality. In order to become compatible, they must discard their religion, and nothing less will do. I don't care about fashion and culinary preferences so long as they are not motivated by religious belief.”

“But whatever the reason, it's a very real problem and no one has a clue on how to detect Western-friendly Muslims ahead of time.”

“Sorry for the bolding and all-caps, but do see why Americans and Europeans might consider this a little problematic? He's got his own Muslim countries to live in, but no, he wants to come to traditionally Christian countries and force us to "respect" his religion (on his terms, of course), even if that means a loss of liberty for us. Well, I've got some advice for this imam: if you don't like what you see in the newspapers or on the telly, then don't read or watch the offending material (or organise a boycott, or protest peacefully)! If that's too much, then sorry, but it's time to go back to your homeland, and don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!”

“For whatever reason, they don't fit in, and that's what matters in immigration policy”

“First of all, I don't hate Muslims; if it were up to me I'd leave Muslims alone to practice their religion to their heart's content. Problem is, they won't leave us alone.”

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

“Nevertheless, it all boils down to, "Does the Greek/Swede/American have the right to his own culture? And if not, why not? Why can't the Christian or non-communist atheist enjoy what the Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist takes for granted?"”

“I think many immigrants want the best of both worlds: they wish to take advantage of the new country's benefits while holding on to their old culture. This isn't so bad if their original culture is compatible with their new society, but if it isn't, trouble ensues. I also have the sneaking suspicion that many Muslims consider themselves colonists rather than immigrants. If you can't beat 'em from the outside, weaken them from the inside. Remember what the Koran teaches.”

"“Let me guess: you're disappointed with Europe for rejecting Creationism and Fundamentalism."


Not as disappointed as they will be. France and Germany are already hurtin' economically, British youths are turning into thugs, crime rates are rising across Europe.......how long until a crisis erupts, I wonder? Clichy-sous-Bois just dropped off its perch.”

“See, this is why liberals have to censor their opponents: they can't handle the evidence and therefore must resort to tu quoque and ad hominem arguments. America's situation -- which is better than Europe's, incidentally-- has little to do with Europe's problems. And yes, I blame much of this decline on replacing Jesus with multiculturalism and Big Brother.”

“Since when does criticising inherent mental differences = racism? You liberals don't make a lick of sense.”

“I just get depressed when people in formerly quiet, crime free countries import gang-rape and thuggery into their beautiful societies.”

“We're the "niggers" now. We're the ones who face legal discrimination, we're the ones who are targeted for robbery, assault, and murder; we're the ones who are constantly stereotyped and ridiculed. The fact that we can compete anyway doesn't change that reality. After all, Jews and Asians had to overcome discrimination too.”

“Since I've never claimed that Muslims are the only group that doesn't assimilate (quite the contrary)….”

“HAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! Sell it to Erin and the other liberals - oh wait, you don't have to - they'll just cover the story, hide the races of the perps, and frame Whitey with sly innuendos....^&%# Marxists. And Russell will claim that the Black students must have been flown in by helicopter.”

“Look, can we agree that massive immigration serves the interests of both liberals (gotta overturn the Evil West) and big bidness ("Those furriners sure work cheap, don't they?")? If you grant that, then it becomes clear that the media can't let Joe Sixpack get restless about the potential consequences of massive, uncontrolled immigration, which may include massive, uncontrolled violence against the native population. And since whites are responsible for the sorry state of___(fill in the blank), they make a better target for violence than anyone else. Given enough stories of minority-on-majority violence, even the dullest citizen may begin connecting the dots. And our plutocracy just can't abide that.”

“This question actually touches upon my basic ambivalence towards our massive Hispanic immigration. On the one hand, Hispanic people(s) do seem to value hard work, faith, and family. On the other hand, their culture(s) also seems to suffer from high levels of crime, a pervasive anti-intellectualism, and a sense of entitlement that seems inseparable from their ethnic identity. They apparently view values such as sexual modesty and respectful attitudes toward women as "anglo", and have little incentive in preserving them. It could be worse - we could be invaded by Muslims like France, Denmark or The Netherlands.”

“For the liberal, only the underdog motif counts. The liberal doesn't care about the social group as a cohesive unit - he merely wishes to consume the technological and moral fruits of his society. The individual is all. Any talk about tradition, and how past visions are necessary for a healthy future, is dismissed as reactionary griping. Being the eternal teenager, he doesn't recognise the moral, intellectual, and physical effort that went into creating the West - he merely skims the cream, and complains that there isn't enough to go around. He doesn't care about how his policies damage society - after all, the future is now, and future generations can go rot. And why not? The liberal has no children to care for, no religion to uphold, no rituals to follow - past, present, and future intertwine into a perpetual present, stripped of any context that endows life with meaning. If it feels good, do it, man! But such nihilism can never be content to be, and must itself mirror the drives of the healthy society that surrounds it. So the liberal sets himself in opposition, so that he may create through destroying, give life through abortion, innovate by quashing.”

“Contrary to Flint's opinion, there's some evidence that most black criminals [edit: actually, a plurality] target whites. See here, and here. Yes, be skeptical of the source - this is Jared Taylor, after all. But do check his figures - they come from the government's data base.”

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



3) The Links to some threads:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....16;st=0 >

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=210 >

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....69;st=0 >

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ey;st=0 >

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ey;st=0 >

4) Impressions:

I was struck by three things as I read back over the threads:

a) The Troll is not merely similar to his claimed "TrollPersona" he is IDENTICAL. I refuse to buy the claims of his "TrollPersona" as being separate from his own.

b) The Troll twists and lies his way through every conversation he has had here and demonstrates his own biases very obviously. I am not the only one to note this.

c) The utter pointlessness of the Troll's presence is demonstrated. He manifestly cannot read anything for comprehension, and will and has lied to back out of every corner he has placed himself in.

5) I don't buy the recent bunk about him tolerating other groups. Why believe a proven liar when he changes his story to avoid the consequences of his lies? Perhaps what the Troll doesn't realise is that I know all about these "clarifications" he has made of his politics, I agree he made those self same statements, and that yes those self same statements would appear to be at odds with his previous claims. So what? I doubt he holds these positions at all. He's a proven liar, weaselling away from previous claims he knows he cannot support. Since I can't be bothered to put time checks on all those quotes (a thing I'll get to in a minute) I'll leave it to the HONEST reader to check that some were made before the Troll's fake (IMO) "revelation" of deliberate trolling and some were made after (Which they were).

It is not possible to emphasise this enough: ANY other poster could tell me they've changed their mind or that they were joking about some argument and I would believe them. The Troll has provided NO evidence whatsoever that he has changed one jot from his "Troll Persona". He claims to hold different views but then all recent conversations since such claims bear the ideological and behavioural hallmarks of the "Troll Persona". I am stating flat out I do not believe that Ghost of Paley WAS trolling this board, I fully believe he IS trolling this board.

6) I really cannot be bothered to waste more time on justifying my opinion that the Troll is a racist. There's actually too much evidence as opposed to too little. Which is weird I know. Reading back through the threads the Troll's desire to insist on cultural fixedness in his own nation and to frequently treat others of different cultures or races or religions as a homogenous and opposed force to his own percieved cultural block stands out. This is an inherently racist desire.

No doubt the troll will whine about my lack of formatting and linking. I couldn't care less, my impression of him comes from reading every damned word, not selectively quoting, which I've done above to provide a vague (and I would say only partially accurate) entree into the world of the Troll. I invite the interested parties to re-read those threads in their entirety. The Troll's attempt at selective revisionist history will be utterly foiled by that at least.

7) It's late, I'm tired, and so the possibility exists that I have erred. I stand by what I said though: in my opinion the Troll is a proven liar, a racist and a deliberately dishonest distraction to any form of rational conversation on this board. I yet again ask the question "why has he been tolerated over all other trolls?" and yet again state that in my opinion he should have been removed from this forum a long time ago. Not because he represents any form of threat but because of his demonstrable dishonesty.

8) In light of all of this I am monumentally fed up. So it's vote time.

I ask the members and management of this board to vote on the following questions:

a) Have I in anyway dishonestly misrepresented the public views of the poster known as Ghost of Paley? (I absolutely concede that I have been in no way charitable or granted him the benefit of the doubt. I explicitly am not charitable nor do I grant him the benefit of the doubt regarding any of his claims)

b) The current situation cannot continue, I request that either Ghost of Paley or myself or both be banned from comment at this forum.

I have no great desire either way. I cannot and will not tolerate dishonesty, even if it is my own (obviously I don't think I have been dishonest). If the members and management of this forum consider my conduct to have been dishonest, then I will happily so concede cease to post here forthwith. Should the members and management decide against me, I will of course apologise unreservedly to all concerned. Needless to say I expect the self same courtesy.

c) With recent removals/restrictions of AFDave, Thordaddy and members of this forum who have demonstrated conclusively that they cannot and will not debate or discuss any issue with any degree of intellectual rigour or honesty I suggest that the poster Ghost of Paley to have more than earned his placed amongst them. Regardless of the result of the vote on b) I would like the members and management to vote on whether or not Ghost of Paley's conduct has been materially different to that of AFDave or Thordaddy, and as such, on whether it has made him deserving of being banned.

I shall set up a seperate thread with these votes in for the sake of clarity.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 16 2007,20:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To anyone even remotely interested.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



<raises hand. All bolding mine.>

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) The Dictionaries:

rac•ism        
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See bold. At most I said it's "likely" that some inherent differences exist. I've also said that racists have a ways to go to prove their hypothesis.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See above. I am against laws that discriminate against citizens of any race.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No hatred here. In fact, I have complained very loudly about America's treatment of other nations. For example, I've complained about UN sanctions against Iraq that led to the deaths of ~400,000 Iraqi children. I have also bitched about Bush's war, and said that the money would be better spent on preventing starvation in Africa.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
rac•ism   (r&#257;'s&#301;z'&#601;m)  Pronunciation Key        
n.  
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not relevant. See my lengthy and well documented posts above.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race”

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So? You were supposed to be discussing my beliefs, not your distorted version of them.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) A Rapid Selection from The Troll:[snip]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



<shrug> I'm a blunt man who doesn't mince words. I also notice you don't provide the context for these quotes....hmmm......wonder why? I encourage everyone to read the original threads and make up their own minds. And what does any of this have to do with my alleged support for segregation? Wasn't that the topic for discussion?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5) I don't buy the recent bunk about him tolerating other groups. Why believe a proven liar when he changes his story to avoid the consequences of his lies? Perhaps what the Troll doesn't realise is that I know all about these "clarifications" he has made of his politics, I agree he made those self same statements, and that yes those self same statements would appear to be at odds with his previous claims. So what? I doubt he holds these positions at all. He's a proven liar, weaselling away from previous claims he knows he cannot support. Since I can't be bothered to put time checks on all those quotes (a thing I'll get to in a minute) I'll leave it to the HONEST reader to check that some were made before the Troll's fake (IMO) "revelation" of deliberate trolling and some were made after (Which they were).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Louis, you are entitled to your opinions. No one's debating your right to quote someone's views and then give your opinions on their coherence/sincerity. But you do not have the right to set up opinion as fact, especially if you don't cite what the person actually did say. See Hyperion's < post on this very point. >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, that's still a straw man argument.  All you're doing is saying that since you believe that to be the other side's argument, it must not be a straw man.  That doesn't change anything, actually.  You're still stating your opposition's side of a debate and then knocking it down.  That's a straw man. Note that I am quoting your position, and then responding, that is how one avoids straw men. [my bold]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Go and do thou likewise.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is not possible to emphasise this enough: ANY other poster could tell me they've changed their mind or that they were joking about some argument and I would believe them. The Troll has provided NO evidence whatsoever that he has changed one jot from his "Troll Persona". He claims to hold different views but then all recent conversations since such claims bear the ideological and behavioural hallmarks of the "Troll Persona". I am stating flat out I do not believe that Ghost of Paley WAS trolling this board, I fully believe he IS trolling this board.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In other words, "I was caught lying about another poster's position. But it's OK to do this because I know what he really believes. In fact, I'm so sure about this that I'll simply substitute my opinion about his positions for his own statements!" See Hyperion's post addressed to me. I think it applies to you much better.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No doubt the troll will whine about my lack of formatting and linking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Congratulations!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I couldn't care less, my impression of him comes from reading every damned word, not selectively quoting, which I've done above to provide a vague (and I would say only partially accurate) entree into the world of the Troll. I invite the interested parties to re-read those threads in their entirety. The Troll's attempt at selective revisionist history will be utterly foiled by that at least.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're entitled to your opinions, not your lies. Please remember the distinction next time.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
7) It's late, I'm tired, and so the possibility exists that I have erred. I stand by what I said though: in my opinion the Troll is a proven liar, a racist and a deliberately dishonest distraction to any form of rational conversation on this board. I yet again ask the question "why has he been tolerated over all other trolls?" and yet again state that in my opinion he should have been removed from this forum a long time ago. Not because he represents any form of threat but because of his demonstrable dishonesty.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL. Louis, the only reason these posts are necessary is because you KEEP LYING ABOUT MY VIEWS. How does this make ME dishonest?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
have no great desire either way. I cannot and will not tolerate dishonesty, even if it is my own (obviously I don't think I have been dishonest). If the members and management of this forum consider my conduct to have been dishonest, then I will happily so concede cease to post here forthwith. Should the members and management decide against me, I will of course apologise unreservedly to all concerned. Needless to say I expect the self same courtesy.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Louis, Louis, Louis. I don't want you to quit posting here. I will be pissed if Wes or Steve bans EITHER ONE of us. All I ask is that YOU QUIT PRESENTING YOUR OPINIONS OF MY VIEWS AS FACTS.

Now look, I know that I'm not blameless here. I've teased you about your avatar, and baited you in other ways. I apologise for that. But consider this, Louis: if I was trying to drive you out of the forum, why would I stay off your abiogenesis thread? (In fact, if memory serves I haven't posted to any of your threads recently. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will.) I personally don't wish you any ill will, and I think your knowledge of chemistry serves a very useful purpose in this forum. But I'm not going to allow you to slander me without any repercussions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I shall set up a seperate thread with these votes in for the sake of clarity.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whatever. Truth can't be put to a vote.

Seriously, this is my last post. If you lie about me again, I'll provide a few links. Otherwise, I'm done. I want to talk about fishy fossils & homology & fun stuff from now on. And I'll never post on your threads again (assuming I have been).
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 17 2007,03:24

Troll,

Your defense is that you were hiding behind a "Troll Persona". I am not lying if I don't accept the validity of your claim that this "Troll Persona" is different (or indeed ever existed) to your "Current Persona".

You are a demonstrated liar Troll. I DON'T believe your claimed "moderation" of your views. You are responsible for what you said as your claimed "Troll Persona". Try getting THAT through your skull.

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 17 2007,10:49

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 16 2007,15:44)
Stephen Elliot:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW GOP. In the post that you linked to. Did you see the quotation?

It was a response to me defending you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I understand that, Stephen. I never said you were misrepresenting my views, only that I was disappointed that you didn't correct Louis's lies. Like what, for instance? Like this [bolding mine]:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis' lies? C'mon GOP, you lied about your own opinions for #### near 1 year. Do you not even consider it credible that Louis (or anyone else) might just missunderstand your position?

Why am I being dragged into a possible missunderstanding between yourself and Louis?

I have met Louis and liked the guy. I do not dislike you anywhere near as much as Louis (apears) to. But I am on nobody's side.

Please argue your case with Louis, I don't see what it has to do with me, or how I could help the situation.

If anyone says anything that is dishonest (providing I spot it) I will point it out. But do not expect me (please) to scroll through pages of past postings.

Tel me this, how will I know the real GOP from the tag team troll GOP?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 17 2007,18:29

Stephen Elliot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Louis' lies? C'mon GOP, you lied about your own opinions for #### near 1 year. Do you not even consider it credible that Louis (or anyone else) might just missunderstand your position?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll let the above posts stand as the final word on this topic. If you or anyone else is still confused about my political views, then feel free to send a PM and I'll clarify them.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tel me this, how will I know the real GOP from the tag team troll GOP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am the political GOP who likes pictures of sweaty wrestlers; the other fellow has his own account. We do not collaborate any more. You'll have to trust me on this, because I can't prove it to you.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 17 2007,19:40

GoP.  I suggest you shut this persona down.  All the arguments are conflated with pre and post troll behaviour.

Just get the O.K. from the moderator to register as a new name.

It will start a "fresh" look into what you present.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 17 2007,20:54

Mike PSS:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
GoP.  I suggest you shut this persona down.  All the arguments are conflated with pre and post troll behaviour.

Just get the O.K. from the moderator to register as a new name.

It will start a "fresh" look into what you present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is an interesting suggestion, but wouldn't some people interpret it as an act of duplicity? And what happens if people ask if I was formerly GOP? If I answer honestly, then all the issues return and it was all for nothing. Don't the issues go deeper than my parody? And even if this idea appeals to other contributors, would SteveStory allow it?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 17 2007,21:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is an interesting suggestion, but wouldn't some people interpret it as an act of duplicity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Never let it be said that you lack a robust sense of irony, however inadvertent it may be.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 17 2007,21:06

I'd rather GoP not go through the motions of getting a new name. People would recognize his writing style anyways. I would rather he just stay on the threads he's already on, and make whatever arguments he wants, and anybody who wanted to respond (Louis, Steve Elliot) could do so, and the rest of us could just ignore it.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 18 2007,04:24

SteveStory,

Then the same argument applies to JAD, Dave Tard, and indeed anyone who wishes to post here. They can all have their own thread, which providing they keep to, they can post whatever crap they like, act as poorly as they like and lie as much as they like. Fine, just so we knows the rules and all!

How do I put this? This is your pond, yours and Wes's I mean, I'm just pissing here! If you're making a judgement call that deliberately trolling for flamebait and staggering dishonesty are considered more civil than the occasional or even frequent use of the word "fuck" and a series of mental images that leave stains on the mental retina, that's your call. Personally I disagree, is that obvious yet?

Louis
Posted by: Faid on Jan. 18 2007,09:39

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 16 2007,12:10)
I know, Faid....don't say it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ghost, if you don't want me to say it, DON'T DO IT.

You just threw flaimbait here, and you know it. When the discussion was just in a jokingly trivial phase, you barged in saying "Stephen do you support Louis' lies against me", and triggered another flamewar. Don't deny it; It's Trolling 101.

And the context? You are basically saying "OK I admit I was lying before, but I say I'm not lying now, and since Louis does not believe me and thinks I am still lying, he is a liar". Good job there.

Here's a hint, Ghost: Respect is earned, not demanded.

Whether Louis is wrong or right in his thoughts about you, it is his right to have them. Judging by your past actions in this forum, Louis (and everyone else) is entitled to think of you as a trolling lowlife of the internets; you admitted that yourself in your "coming out" post.
It is, on the other hand, your responsibility to show that you are not, using your present actions in this forum.

So far you're not doing that good a job, Ghost.

See, a Loki troll that comes out should, first of all, accept and understand the mistrust and hostility against them. They should keep a low and quiet profile, never missing a chance to apologize again for their previous dishonesty when the subject comes up, avoid provokations and flame fights, and at the same time try to participate in discussions in a constructive and polite manner.

You do exactly the opposite. You act all holier-than-thou, expecting your new claims about your beliefs to be accepted as the Absolute Truth, as if your previous self-proclaimed lies are somehow invalidated by you accepting them. You deliberately post provoking posts that you HAVE to know will trigger an angry response, especially from those still despising you (your OOL thread fiasco is a good example, not to mention your post about "punishing" dave), as if you crave for the previous turmoil you caused. And, of course, you're more than eager to jump into any flame war, immediately forgetting the subject you were discussing, engaging Trollmode and posting all the stupid pictures and ironic comments your troll persona did, never letting any hostile comment pass.

What should our conclusions be, based on your behavior? What would yours be, if someone else did that to you?

Right now, the only thing stopping me from being absolutely sure that you are still trolling (which would make you one of the most pathetic trollers I've seen- check my first comment in this thread, after you came out, for details), is this:
That there is a possibility you have an overdeveloped sense of pride, that just can't let you "shy away from a fight", or/and, a childish notion that you should always pick fights to show you are a brave Internet warrior.
Of course, noone having such a character should venture Loki-trolling, but there you have it.

So, I can be convinced that you're not a troll, Ghost. In fact, I want to, since otherwise it would mean I'm only wasting my time, typing and explaining all this to you.

But it will depend on your future actions and behavior.


<edit: Typooooos... But "Flaimbait" has some elegance to it; almost French, one might say. :) >
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 18 2007,09:57

And guess what. I'd agree with every word of that excellently expressed post, Faid.

Louis

P.S. Except for the part that GoP might not be a racist, he has conclusively proven that at least he plays one on the internet.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 18 2007,11:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whether Louis is wrong or right in his thoughts about you, it is his right to have them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Reread my posts above. I admitted that Louis has the right to his opinion -- he does not, however, have the right to lie about my claims. He should quote what I actually say and then supply his opinion about my sincerity if we wishes. Read Wes's post in the vote thread. It is against the board rules to misrepresent other people.

SteveStory, did you get my PM? I can't tell if my message went through. I'm not nagging -- it's just that I've had technical problems with this board in the past.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 18 2007,11:42

Faid:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right now, the only thing stopping me from being absolutely sure that you are still trolling (which would make you one of the most pathetic trollers I've seen- check my first comment in this thread, after you came out, for details), is this:
That there is a possibility you have an overdeveloped sense of pride, that just can't let you "shy away from a fight", or/and, a childish notion that you should always pick fights to show you are a brave Internet warrior.
Of course, noone having such a character should venture Loki-trolling, but there you have it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're right about my sense of pride: I have admitted that I need to grow up and resist transparent attempts to get me banned. None of this gives anyone the right to lie about my or anyone else's opinions, however. And there's nothing wrong with someone defending himself from false accusations.

Please remember that I did try to clarify my real beliefs to avoid confusing people. You may doubt my sincerity, but you can't deny that I've given people straight answers about my political views.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 18 2007,13:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You may doubt my sincerity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, Mr The Ghost of Paley, that puts it in a nutshell for me. Just out of curiosity, since your original claim that DNA from ingested food could enter the germ-line of a multicellular animal, what have been the point of your subsequent posts, other than personal vanity.

Mind you, the banning policy here is somewhat inconsistent, with VMartin being banned for being a sock puppet, despite clear evidence to the contrary. But life is never fair.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 18 2007,13:46

Oh for fuck's sake. Still lying Troll?

I have quoted you extensively here and elsewhere. You might claim to hold different views to your supposed "parody" but the evidence (i.e. YOUR OWN WORDS) show otherwise.

Look, you know you're trolling for flamebait. I know you're trolling for flamebait, everyone knows you're trolling for flamebait. How about you do exactly what I suggested a long time ago and either apologise, sort your posting habits out, and act like a rational adult or simply fuck off.

Simple really. All this expecting polite treatment and "respect" for your claimed views will never happen if your actions continue as they are.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 18 2007,13:53

Alan Fox:

I don't understand your point. And I find it amusing that people claim to be upset by my parody, but don't say "boo" <cough> to the other posters who have created characters (remember Creationist Timmy and the two teenage girls?). This suggests that there's something else that bothers them.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 18 2007,14:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This suggests that there's something else that bothers them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes Troll, something else does. The fact that you are a self confessed, deliberate flambait seeking troll. The fact that you post racist screeds which are nigh on identical pre and post "confession", the fact that pre or post "parody" you continually lie and distort in order to attract flamebait. More? Check the thread for the actual evidence of your own words.

Scum

Louis
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 18 2007,14:25

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 18 2007,13:53)
Alan Fox:

I don't understand your point. And I find it amusing that people claim to be upset by my parody, but don't say "boo" <cough> to the other posters who have created characters (remember Creationist Timmy and the two teenage girls?). This suggests that there's something else that bothers them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am upset by your "parody" TBH. Especially in the idea that you made mad claims in your anouncement of parody.

I do believe that you claimed nobody had a clue that you was a parody (then). Yet plenty of people had expressed doubts about you and your motives, including sockpuppetry/parody from within a few posts IIRC.

FFS! Even I called you out on the geocentrism thread. You denied and insisted that people dealt with only your arguments and not the persona. Then stopped arguing.

YOU have lied on these forums GOP. To cry foul now is disingenuous.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 18 2007,14:31

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 18 2007,13:53)
Alan Fox:

I don't understand your point. And I find it amusing that people claim to be upset by my parody, but don't say "boo" <cough> to the other posters who have created characters (remember Creationist Timmy and the two teenage girls?). This suggests that there's something else that bothers them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forgot to mention this. The two tenage girls created by Lou FCD had Lou ban himself from here for a period of "redemption?" The guy apologised profusely....remember? Then did a period of penance. Yet his parody was nowhere near as all consuming and prolonged as yours was.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 18 2007,15:02

Stephen Elliot:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The two tenage girls created by Lou FCD had Lou ban himself from here for a period of "redemption?" The guy apologised profusely....remember? Then did a period of penance. Yet his parody was nowhere near as all consuming and prolonged as yours was.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? ####, didn't know that. Then again, I never kept up with Lou FCD or whoever he is. I do remember that the parodies were getting so popular for a while that Reed Cartwright told people to cut it out (if it wasn't Reed, it was one of the big guys). Nobody except Reed complained at the time if I recall. Admittedly, they cut it out (I think anyway.....who knows really?)

Note: I'm going strictly from memory, so take this wit a grain o' salt.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 18 2007,17:16

Louis:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If he thinks that forced repatriation for "undesirable" immigrants (even with an all new cash bonus) is not racist, then perhaps I have misjudged him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See what I have to put up with, Faid? Arden, would you mind pointing out Louis's "error"? You know what I'm talking about.

Here's the < permalink. >
Posted by: Faid on Jan. 18 2007,18:34

*sigh*

You don't have to put up with anything, Ghost. You choose to put up with it.

You are still acting as if you are being unjustly accused and slandered- when, in fact, you are simply faced with the unavoidable distrust of the people you have been fooling for over a year. Something you were supposed to expect, and should work to overcome.

Are you going to at least try? Or will you go on picking fights, baiting and provoking the people who "misrepresent" you, thereby proving them right?

Your call. Either way, this is my last post on this. I said all I had to say, and either you get it, or you don't. It's your move from now on.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 18 2007,19:27

< Here's the permalink that details Louis's latest "error". >

< Here's Arden's retraction. >

< Here's Clamboy's retraction. >

So when Louis said this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If he thinks that forced repatriation for "undesirable" immigrants (even with an all new cash bonus) is not racist, then perhaps I have misjudged him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



from < here, > what else can we conclude about Louis's opinions of me, other than they should be treated with at least a smattering of skepticism?

Well, if this doesn't prove my case, I don't know what would. So I'm moving on to better things. Anyone who still trusts Louis's opinions of me deserves ignorance.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 18 2007,19:53

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 18 2007,17:16)
Louis:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If he thinks that forced repatriation for "undesirable" immigrants (even with an all new cash bonus) is not racist, then perhaps I have misjudged him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See what I have to put up with, Faid? Arden, would you mind pointing out Louis's "error"? You know what I'm talking about.

Here's the < permalink. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, you want ME to try and convince Louis you're not a racist? Is that what you're asking?

Um, not the best judge of human nature, are you? You might as well ask me to try and convince him you don't like to hang around the gymnasium.

You're on your own, dude. Frankly, if I was in your position I can't imagine wanting to stick around here in the midst of such abundant evidence of being loathed by everyone else.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 18 2007,21:16

Arden:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What, you want ME to try and convince Louis you're not a racist? Is that what you're asking?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That was not the point -- I just thought the correction would be easier from you than from me.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're on your own, dude. Frankly, if I was in your position I can't imagine wanting to stick around here in the midst of such abundant evidence of being loathed by everyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For documenting misrepresentations? Well, you have the right to your feelings, Arden. Say what you want -- I don't care to engage with you anymore. If I offend you, then avoid my threads. Or don't. Whatever.
Posted by: BWE on Jan. 19 2007,02:05

Meow
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 19 2007,06:52

Troll,

Ah the nit pick. Wonderful! You failed to pick nits with your "But I don't support Jim Crow laws!" when I haven't said you did. So you thought this would be a better nit to pick. Remove the word "forced" if you like. It actually makes no difference, because you are advocating "forced" repatriation whether you like it or not. Just because you're not doing it with guns and trains to Auschwitz doesn't make it less "forced". As demonstrated by your own words.

Anyway, nice try. No dice. Snipping one part of someone's argument out of context does not an "error" make. I note you don't deal with ANY of the actual points, but simply (as with your nit pick over the word "segregation") pick on one word. That isn't debate Troll, that's lying. You're insisting that YOUR interpretation of a word is what someone else means by it. Oopsie. Just like "segregation" Troll, you're insisting that what I've said is what YOU mean. Not the case. Humpty Dumpty has come out of his semantic hidey hole again hasn't he? "A word means precisely what I say it means and no more!"

I'd happily apologise were I wrong but, to use the word of the moment, I'm taking the "Holistic" approach. Treating your arguments as a whole, as a dialogue, rather than a series of disjointed statements which I can pick at the semantics of in order to obfuscate. Which let's be honest, is what you are doing.

< Here's the original proposal 14 Nov 2005. In a thread SPECIFICALLY started by you to discuss race issues. >

As mentioned later on in the thread is this revealing snippet.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, details. Why do this in the first place? Consider: How does a wise man solve a problem? Answer: He steps aside to let the problem solve itself.
 Like it or not, all cultures compete with each other. Immigration, in fact, is nothing more than citizens flocking to the victor, which is why America has an "immigrant" problem, while Liberia doesn't (it does, admittedly, have an "electricity" problem, a "transportation" problem, or a "please God let me keep my head attached to my shoulders for just one more %#$%! day!" problem, which might account for its lack of our problems). Thing is, once people enter a wealthy, secure nation, that nation can subsidize whatever fool habits they might have had, and even cultivate a couple of new ones in the bargain (America being the world's leading exporter in this area).
 This, frankly, will not work. We need cultures that can help us solve our problems, because our bonehead decisions affect the rest of the world. We also need a way to try out those bonehead ideas before thrusting them on the world. But how? Easy: let the communities decide.
You want to live in a community in which strangers have sex in the bathrooms? Great, you do that, and I'll live in a community that waits for marriage. Let's run a race and see who wins. The life of a gangsta sound appealing? Go for it, just keep it away from me. Want to relive the good ol' days in Nazi-ville? Swell - I'll live with the Jews and we'll compare notes later. Sure, many communities will abuse their new freedoms. That's O.K.; they'll pay the price soon enough.
 What will happen, of course, is that the world will notice a trend. The communities that follow truth (Since when is this something you are acquainted with, Troll? will miraculously be the only ones worth living in. Stable, productive, spiritual communities will flourish. People will crane their necks at the emerging miracle, and ask, "How can they do this? And how can we have what they have?" "I don't want to live a bitter life where neighbors eye each other warily, where gunshots are heard every day, where people have given up! Paley oh Paley let me join in your fellowship!" And I take them by the hand, and lead them to a world they never imagined.

Can you handle the truth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Surely not judging individual immigrants based on your assessment of their culture before they even arrive Troll? No of course not! That's not racist is it? Fuckwit. As for your utopian fantasies, they're more revealing that you know.

We (and this includes the UK btw because we have the highest rate of immigration in Europe IIRC) don't need "cultures that help us solve our problems" we need INDIVIDUALS that help us solve our problems. For example, trying to claim, which you are, that certain groups of immigrants have less members at the extreme end of the IQ distribution (which accoridng to you is where all the work gets done, a false claim anyway, and one you never established) and thus these cultures, and individuals from them, should be subject to greater scrutiny at immigration control is discriminating on the basis of race or culture. That is what those words mean. That is racist. The fact that you take that as an insult, when it is merely a description of YOUR stated views is a manifestation of how wrong you know those views to be and your insecurity about it. I can't help that you don't like your own words.

Needless to say Troll, I don't accept your quibble because I believe that you are quibbling over tiny things and ignoring the bigger picture deliberately to obfuscate the facts of your own bigotry. Perhaps if you behaved honourably I would be more disposed to granting you the benefit of the doubt. You haven't, thus I'm not. You think that because I view you as lacking honour due to your conduct here that my views of your conduct should be treated skeptically? This is after all the post you link to. Staggering.

Yet again, you DEMAND respect for both yourself and your views whilst demonstrating conclusively that you don't deserve it in either manner. How many time have people told you that respect is earned Troll? On what basis do you demand that you or yoour views demand repect? Not one single opinion you have espoused pre or post your supposed "confession" (yet again, to hammer this home, I don't believe elements of this "confession" your behaviour before and after are identical. Evidence which speaks louder than your whining) has been based on anything other than google trawled nonsense, a significant portion of which you clearly don't understand and which doesn't support your claims, bald assertion, and outright lies.

Like I said Troll, I need nothing more than your exact words to prove conclusively that you are a racist, or playing one here for the sake of your own amusement. Just like the "sweaty wrestler" love you get taunted with, how the #### could anyone know if this is representative of your real life, offline opinions or desires? No one knows you personally as far as I am aware. You are being judged on one thing and one thing alone: your exact words as posted on this forum. The fact that you don't like this is not evidence that that judgement is in error.

As for your petty quibble about the word "forced", like I said, I'll remove it if it suits you. Let me know and I'll happily do so. Others might buy into your semantic obfuscation, but I don't. Let's examine your own words shall we:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And no, my policy would not forcibly deport anyone. It would present a nice dilemma for those immigrants who so love to bitch about our country: leave, or admit that their native cultures are so dysfunctional that they couldn't be paid to live there. But I think many would go for this carrot, especially given the stick mentioned in part 3 of my plan. Even if they don't, the point will have been made.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The stick" refers to part 3 of my plan, which is:

Quote  
"3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want."

So the dullards get no support there, either. In case anyone didn't get the message, I said on page two:

Quote  
"To address your point, no, I don't pine for the return of Jim Crow laws. Or race laws of any kind. If people of different ethnic groups wish to live, work, and love together, it ain't any of my nor the government's business."

and later I outlined my plan again:

Quote  
"1) Cash bribes to encourage emigration of people who hate our guts
2) Heavy immigration from Europe, Israel, and Northeast Asian countries to replace our departing malcontents
3) New legislation repealing all race laws
4) Letting the resulting freedom of association weed out the bad cultures amongst our remaining malcontents"

Then, to clear up any possible misunderstanding, I stated on page five:

Quote  
"Recall that my buyout program is entirely voluntary; anyone who wants to can stay."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Forgive the sub formatting in the quotes.

Let's pick a few things out. You are advocating using market forces to coerce people who don't to adopt your cultural values (or a narrow set of cultural values defined by you, the "us" in your screed) out of your country. You are advocating repealling ALL race laws (your words not mine) which therefore include laws preventing racial discrimination (should such a terrible thing ever occur in PaleyWorld) as well as positive discrimination laws (which you and I agree by the way foster greater inequality). You'd also abolish minimum wage laws. Incidentally how does your cultural censorship (encouraging repatriation of people whose views of your culture and opinions don't jive with your own) come from the first amendment, or the social responsibility of a rice nation to poorer ones, something your nation was founded on I seem to remember?

This I am sure you think is a very "Darwinian" social model. Guess what Troll, you're making the "Is/Ought" fallacy again. Human societies the world over have been struggling to improve their lot, the efforts have been to avoid being subject to the pitiless happenstance of nature, not to emulate it. Evolutionary biology is representative of how things are, not the definition of "values" and "ethics". Ironically one of your common troll claims is that evolutionary biology erodes societies like bad movies erode film making. Yet you are advocating precisely an evolutionary social scenario, and as many have pointed out to, one that will undoubtedly lead to your own extinction. Please look up irony in the dictionary. All my irony meters have melted.

Let's see what happens.

So in PaleyWorld a nice new immigrant to the glorious USA arrives and sails past Lady Liberty. His English isn't brilliant but passable, and he's a black muslim. His first port of call after passing all the required uber-scrutiny someone of his race and religion (as advocated by you remember) is the employment office. Now since anyone can say what they like and all laws against racial discrimination have been repealed his first contact with an employment officer doesn't go well. Coincidentally the employment officer holds certain views on "racial purity" and the "suitability of certain cultures as immigrants". What a shocker! The employment officer refuses to help him, calling him a "damned dirty heathen nigger". As all race laws have been repealed our immigrant hasn't gotten off to a very good start, and has no recourse to the law to protect him from the consequences of this employment officer's views, after all this is an immigrant who has passed all the scrutiny you have set him and just wants to work. He hasn't had an opportunity yet to assert those cultural values that differ from yours.

Anyway, since he is a decent chap, he is not dismayed by one tiny setback and so across town he goes to another employment office. Hey, perhaps he's hit the first guy on a bad day, it can't get worse. His optimism is borne out. The next employment officer is a diamond. He gets a good job starting the next day, the job even involves somewhere to stay until he gets his own place. He sleeps in a motel that night (he isn't totally impoverished, but by no means rich) and turns up the next day for work.

He has a great first day, he enjoys the banter and company of his colleagues, and the work is just hard enough to be interesting, but not so hard as to be oppressive. "Wow I'm lucky" he thinks to himself. He is a devout chap though, and after a couple of months, where he has been praying on the job as unobtrusively as possible, after all he wants to show he can work before making requests, he asks his boss if he can take some time off for a religious festival. His boss replies that he can't take any time off because it's a busy time and it's incovenient. His role as a worker is more important than his role as a believer. He's disappointed, but he makes no complaint, just continues. He notices though that around easter time, work ceases for everyone in the workplace. He also notices that work is just as busy as it was when he asked for time off for his religious festival. He brings this up to his manager as a rather unfair practice and recieves the answer "This is our white christian country, you do things our white christian way". He wonders if this is just, and decides to ask an employment lawyer if he can work over easter, which isn't important to him, but not work over ramadan which is important to him. The lawyer replies the same way the manager does, so our curious immigrant (a good and diligent member of the community remember) decides to ask further afield. He writes to his governor, same answer. He writes to his senator, same answer. He writes to a supreme court judge mentioning he remembers from the constitution something about free practice of religion. By this time, his name is in the system.

As he hasn't given up his religion and cultural values of hard work and tolerance for the dominant cultural views in the USA of PaleyWorld he is presented with a nice dilemma. He is accused of loving to bitch about our country and in no way wishes to lie by admit that their native cultures are so dysfunctional that they couldn't be paid to live there or leave. What is wrong with his culture? Has he not worked hard? Has he not swallowed his pride in the face of racist abuse? Has he not done his best to fit in? All he wants to do is take religious holidays when they are relevant to his religion, but since the PaleyActs of the early 21st century (should that be 14th century he wonders) as he is an immigrant of a different culture and religion to the majority, he is not entitled to the same representation as a white christian native born American. He doesn't want to work less (in fact in terms of his company he is doing them a favour, keeping productivity up at a time of year when productivity is normally low), he just wants to take holidays at a time consonent with his beliefs. He has been in the country 2 years by this point, and is offered a choice by his immigrant management officer, assigned to him by the police who were called by the supreme court judge: leave with a $10000 cheque and return to his war torn former home, or be silent about his desire to have holidays at times relevant to his religion. Abandon his faith or abandon his hope of a better life in the USA. Disappointed he turns away from what he considered to be the promised land, a land he thought he could find tolerance and respect for his actions in, not judgement based solely on his cultural differences from the herd. Having been accused of the immigration status altering crime of "bitching about our country" he returns to his home nation.

The home nation welcomes him with open arms, but sadly as his native culture is so dysfunctional that he couldn't be paid to live there, the cure for a heinous disease caused by an overactive bile duct he was working on doesn't materialise as soon as hoped. He dies before his work is realised, ironically President Paley, the instigator of the PaleyActs which encouraged him to abandon his desire to take holiday at a culturally suitable time and return to his native land disgusted at the illogical bigotry of America, dies of the self same disease this Nobel laureate emigrated to cure.

Ok, so this is facecious and over simplified, but that's the entire point. Your views on immigration are vastly oversimplified by virtue of the fact of your racism. You are treating individuals as representatives of a culture rather than as people possessing a specific cultural heritage. You're buying the "fear the immigrants and their different ways" line of racist demagogues. Your "my way or the highway" view of cultural differences is utterly asinine, extreme mutliculturalism is a strawman erected by racists like you to knock down. A strawman raised only to disguise your fear of cultural change, and your prejudices against people of different races and cultures.

It's also MASSIVELY ironic given that you are at least partially not a Native American, I seem to remember some claim that you are partially NA. You don't like THIS wave of immigrants but ignore the fact that at least part of your personal heritage, and indeed the massive majority of American people's heritage is that of immigrants. Your culture, your democracy, your secular state borrowed whole cloth from the European Enlightenment and Renaissance, the very concepts themselves predating christianity and an America. You are quibbling about a minor historical insignificance, a matter of whether your family were here this century or last. The self same arguments were raised about the Jewish people, the Irish, the Africans. "They're too culturally different", "They have to accept our values or leave" etc etc have ALL been heard before, and ALL were wrong before.

As usual you are focussing on the minor differences at the expense of the massive similarities. Strangers having sex in toilets (a reference to homosexual cottaging I assume, although correct me if wrong), gang culture, murder, rape, crime, religious intolerance ALL existed before immigration, before multiculturalism, before tolerant secular democracies. You are advocating a return to the 18th century, perhaps because you've chosen the name Ghot of Paley, you've chosen the cultural values of his time. Another irony is that it is YOU who is advocating a set of cultural values at odds with modern, western values. Of course some immigrants do to, but then I expect someone like you, who has grown up with the advantages of a western upbringing you value so highly to demonstrate a greater degree of thinking ability than your stereotypical west hating savage. I wonder why you don't?

Nobody is denying that some compromise must be made in the social contract between individual and state, sometimes those compromises go both ways. People have to modify their individual freedoms in accordance with the democratically decided on norms, that applies to immigrants equally as to natives. Sacrificing babies to JuJu every third full moon is not going to be a popular import! Not accepting whole cloth the values of your narrow cultural views is not like sacrificing babies to JuJu.

The very foundation of the USA supports the right of a citizen, immigrant or otherwise, to dissent. To burn the flag, hate the white guy and to spout vile imprecations. Just as it protects people saying flag buring is evil, hating the black guy and spouting equally vile imprecations. I don't like it any more than you do, but the difference is I've read a book or two and you are a shit ignorant googletrawling racist. I know that centuries of racist and exclusionary politics have not worked. I know that some of the policies we enact now are racist, and will do us damage. I know that whatever totalitarian attempt at censorship we make it will never work, they've all been tried before and all have failed. I know that airing unpleasant views, unpleasant deeds, examining them, arguing with them, showing how false they are is how to combat them. It's worked every time. Incidentally this is why I want you banned from this forum, because your very dishonesty hinders that process. I don't expect your puerile little mind to even grasp that concept. Like I said, you are homourless scum.

For you love freedom so much, you want it just for people who agree with you.

Louis

P.S. "forced". How is coercing people into a choice between on the one hand denying their culture and values utterly and accepting your own, accepting a system in which prejudice and bigotry are unfettered thus at least potentially denying them opportunity, and on the other hand asking them to leave the country not force? Just because there are no guns involved doesn't mean it isn't forced. Yet another of your semantic quibbles shown up for the obfuscatory lie it is. Nice try scum, but you're fighting a battle of wits and you are unarmed.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 19 2007,11:43

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 19 2007,06:52)
Troll,

Ah the nit pick. Wonderful! You failed to pick nits with your "But I don't support Jim Crow laws!" when I haven't said you did...
Louis...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, good post. Personally I still don't want GOP banned but you argued that very well and I can certainly understand why you do want him out. In fact your view is probably (almost certainly) more realistic than mine. I just live in hope.

I have noticed that your time here has increased recently. Is that due to the impending move?
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 19 2007,13:56

Stephen Elliot:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow, good post. Personally I still don't want GOP banned but you argued that very well and I can certainly understand why you do want him out. In fact your view is probably (almost certainly) more realistic than mine. I just live in hope.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since SteveStory has made it clear that topics like these are forbidden, I'll leave the dystopia-building to others. Anybody who wants a critique of any particular effort may send me a PM. 1984 is still my favorite within this genre.

By the way, I leave myself the option of commenting in any threads that parallel my future threads. Otherwise I will respect certain people's wishes as before.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 19 2007,15:15

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 19 2007,13:56)
Stephen Elliot:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow, good post. Personally I still don't want GOP banned but you argued that very well and I can certainly understand why you do want him out. In fact your view is probably (almost certainly) more realistic than mine. I just live in hope.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since SteveStory has made it clear that topics like these are forbidden, I'll leave the dystopia-building to others. Anybody who wants a critique of any particular effort may send me a PM. 1984 is still my favorite within this genre.

By the way, I leave myself the option of commenting in any threads that parallel my future threads. Otherwise I will respect certain people's wishes as before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not sure what you mean here GOP.

I, that is me, do not want you banned. However I can totally understand the POV of Louis.

What bewilders me a tad is that you seem to accept no responsibility for the POV of others that you encouraged.

Let me say it simply. The reason that Louis holds you in contempt is because of what YOU said.

Now if Louis happens to be mistaken, whose job do you think it is to clear that mistake up?

Now I do not think that you (GOP) have said anything that is directly racist. But you have used arguments that make you look like one.

Please clean up your own misstakes/errors/missunderstandings when possible.

TBH I want nothing to do with this.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 19 2007,19:56

Dudes, stop offering the tapeworm your intestines.

Geez.


Paley is here to pick fights.

As long as he gets them, he'll stay.

So don't give him any.  To each and every one of his posts, respond with the simple point "Paley, no one here gives a flying #### WHAT you think."

The troll will then move on to another bridge, and we will be all the happier for it.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 20 2007,04:35

Stephen,

More time on here, yes partly because of move. Mostly because as my last project at the company I am working at (for the next two weeks) is writing a review of organocatalysis. A fascinating topic, a wonderful opportunity, but if I see another fucking proline molecule I am going to go on a killing spree.

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 20 2007,07:35

Ahem
:O  :)  :)
Not that I *really*want to encourage mayhem or anything. But I want a human skin for my Xipe Totec sacrifice.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 20 2007,08:20

Quote (Faid @ Jan. 18 2007,18:34)
You are still acting as if you are being unjustly accused and slandered- when, in fact, you are simply faced with the unavoidable distrust of the people you have been fooling for over a year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"A liar is not believed, even when he is telling the truth".  

I learned that lesson back when I was seven.

Paley apparently never learned it at all.

Or, he did, and knows it's a good way to pick a fight.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 20 2007,10:08

Deadman,

Proline? PROLINE?? PROOOOOOLLLLIIIIINNNNNEEEEEE??????

AAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

{sound of AK-47 being cocked}

{sound of Louis running from house}

I'LL KILL 'EM ALL!

{sound of bus load of nuns being brutally and pitilessly gunned down}

MWAH AHA AHAHAHAHAAAA

{sound of large hunting knife being used to skin semi dead nun}

Here you go. It might have a couple of holes in it.

Louis
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 20 2007,11:01

Stephen:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please clean up your own misstakes/errors/missunderstandings when possible.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If I misrepresent other people, then I'll be happy to correct my errors. I think everyone deserves to have their claims accurately represented.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 20 2007,11:48

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 20 2007,11:01)
If I misrepresent other people, then I'll be happy to correct my errors. I think everyone deserves to have their claims accurately represented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, puh-leeeeeeeeze . . . . .

Go find a new bridge to live under, troll.  No one here CARES what you think.  (shrug)
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 20 2007,15:05

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Jan. 20 2007,11:01)
Stephen:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please clean up your own misstakes/errors/missunderstandings when possible.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If I misrepresent other people, then I'll be happy to correct my errors. I think everyone deserves to have their claims accurately represented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look GOP. You missrepresented your own views (according to you). Complaining about other people missrepresenting your own views sounds weird.

Not least for complaining about other people doing (possibly through mistake) what you chose to do.

FFS. I do not believe that you do not understand this.

I will try again with smallest words I can use.

You told lies about youre own views. To complain that other people do not understand your views (as you now hold them) is wrong. Instead of complaining either start acting in a way to build trust/understanding or leave.

You keep complaining to me about Louis. But Louis has explained his view. He said nothing that I could argue against. You have behaved badly and there is no denying that.

Just in case you still do not understand I will explain again. I love my children. Yet if they consistently lied to me I would stop trusting their word. No amount of "I am being honest now" would convert my view. I would need to see them act differently.

Kind of like "from their actions shall you know them".

If you wish to keep posting here and be trusted. Change your behaviour rather than modify your complaints.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 20 2007,16:11

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 20 2007,15:05)
You told lies about youre own views. To complain that other people do not understand your views (as you now hold them) is wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nobody fucking CARES about his "views".

Let the crybaby whine and cry.  (shrug)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 21 2007,04:59

Louis: Thank you!
Just the thought of nunskins and the holes in 'em gets me all tinngggly. Sicko.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 21 2007,05:05

Deadman,

Yer welcome.

And for my next trick I shall burn two churches whilst juggling 4, yes folks that's 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 4*, fragile glass vials of Ebola culture and drowning a brace of puppies.

Louis

*Using all New Dembskian Intelligent Numerology (Look, Look, it's really significant Bible Code)
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 21 2007,16:23

As I lay in bed a couple nights ago, remembering the delightful thread that this once was, I had a sudden idea about who GoP was. I came back to see what had become of it, but I haven't made it through all the pages. Around page 20 I saw people call him Bill, but I don't know why. Now, what with this new persona change, I am not too sure of my guess. Definite style change.

I'd rather get back to more interesting things. I picked this out:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to both Hawing and Greene we are in a weird situation. They both want the laws to be "plausible" and both see a difficulty.

This is not just a creationist view. Aparently most cosmologists/astrophysicists see a problem.

The vast majority are looking for naturalistic causes. This is the only reason that string theory is taken seriously BTW.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, I'm fond of string theory, but I can't discern why string theory saves the materialists from fine-tuning.

On page 27, someone linked to some arguments between Berlinski and others re the 2nd law on TO. I was surprised to see two of his opponents put forth the idea that the second law may not actually have anything to do with life.

How doubly odd. First, that is saying that life exists outside of one of the foundational laws of physics. Second, it seems to me that the second law is part of a necessary duo, the other of which I could call the Organizing Principle. If we had nothing but the second law, nothing could exist. All we would have is uniformity over the face of the deep. Sure, all kinds of things happen in open systems, and most systems are open. Maybe the universe is open. But we certainly do see the second law at work all the time, and although Berlinski described it in poetically negative terms, it is a blessing in disguise. For without dissolution we could not have the other side - the impetus to become, the raw materials for which arise out of the cycle of dissolution and renewal; but more than that, if there were no force for dissolution then all things would be fixed, a #### if I ever heard of one.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 21 2007,16:26

?????

I saw the F word here a lot, but I can't use a valid theoligical term that starts with 'h'?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 21 2007,16:40

Avocationist,

I'd advise starting a separate thread to deal with the stuff you want to deal with, unencumbered by this thread or other's history/topic.

Louis
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 21 2007,17:04

Why? I pulled that stuff right off this thread.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 22 2007,11:22

avocationist:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For without dissolution we could not have the other side - the impetus to become, the raw materials for which arise out of the cycle of dissolution and renewal; but more than that, if there were no force for dissolution then all things would be fixed, a #### if I ever heard of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting idea, but keep in mind that in closed systems (i.e. sealed naturalistic universes that obey our laws), dissolution will triumph in the end!

By the way, what are your beliefs about religion, God, and science? Do you think that everything is reducible to naturalistic mechanisms, or is there an explanatory need for God? Just curious.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 22 2007,12:05

Hello Paley,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting idea, but keep in mind that in closed systems (i.e. sealed naturalistic universes that obey our laws), dissolution will triumph in the end!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe it isn't a closed system?
Maybe it is or isn't, but at any rate, I recently read that the ancient Hindus considered one lifetime of Brahma, in which the universe manifests and unmanifests, as 311 trillion years! So either way, I think that we might consider that while the tendency toward increased entropy is very easy to observe, so is the organizing principle, but we haven't given much thought to it. Where does its will and energy come from?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

By the way, what are your beliefs about religion, God, and science? Do you think that everything is reducible to naturalistic mechanisms, or is there an explanatory need for God? Just curious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am a monist, taoist, panentheistic sufi. Science and God and nature are nondifferent.
Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact.

Truly the human conundrum is perplexing. Religion, and most other beliefs, are the pacifier and blankie that keeps people from facing facts: we have no facts.

Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture.
I'm a follower of Intelligent Design; I am sure that will win and soon, yet I just can't imagine God as I envision her being the designer of life forms. I think that was delegated. To a guy. Maybe a committee, like the Elohim!
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 22 2007,12:41

avocationist,
Are you going to discuss these musings on the present LUCA thread?

Or go < HERE >.  I have a couple comments but some people have asked to clear this, and other, threads.

I can gladly ignore them if you with to carry on here.  However, there is a thread with your name.  OR you can create one yourself.  OR you can stay here.  No biggy for me.  I just want to establish some consistency before I comment.

Mike PSS
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 22 2007,13:06

Mike,

Look, I don't really like having my own thread. It takes up too much time and obligates me to answer everything. I legitimately took my points right off of this thread, a few pages back. If I answer on any thread, am I going to be told to move it to my thread? Only one person said to move it, and then I pointed out that this is actually on topic.

The other thread was moved because it got into discussions that were disruptive to the general humorous tone of UD bashing.

Why is Paley's racism more on topic than the debate over the 2nd law as it relates to evolution?
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Jan. 22 2007,13:10

Because there *is* no debate over the SLoT and evolution.
There is, for some tiny minority at least, still some debate over whether GoP is indeed a racist, or "merely" plays one on the web, or has been tragically and inappropriately [yeah, right] misunderstood.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 22 2007,13:29

I agree that you should be consistent, but I don't care either way. If you do use the thread that Louis created, please let me know if it's OK for me to comment in it. Thanks.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 22 2007,15:10

Avocationist,

It really would be simpler for everyone concerned if, rather than clogging a lot of other threads where conversations are currently going on, if you dealt with you antievolution issues in the thread I set up for you. That way it's less confusing for everyone (you included) and possibly a productive conversation could be had.

Of course this assumes you are interested in a productive conversation and not simply disrupting the normal ebb and flow of ATBC.

Louis
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 22 2007,16:04

So what you're saying, Louis, is that I may not post on this forum. So you guys don't allow discussion but are a glee club too?
This is PALEY"S thread, not mine. Why can't I post here? What have I done? Interrupted your hundreds of rants on how bad a guy Paley is?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 22 2007,16:14

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,16:04)
So what you're saying, Louis, is that I may not post on this forum. So you guys don't allow discussion but are a glee club too?
This is PALEY"S thread, not mine. Why can't I post here? What have I done? Interrupted your hundreds of rants on how bad a guy Paley is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are allowed to post on this thread. That is obvious, you have posted. Your posts haven't been censored or deleted.

Louis is asking for a favour. He wants you to argue on your own thread because he believes your interjections to be disruptive to a normal conversation.

Conversations tend to move on. Even though you have brought up arguments that are already on this thread, the thread has "moved on".

Louis' request is not unreasonable.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 22 2007,16:15

Avocationist,

No that really is not what I am saying.

I am asking, like many others, very very politely that if you want to discuss your ID ideas then perhaps starting multiple conversations in multiple threads will only serve to make your life and ours more difficult. Posting your ID ideas in one (or a few) threads dedicated to them allows the various conversations to flow easier for everyone.

It's just like real life. In a crowded room full of many different conversations it's harder to listen to one than it is in a quieter room. All I am suggesting (for I have no power nor ability to dictate to you) is that it would be better for all concerned, you included, if you restricted your ID conversations to a limited number of dedicated threads instead of a whole slew of unrelated ones.Your ideas are interesting and worth discussion, so isn't it in your best interest to give them the best possible opportunity for discussion/to be read? After all if the bits of your comments are all over the place then it is harder to keep track and people will simply get annoyed.

Like I said, this is of course the case only if genuine communication is your goal. If, like GoP your purpose is only disruption and silliness, then by all means carry on. It won't be me you have to worry about.

Louis
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 22 2007,16:23

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:05)
Hello Paley,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting idea, but keep in mind that in closed systems (i.e. sealed naturalistic universes that obey our laws), dissolution will triumph in the end!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe it isn't a closed system?
Maybe it is or isn't, but at any rate, I recently read that the ancient Hindus considered one lifetime of Brahma, in which the universe manifests and unmanifests, as 311 trillion years! So either way, I think that we might consider that while the tendency toward increased entropy is very easy to observe, so is the organizing principle, but we haven't given much thought to it. Where does its will and energy come from?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

By the way, what are your beliefs about religion, God, and science? Do you think that everything is reducible to naturalistic mechanisms, or is there an explanatory need for God? Just curious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am a monist, taoist, panentheistic sufi. Science and God and nature are nondifferent.
Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact.

Truly the human conundrum is perplexing. Religion, and most other beliefs, are the pacifier and blankie that keeps people from facing facts: we have no facts.


Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture.
I'm a follower of Intelligent Design; I am sure that will win and soon, yet I just can't imagine God as I envision her being the designer of life forms. I think that was delegated. To a guy. Maybe a committee, like the Elohim!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


avocationist,
I've bolded two points in your quote above.

My contention with this is:

1) How are you comparing the physically measured values of energy (as defined within Thermodynamics as you insinuate in your post) with the non-physical measures of will.  Or are you trying to indicate that the universe (and thus everything in it) has purpose.

2)  Some examples of false ideas would be helpful.  Are you arguing against some factual claims?  Or maybe evidentiary based explanations for the world around us?  Or is this a declaration of the limitations of thought and words as applied to certain theistic ideas?

These points are seperate from the present thread but whatever.  So someone will accuse me of trashing it with off-topic debate.  You can create your own thread right now and copy my post over.  I would create one but right now but I believe that the originator of the ideas that are challanged has the final decision to move the debate one way or the other.  The ball is in your court if you wish to continue to discuss these items or be a contributer only to certain threads.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 22 2007,17:37

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,12:05)
I am a monist, taoist, panentheistic sufi.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why are you talking about it.

"If it could be talked about, everyone would have already told his brother."
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 22 2007,17:42

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,16:04)
So what you're saying, Louis, is that I may not post on this forum. So you guys don't allow discussion but are a glee club too?
This is PALEY"S thread, not mine. Why can't I post here? What have I done? Interrupted your hundreds of rants on how bad a guy Paley is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Help, help -- I'm being censored !!!!!!", she cried in front of the whole world.

"Help, help -- I'm not allowed to post !!!!!!!!", she posted to the entire board.


(snicker)  (giggle)


Well, it's nice to see that Paley's new girlfriend, whether pantheist or not, has the very same crushingly huge martyr complex that all the fundies (and Paley)  have.  (shrug)
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 22 2007,20:58

Okay.
Louis, thank you for your respectful and (almost) reasonable reply. I really don't want to muck up all the threads, and I don't intend to. I pretty much post on topic. It doesn't work if I want to post on a thread, to every time move it to my thread.

I didn't really come here to start a one-woman defense of ID; I don't have the time and I am not qualified.

I don't want to move this particular discussion to my thread. I wrote and Paley responded, and he should be able to. Furthermore, my topic of 2nd law was not really particularly antievolution.  Paley seems to like Berlinski, and I read two of the three linked items on page 27. This is a nice old thread that I have been following for some time.

And this hashas been a thread which has contained arguments of my type, and which has been a containment forum for Paley himself.

If you find I am mucking up too many threads, yell at me and I'll listen.

And Lenny, I talked about it because he asked me a direct question.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 22 2007,21:45

Mike,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

1) How are you comparing the physically measured values of energy (as defined within Thermodynamics as you insinuate in your post) with the non-physical measures of will.  Or are you trying to indicate that the universe (and thus everything in it) has purpose.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1.About the physically measured values. I'm not really educated scientifically or mathematically. Just a layperson here. Just to let you know. Yeah, I didn't mean to directly compare those values with will. I meant that the thought struck me yesterday while reading through the linked emails between Berlinski and Wadkins and in conjunction with my esoteric ideas, that the tendency toward dissolution ought to have a counterbalancing (equal? nonequal?) force which allows things to organize. Even though will seems to be involved, it must also have physical values. Notice I said will and energy.

As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken. I think existence (life) and evolution are purpose enough. Existence IS the purpose. Nothing can trump that.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2)  Some examples of false ideas would be helpful.  Are you arguing against some factual claims?  Or maybe evidentiary based explanations for the world around us?  Or is this a declaration of the limitations of thought and words as applied to certain theistic ideas?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There are many examples. I am arguing that many so-called factual claims are not. There have been many intelligent and educated people who defended wrong ideas about astronomy, the phlogiston, and so forth. And while we do slowly improve, there are emotional impediments in the way which prevent us from moving a good deal faster. The mocking and mob mentality that go on here are a great example of it. Or, try picking on a Christian sometime. They cannot bear up under the scrutiny. It is scrutiny that ruins belief systems. Today people made fun of a comment I made about forced immunizations. They brought up fluoridation, which I am against. Very mocking. No knowledge. No need fto understand why someone has a different point of view because they already know better without examination. Doesn't matter where I see it. The Baptist who thinks all Catholics are going to #### or whatever. Now, I might be wrong on these two, but I'll tell you I have an amazing batting average. Things I was made fun of over 20 years ago, health-wise, people are now asking for my advice. Because I turned out to be right. Margarine is not a health food. But the cardiologist I worked for insisted to me that it was, but guess who I see shopping at the health food store now? I am very suspicious of knee-jerk respect for whatever the current establishment says is right. In my ten years as a nurse, I have seen them pull a dozen drugs off the market because they are dangerous or lethal. They don't always know what they are doing.

But mostly I'm talking about the way people want so very badly to know what's going on, and we don't and we can't.
Existentially, historically, metaphysically. Look at the belief systems held by Islam and Christianity, how they mirror each other and how each side is sure they are right and the arguments they can each line up to bolster their structure.

And by the way, just to irritate you all a little, I think men have a bigger problem with this than women. And I have an evo-psych explanation! Women are more comfortable admitting that they don't know what is happening because it isn't directly tied to their self-image. Women have been more dependent upon men, because they are weaker and because they have the babies. So if the wagon train spots hostile Indians, or a possible tornado headed their way, or a decision which way to go, the women are going to look to the men for direction and protection. If the men, on the other hand, are clueless, well then that's just not good. No wonder they don't like to ask for directions! Knowing what is happening, what direction is what, is directly tied a man's masculinity and sense of resonsibility. Unfortunately, it bleeds over into other areas, such as metaphysics. Where having firm beliefs is an impediment to progress. So yeah, it applies to theistic ideas where thoughts and words, while needed, are also only going to take you just so far.

"Truth is a pathless land."  Krishnamurti
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 22 2007,23:05

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,22:45)
Mike,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) How are you comparing the physically measured values of energy (as defined within Thermodynamics as you insinuate in your post) with the non-physical measures of will.  Or are you trying to indicate that the universe (and thus everything in it) has purpose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1.About the physically measured values. I'm not really educated scientifically or mathematically. Just a layperson here. Just to let you know. Yeah, I didn't mean to directly compare those values with will. I meant that the thought struck me yesterday while reading through the linked emails between Berlinski and Wadkins and in conjunction with my esoteric ideas, that the tendency toward dissolution ought to have a counterbalancing (equal? nonequal?) force which allows things to organize. Even though will seems to be involved, it must also have physical values. Notice I said will and energy.

As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken. I think existence (life) and evolution are purpose enough. Existence IS the purpose. Nothing can trump that.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair enough... for philisophical musings.  But I think your idea to identify the SLoT (or in this case entropy) as some "disorganizing force" confuses the discussion tremendously.  When you invoke the SLoT argument you can't ignore the other laws around it.  Entropy isn't so much a "disorganizing force" as it is a "cost of doing business".  Sometimes you have to pay, sometimes you get money back.  But in the long run there is an overall cost.  I like to think of it as inflation.  Not bad, sometimes reversable, but to make any progress in economics you need some inflation.

Would you agree that the SLoT usage is confusing?  Or do you have some more detail to this?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2)  Some examples of false ideas would be helpful.  Are you arguing against some factual claims?  Or maybe evidentiary based explanations for the world around us?  Or is this a declaration of the limitations of thought and words as applied to certain theistic ideas?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are many examples. I am arguing that many so-called factual claims are not. There have been many intelligent and educated people who defended wrong ideas about astronomy, the phlogiston, and so forth. And while we do slowly improve, there are emotional impediments in the way which prevent us from moving a good deal faster. The mocking and mob mentality that go on here are a great example of it. Or, try picking on a Christian sometime. They cannot bear up under the scrutiny. It is scrutiny that ruins belief systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you defending non-factual belief systems that cannot withstand factual scrutiny?  In whose mind is a belief system ruined?  The factual scrutinizer or the believer?  Is this a bad thing?  I can't tell from your response even if I parse the sentences.  Please elaborate.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today people made fun of a comment I made about forced immunizations. They brought up fluoridation, which I am against. Very mocking. No knowledge. No need to understand why someone has a different point of view because they already know better without examination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote please.  Permalink.  I can't find it.  This is one more reason to open/discuss in a seperate thread.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, I might be wrong on these two, but I'll tell you I have an amazing batting average.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree that you have to toot your own horn.  Nobody else will. :p

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Things I was made fun of over 20 years ago, health-wise, people are now asking for my advice. Because I turned out to be right. Margarine is not a health food. But the cardiologist I worked for insisted to me that it was, but guess who I see shopping at the health food store now? I am very suspicious of knee-jerk respect for whatever the current establishment says is right. In my ten years as a nurse, I have seen them pull a dozen drugs off the market because they are dangerous or lethal. They don't always know what they are doing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see lots of "They" and "establishment" talk.  Could this be a case of a single person (your cardiologist) being mistaken?  And your committing a falacy here by relating (his?) actions to some over-arching "establishment They".  I do know some factual information about margarine, butter, fats, oils, etc. (source, manufacture, chemical composition, etc.).  However my point is that with this type of statement without at least one reference the impression I get is someone (you) making conclusions (margarine bad) without enough factual information (WHAT makes margarine bad).  

And what have you replaced margarine with at the "health" food store?  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But mostly I'm talking about the way people want so very badly to know what's going on, and we don't and we can't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This statement is in need of establishing boundry limits.  Are you talking theistic, natural world, measureable phenomenae?  In my opinion it's statements like these that tend to confuse a discussion.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Existentially, historically, metaphysically. Look at the belief systems held by Islam and Christianity, how they mirror each other and how each side is sure they are right and the arguments they can each line up to bolster their structure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree.  But which system is right?  Or can we use factual based analysis to find some things out about the belief systems?  Or will this ruin the systems?

By the way, I wasn't irritated with your final statement.

Mike PSS
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 23 2007,00:53

Mike,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fair enough... for philisophical musings.  But I think your idea to identify the SLoT (or in this case entropy) as some "disorganizing force" confuses the discussion tremendously.  When you invoke the SLoT argument you can't ignore the other laws around it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I simply can't keep from musing philosophically. It ties everything together for me. Perhaps you should explain about those other laws around it, in what way am I ignoring them. I do think of entropy as a disorganizing force, basically things break down into their simpler and simpler components. Is that wrong?
When does entropy give you your money back? When is it ever reversible? Sure it is a cost of doing business. I'm not knocking entropy. Ya gotta have the creator, the maintainer, and the destroyer (Hinduism).
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you agree that the SLoT usage is confusing?  Or do you have some more detail to this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Um, no, I don't see why.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you defending non-factual belief systems that cannot withstand factual scrutiny?  Is this a bad thing?   Please elaborate.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sorry, I meant that the destruction of belief systems is a good thing. If you notice when people give up a belief system, it is usually because they were willing to scrutinize it in a new and deeper way. Of course, most often they jump into a new one, and pull up the covers. So brief is the flight toward truth...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote please.  Permalink.  I can't find it.  This is one more reason to open/discuss in a seperate thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh, it was on the Hovind thread. I watched the documentary that Phonon linked. It was a bit paranoid. Anyway, I am leery of vaccination, think they are overdoing it, that some are more useful than others, and that they shouldn't be forced. It isn't a simple topic and that was my point.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I see lots of "They" and "establishment" talk.  Could this be a case of a single person (your cardiologist) being mistaken?  And your committing a falacy here by relating (his?) actions to some over-arching "establishment They"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course it was not my cardiologist alone! This is mainstream stuff, several decades of error (but the truth was available in a wee small voice) supported by all sorts of establishment (and often financially biased) research, and that is just what he said to me.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However my point is that with this type of statement without at least one reference the impression I get is someone (you) making conclusions (margarine bad) without enough factual information (WHAT makes margarine bad).  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why oh why do you get that impression? I was taught 12 years ago in nursing school that margarine might be carcinogenic and promote heart disease. Now what do you think of all this recent hoopla about "Recommended daily amount of hydrogenated fats is zero?"  This is a huge admission of error. It means that finally, at long last, the truth couldn't be denied anymore, that margarine and other hydrogenated and trans fats are killing people.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And what have you replaced margarine with at the "health" food store?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I didn't replace it because I never used it. I eat butter, but now I also use coconut oil.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you talking theistic, natural world, measureable phenomenae?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mostly, I'm talking about the nature of reality. I'm quite intrigued by other theories than the Big Bang for instance. I doubt the BB will hold up this century, but we'll see. No ax to grind here, but we'll see. It is so easy for people to think they've got it right, and then from false foundations they build high rises. Errors get compounded.

That was my inner zen buddhist speaking. I just think that people are in a daze, convinced that everything is quite solid around them, when really they haven't a clue. I think of my situation, anyone's situation, as being like a lone speck in an endless, seamless, black nothingness. No landmark, no direction, no compass.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree.  But which system is right?  Or can we use factual based analysis to find some things out about the belief systems?  Or will this ruin the systems?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Neither system is right. Factual analysis and logical scrutiny, can help dissolve them. I see this stuff because of my inner work from Buddhist-enlightenment ideas. When I read about this and went to work on it, on my own deconstruction, I see it more and more. And what I like about Buddhism, is that they promote dismantling and jettisoning more than endless addition. So on the path toward wisdom, this is crucial - to let go of nonsense and stop adding to it.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,06:57

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,21:45)
I'm not really educated scientifically or mathematically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No shit.

Somehow, though,  that never seems to stop idiots like you from screaming "SCIENCE IS WRONG !!!!" at the top of their lungs.  (shrug)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,07:01

By the way, Avocation, you should go read the "Intellectually Honest Christians?" thread.  The whole thing.  From beginning to end.

You'll see that you're not the guru that you think you are.

It might give you a much-needed sense of humility.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 23 2007,08:42

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,01:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fair enough... for philisophical musings.  But I think your idea to identify the SLoT (or in this case entropy) as some "disorganizing force" confuses the discussion tremendously.  When you invoke the SLoT argument you can't ignore the other laws around it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I simply can't keep from musing philosophically. It ties everything together for me. Perhaps you should explain about those other laws around it, in what way am I ignoring them. I do think of entropy as a disorganizing force, basically things break down into their simpler and simpler components. Is that wrong?
When does entropy give you your money back? When is it ever reversible? Sure it is a cost of doing business. I'm not knocking entropy. Ya gotta have the creator, the maintainer, and the destroyer (Hinduism).
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you agree that the SLoT usage is confusing?  Or do you have some more detail to this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Um, no, I don't see why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll treat this question seperately.

I approach Thermodynamics from a chemical engineering understanding.  That means I don't see it as a "mechanical" system of rules but a "chemical" system of rules.  If you talk with a mechanical engineer you'll get a different perspective.  If you talk to a physicist, you'll get another perspective.  This just indicates that there are aspects of Thermo that are used more or less frequently depending on the systems you work with.  However, Thermo is a robust mathematical treatment of macroscopic heat transfer that works in all the above systems.

Skim through the Wiki pages for a quick reference.
< Thermodynamics >
< Laws of Thermomdynamics >
< Thermodynamic Potentials (variables) >

If you skim through those pages you'll notice that the terminology, when talking about Entropy (S), is always in regards to an integrated equation.  And most of the defined variables (Gibbs free energy (G), Helmholtz free energy (H), Internal energy (U), Enthalpy (H)) have mathematical relationships with each other along with associated physical properties (pressure, volume, mass, number of molecules, chemical potential, etc..).

Without making this into a primer for Thermo you can start to see that the SLoT is only a small part of the overall construct we call Thermodynamics.  Entropy is no more a force than Enthalpy or Internal energy.  ALL the variables contribute to the WHOLE macroscopic description of a system.  You can't remove Enthalpy as a seperate and distinct quantity (or quality).

You can muse on disorganizing (and/or organizing) forces all you want, but when you invoke Entropy as one of these forces I'm calling foul.  There are some interesting mathematical treatments of Thermodynamic balance equations (called, I think, transpositions) where we can transpose the Thermo equations (not the measured units) to describe other phenomena like electromagnetic fields and forces.  {Think of this in terms of coordinate systems on a graph.  You can transpose an (x-y-z) cartesian coordinate system to an (r-psi-theta) spherical coordinate system by transposition balance equations that relate the two systems.}

If you want to use Entropy to describe your disorganizing force then I'll have to ask you for the transposition formulaes your using for ALL the balance equations.

I'm travelling and will get back on the other half of the post in a bit.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Jan. 23 2007,17:05

Avocationist,

You might get a better conversation going if you respond only to the civil posters. There are good people on this board if you look for them. But I'm probably not telling you anything you don't know already.  ;)
Posted by: MidnightVoice on Jan. 23 2007,17:13

Can some kind admin cut out all Avo's posts and put them in the right thread?  I only visit this one every 6 months or so because I don't know what it is about
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 23 2007,22:26

Yes, Ghost, I had already decided to do that. I was awaiting your reply? Of course you can reply anywhere you want, but I don't think this topic belongs on the other thread.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 23 2007,22:32

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,22:26)
Yes, Ghost, I had already decided to do that. I was awaiting your reply? Of course you can reply anywhere you want, but I don't think this topic belongs on the other thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, these two were MADE for each other . . . . . .
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 23 2007,22:38

Mike,

This topic started out as just a general sort of inquiry from Ghost about my worldview. I didn't mean to get into an argument about slot. It has been a long time since I read arguments using slot as evidence against the possibility of evolution, and that isn't where I was going with it. I did note that slot is not the only thing happening. The usual defense if the evo's is to say that our planet is an open system. I can agree with that.

So you tell me you're a chemical engineer and I did skim through the wiki  links, but basically I just don't have a clue what you're getting at.

What you seem to be saying is that the slot is not a general rule that we can see happening unless we have a specific set of numbers and take all other forces into account. So if a pot boils and cools off, I have no business attributing it to the slot. the slot only applies to people with math degrees who can pick the system apart minutely and explain every equation. It doesn't actually apply to the real world.

I've sort of lost the point of our discussion.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 23 2007,22:43

Ghost, maybe people wouldn't be so annoyed it you would jump in with some politically incorrect views, so that Louis could come back and rant at you. Feel free to help me out here if you like!

Mike, what I meant above about slot not being the only thing happening, was that it seems to me slot does not stand alone but should have other forces that oppose it, or at least can work against it given enough energy. In other words, I see it as part of a loop.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 23 2007,22:51

Avocationist,
I can have sympathy for someone who finds themselves the subject of horde of questioners while lacking the time, energy, and/or knowledge to answer all the questions. I can understand why you wouldn't want to reply to someone who brings out accusations of dishonesty rather than starting a fresh conversation.

But it reflects very poorly on yourself when a knowledgeable person attempts to explain a concept to you, and you reply

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you seem to be saying is that the slot is not a general rule that we can see happening unless we have a specific set of numbers and take all other forces into account. So if a pot boils and cools off, I have no business attributing it to the slot. the slot only applies to people with math degrees who can pick the system apart minutely and explain every equation. It doesn't actually apply to the real world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That sounds like some pretty hardcore anti-intellectualism, so you shouldn't be surprised when people don't take you too seriously when you declare that you are unimpressed with the arguments of someone like Ernst Mayr.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 23 2007,23:17

Well, gee, Argy, I don't think I meant to be anti-intellectual. I really don't get what Mike was saying, but it seemed he scolds me for taking a rather common view of the second law as it relates to what we see around us. Basicaly saying I have no business mentioning it.

As for Mayr's book, I'm sorry. It just wasn't interesting. Very introductory stuff.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 23 2007,23:28

He told you you were wrong, and did a bit to explain why.

Your response sounds like, "I don't understand what you're saying, but I know I'm right, and you can't convince me otherwise."

If you don't get what he's saying, perhaps you should ask for a clarification. That's how one learns.
Posted by: avocationist on Jan. 23 2007,23:45

Ha, yes I did ask for clarifiction. Meanwhile, just for you, I picked up my Mayr book and looked through it at random. I guess it's not so bad, perhaps the beginning chapters were a bit slow.
Posted by: creeky belly on Jan. 23 2007,23:58

edit - moved to avocationist thread
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 24 2007,04:28

Avocationist,

1) The reason I rant at GoP as you put it is because he is a self confessed and proven troll here to disrupt these boards and nothing more. One of the ways he does this is by posting thinly veiled racist screeds, there other ways. He may or may not believe these things in real life (who could tell) but he is undoubtedly (self-confessedly) posting them for flamebait. The other thing is that he is a demonstrated liar, again, this is all available for you to check out if you're interested. I positively insist you don't take my word for it.

2) My post was ALMOST reasonable? Fuck me quite deftly with a ten foot bargepole Avocationist, I've done nothing but bend over backwards so far I can see my own kidneys since your "reappearance". Asking someone to try to keep their ID related posts in a coherent place (a request made by other) because it aids their stated aim of reasonable communication is not an insult. Dude (or apparently Dudette) you SERIOUSLY need to stop seeing hostility where none exists. You also seriously need to defend your claims with something a little more substantial than "Infamy Infamy, they'ce all got it Infamy!".

Louis

P.S. Any chance of those links/quotes proving I called you a liar, loathsome and subverter of science. I really don't remember doing that and would love to be reminded so I could apologise.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Mar. 02 2007,10:41

Found a cool site with lecture notes relevant to some old discussions:

< MIT Chemistry outlines. >

< Thermochemistry. >

< Introduction to QM. >
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Mar. 19 2007,15:59

< Heh. >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A simple proof of the existence of God

Here is a simple, easily understood proof that there is a higher intelligence organizing and guiding the universe.
At the beginning of the universe, all that existed was hydrogen atoms, consisting of a nucleus containing one proton plus a single electron rotating around the nucleus. At this early stage of the universe, the heavier elements, heavier because they have more protons and electrons, and the various compounds such as water, in which atoms of different elements join together, did not yet exist. But the laws of physics and chemisty governing the formation and characteristics of the heavier elements and the compounds did exist, as shown by the fact that those elements and compounds came into existence. Those laws have to do with the maximum number of electrons that can be contained in each of the concentrically arranged electron “clouds” that surround the nucleus, and with the optimum state of stability toward which all atoms gravitate, and that stable state is also a function of the maximum number of electrons that can be contained in each electron cloud. These highly specific and particular laws were not manifested in—and therefore could not have been discovered from observing—the simple hydrogen atom, with its one electron cloud containing one electron. The laws governing the formation of the heavier elements were not “in play” in the case of hydrogen, they only came into play with the heavier elements.

What this shows is that the physical universe is governed by laws that are transcendent to the universe itself.

I will make all this clearer in a future entry, where I will discuss in more detail the basic laws of atomic chemisty.


- end of initial entry -
People who agree with the above argument may reply by saying that any physical law, for example the law of gravity, demonstrates the existence of higher intelligence transcending matter. But that argument would miss the particular force of the present argument. According to the law of gravity the attraction between two objects varies as the inverse square of the distance between them, meaning that if the distance between two objects is doubled the gravitational force between them is reduced to one quarter. But the law of gravity could be seen as stemming from the nature of matter itself, as something inherent in the very properties of matter. It is simply the way matter behaves. But the laws governing the electronic structure of matter do not appear to be inherent in the most basic unit of matter, which is the hydrogen atom.

Thus, if we could imagine a scientist observing the universe at the time when the only element that existed was hydrogen, he would have no way of knowing that the first electron cloud or shell would take a maximum of two electrons, and the second electron cloud a maximum of eight electrons, and the third a maximum of 18 electrons, because elements that had that many electrons did not yet exist, and there is nothing in the relatively simple structure of hydrogen that would lead to such a particular and specific law governing the heavier elements. Nor could our hypothetical scientist know that elements in which the outer electron shell is filled to capacity are more stable or “inert” (at least up through the first two shells), that all atoms would have a tendency to seek to achieve an inert state, and that this “longing” of atoms to attain a stable or inert state would lead the various elements to combine together in very specific ways to form compounds such as water, carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, hydrogen chloride, and so on. The laws controlling the electronic structure of the various elements and compounds do not appear to be inherent in, or predicable from, the observable properties of hydrogen. Thus the laws governing matter pre-existed matter. They are not material. They are mental.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ohhh Lawrence, you should have talked with a physicist before posting this. You are going to get some grief ......  :(
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on April 02 2007,11:35

I fixed a small mistake in my "alternative" proof of the I-J Theorem. I plan to do a new calculation to see if anything meaningful arises.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 02 2007,12:05

You're talking to yourself, GoP. Kind of reminds me of this guy who always hangs out on this bus bench down the street from me.
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 02 2007,14:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I plan to do a new calculation to see if anything meaningful arises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That would make a refreshing change, Mr the Ghost of Paley.

(Aside to Lenny, I only came in here because I noticed Arden had posted, so blame Arden, not me.)
Posted by: Louis on April 02 2007,16:37

Alan, Arden, Lenny,

I only followed you guys. What's going on?

{reads}

Oh the troll is pretending to have a clue again! Back to sleep.

Louis
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on April 03 2007,08:06

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 02 2007,11:35)
I fixed a small mistake in my "alternative" proof of the I-J Theorem. I plan to do a new calculation to see if anything meaningful arises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you own a time machine?  It seems that virtually everything you talk about doing occurs in the future.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.