Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Telic Thoughts Thread started by stevestory


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,13:50

One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant. While this makes for < some good laughs >, it's not very challenging. We've been trying to recruit some smarter creationist to debate here. It's not very easy. It seems for every educated creationist familiar with science, there are about a million AFDaves and FtKs. Since we haven't yet managed to recruit such an educated creationist, perhaps we should make do by discussing the best of the bunch, < Telic Thoughts. > It's slightly better than the others. If Uncommonly Dense is like a clown car, Telic Thoughts is more like an AMC Pacer.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 22 2007,15:47

Talking about educated creationists, we have Daniel Smith here. I don't know him but he seems more familiar with science.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,16:39

yeah. I haven't had a chance to read his thread much yet, but he does look a cut above the AFDave FtK class of creationist.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,17:22

I haven't read much Telic Thoughts. The contributors there seem pretty diverse. So far, all I can tell is Mike Gene has at least some brains, and Bradford is an idiot.
Posted by: ck1 on Sep. 22 2007,17:25

Is Mike Gene a professional biologist?  Ph.D.?  

I know his/her identity is secret, but what is known about Gene?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 22 2007,19:09

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2007,17:22)
I haven't read much Telic Thoughts. The contributors there seem pretty diverse. So far, all I can tell is Mike Gene has at least some brains, and Bradford is an idiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Joy is insane.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 22 2007,21:32

Uncommon Descent has been off-line a lot, and when they do blog, it's mostly non-science topics. AtBC has a very robust peanut gallery for these non-science topics, so I've been commenting over at Telic Thoughts. (By the way, MikeGene has a rabbit theme.)

Wonders for Oyarsa posted an interesting simulation, < The Amazing Toxic Asexual Bunny Mutation Simulator >. But it didn't show what he thought it did.

Wonders for Oyarsa thought that for evolution to find a specific beneficial mutation, junk portions of the genome would become scrambled. In fact, evolution can try all sorts of mutations and then discard them before fixation. This was pointed out in the very first comment. But of course, it had no impact on the discussion whatsoever.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Raevmo >: Kimura showed mathematically that for a neutral mutation the fixation rate is identical to the mutation rate (independently of population size).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amusingly, Wonders for Oyarsa overlooked genetic fixation occurring right before his eyes.

Fluffy Bunnies has a very small genome, so only about 30% of the original junk typically remains. But even that significant portion should have been a clue that his intuition was wrong. I suggested that Wonders for Oyarsa approach his intuition skeptically, to make an attempt at falsification— to no avail.

< >

In response, I posted < KILLER RABBITS, Not-so-fluffy Bunnies >. To his credit, I do think that Wonders for Oyarsa tried to learn from the exchange.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,22:51

Mike Gene seems to be denying that there is an ID community. So maybe I was too optimistic and they're a bunch of idiots too.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-neg....scovery >

I'm withholding judgment. It's still early.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 22 2007,23:28

Hi Steve,

When MikeGene and I get into heated discussions it is usually over what I call "Shield Bashing".

A lot of people at Telic Thoughts (including MikeGene) take the tactical position of claiming to be oppressed.  It makes it easier to complain.

Bradford takes it to an extreme.  He appears to be fairly knowledgeable but often uses that knowledge to be bombastic.

BTW, I don't know if you are aware of this.  I think MikeGene split off from the "ID community" to form Telic Thoughts because of fundamental disagreements with people running ARN.

Personally, I think there was a spark of earnest interest in doing science when Darwin's Black Box came out.  I agree with Dawkins' review that DBB was better, in this regard, than Edge of Evolution.

I suggest the ID MOVEMENT decided to go the PR route.  Behe changed his definition of IC and the one ID Hypothesis that came close to being scientific, EAM, was abandoned.

In short, I think you are pressing some hot buttons with MikeGene.  Yes, he is biased in blaming the “ID critics” for shutting down explorations but note the title bar declaration “Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design. Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design.”  

The word “independent” is obviously intentional.  If there is an “ID Community”, MikeGene and Telic Thoughts don’t consider themselves part of it.

You may also want to look at their “About Us” description.

There is some history there.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 22 2007,23:34

Hi Jam,

You wrote...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Joy is insane.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is that a problem for you? :D

Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.

She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.

You might also find her political leanings surprising.  (let's just say she has never been a big fan of our current president).
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,23:35

Thanks for the info. I don't know anything about the history there. I wrote a post on Telic Thoughts but deleted it. If someone's complaining that ID, with its millions of dollars and hundreds of supposed scientists, can't succeed because the community isn't large enough, well, I'm not sure I can talk to a person like that.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2007,23:37

comment, I meant. Not post.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2007,03:33

The ex-UD commenter < Bilbo > appears capable of independent thought.

Edit: ps < Here too >
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Sep. 23 2007,04:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, he is biased in blaming the “ID critics” for shutting down explorations but note the title bar declaration “Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design. Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design.”  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, they are considerably incorrect there. ID killed itself by being a dead lifeless duck scientifically and producing no testable hypotheses or data. When I challenged Mike Gene in the past to demonstrate an actual testable hypothesis for ID, the usual retreat to "What would evolution do" came up, completely dodging what I was actually asking.

But in general, Telic Thoughts is a veritable fertile field of actual positive thinking about ID compared to cesspools of stupidity like UD. It's completely unfair to compare TT to UD, as TT has intelligent discussions on their site, doesn't suppress comments from those who disagree with them and actually have credibility (see the Dr. Pianka incident from a while ago).

Stevestory.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike Gene seems to be denying that there is an ID community. So maybe I was too optimistic and they're a bunch of idiots too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Although I still think TT talks a whole load of nonsense (like about Front Loading, I've still never seen them actually put down a proper testable prediction of this), they are far from idiots and if we take UD as being the "ID community", then I would not blame the group at TT from wanting to have no association with it.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 23 2007,05:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
like about Front Loading, I've still never seen them actually put down a proper testable prediction of this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, but < someone has >.  In a journal that is sometimes peer reviewed.  It's still a pile of crap, but it's a published pile of crap with predictions.

Bob
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 23 2007,05:27

JAM wrote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Joy is insane.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thought Provoker responded:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.

She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP,

Someone who believes that life depends on superconduction, and that there is a conspiracy to suppress information about superconductivity, is neither knowledgeable nor sane.

Joy on superconductivity in biology:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such an act of total measurement - the 'snapshot' - would collapse all sustained quantum states in the person being copied - including condensed matter/gel states, superconduction and molecular electron sharing, superpositions, etc. - thereby rendering that person DEAD. Mere decomposing raw matter in 4D.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy on the conspiracy:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this - seeking everything science knew about consciousness - superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's just one example.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2007,06:28

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 23 2007,00:27)
JAM wrote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Joy is insane.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thought Provoker responded:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.

She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP,

Someone who believes that life depends on superconduction, and that there is a conspiracy to suppress information about superconductivity, is neither knowledgeable nor sane.

Joy on superconductivity in biology:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Such an act of total measurement - the 'snapshot' - would collapse all sustained quantum states in the person being copied - including condensed matter/gel states, superconduction and molecular electron sharing, superpositions, etc. - thereby rendering that person DEAD. Mere decomposing raw matter in 4D.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy on the conspiracy:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this - seeking everything science knew about consciousness - superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!;), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's just one example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, nobody's perfect, Keith. :D

I recall Joy posting some interesting stuff about sustainability, (couldn't find it just now, sorry) so she ain't all bad.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,09:51

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 23 2007,04:33)
The ex-UD commenter < Bilbo > appears capable of independent thought.

Edit: ps < Here too >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good for Bilbo.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,09:54

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 23 2007,06:27)
Joy on the conspiracy:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this - seeking everything science knew about consciousness - superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's just one example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,10:19

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 23 2007,04:33)
It's completely unfair to compare TT to UD, as TT has intelligent discussions on their site, doesn't suppress comments from those who disagree with them...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are incorrect on that count.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,10:20

Hi Keiths,

You wrote...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someone who believes that life depends on superconduction, and that there is a conspiracy to suppress information about superconductivity, is neither knowledgeable nor sane.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joy is quite capable to defending herself.  MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.  If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use. Meanwhile, I thank you for the opportunity for me to point out the use of quantum mechanics in life.

It appears photosynthesis involves quantum superposition to achieve super conductivity.

This is from Berkley Lab's Research News.  The article is titled Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BERKELEY, CA —Through photosynthesis, green plants and cyanobacteria are able to transfer sunlight energy to molecular reaction centers for conversion into chemical energy with nearly 100-percent efficiency. Speed is the key – the transfer of the solar energy takes place almost instantaneously so little energy is wasted as heat. How photosynthesis achieves this near instantaneous energy transfer is a long-standing mystery that may have finally been solved.
...
Electronic spectroscopy measurements made on a femtosecond (millionths of a billionth of a second) time-scale showed these oscillations meeting and interfering constructively, forming wavelike motions of energy (superposition states) that can explore all potential energy pathways simultaneously and reversibly, meaning they can retreat from wrong pathways with no penalty. This finding contradicts the classical description of the photosynthetic energy transfer process as one in which excitation energy hops from light-capturing pigment molecules to reaction center molecules step-by-step down the molecular energy ladder.

“The classical hopping description of the energy transfer process is both inadequate and inaccurate,” said Fleming. “It gives the wrong picture of how the process actually works, and misses a crucial aspect of the reason for the wonderful efficiency.”

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


< link >

And, of course, there is the Orch OR model of consciousness put forward by Sir Rodger Penrose and Dr. Hameroff....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this paper we propose that aspects of quantum theory (e.g. quantum coherence) and of a newly proposed physical phenomenon of quantum wave function "self-collapse"(objective reduction: OR -Penrose, 1994) are essential for consciousness, and occur in cytoskeletal microtubules and other structures within each of the brain's neurons. The particular characteristics of microtubules suitable for quantum effects include their crystal-like lattice structure, hollow inner core, organization of cell function and capacity for information processing. We envisage that conformational states of microtubule subunits (tubulins) are coupled to internal quantum events, and cooperatively interact (compute) with other tubulins. We further assume that macroscopic coherent superposition of quantum-coupled tubulin conformational states occurs throughout significant brain volumes and provides the global binding essential to consciousness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from the peer reviewed paper <  Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness >

DNA strands are used to build artificial quantum computers.

IMO, the question gets turned around.  What makes you think life ISN'T dependent on quantum superposition and superconductivity?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,10:23

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 22 2007,23:34)
Hi Jam,

You wrote...
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And Joy is insane.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is that a problem for you? :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's simply an observation. Joy routinely makes false claims to support her positions, and when her claims have been shown to be false, claims her positions to be supported anyway.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have my sympathies.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



She is not knowledgable at all in the field of biology, TP.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You might also find her political leanings surprising.  (let's just say she has never been a big fan of our current president).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not at all. That doesn't mean that she's not insane. Her support of the lies of the animal-rights movement is not surprising, either.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,10:46

Hi JAM,

You wrote...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She is not knowledgeable at all in the field of biology, TP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree, Joy's expertise appears to be more in understanding physics as opposed to biology.  And, yes, she does have an unusual philosophical outlook (which she admits to).

What she brings to the table is the thought that it may be time to quit treating the different scientific disciplines as separate.  Biologists can't continue to ignore General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

This concept is what drives Sir Rodger Penrose.  Combining General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics results in some interesting conclusions.  While many people don't like the implications, Penrose's OR quantum interpretation is testable and is being tested.  So far, it has never been falsified.  Penrose also provides verifiable equations, E=h/t may become the next E=mc^2.  Penrose is making a specific proposal for the timing of quantum superposition collapse.

It is obvious that Penrose has convinced himself (and others) of the solidity of the basic OR quantum model long ago.  Once he considered it a given, Penrose started to look in its implications.  Its implications to the study of consciousness is potentially very profound.  However, like Joy, Penrose wasn’t as strong in biology as physics.  This resulted in Penrose teaming up with a scientist who has dedicated his professional life to the study of consciousness, Dr, Hameroff.  The Orch OR model of consciousness was introduced about 10 years ago.

Joy claims to be a “professional fool”.  Sometimes listening to fools allows you to think outside artificial barriers of thinking (“outside the box”).

P.S. for those interested here is the link to < www.hameroff.com >
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,11:26

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,10:20)
MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False again.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
from the peer reviewed paper <  Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,11:31

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,12:26)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,10:20)
MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False again.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
from the peer reviewed paper <  Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAM, have you been censored at TT? If so, under what conditions?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,11:33

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,10:46)

I agree, Joy's expertise appears to be more in understanding physics as opposed to biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With the emphasis on "appears." Given her rank dishonesty about biological subjects, I suspect that she's just as dishonest and/or deluded about physics.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What she brings to the table is the thought that it may be time to quit treating the different scientific disciplines as separate.  Biologists can't continue to ignore General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you offer any evidence that would allow me to conclude that biologists do ignore these subjects? I certainly don't consider them separate.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This concept is what drives Sir Rodger Penrose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) How would you know what drives him?
2) If it doesn't drive him to test hypotheses, he's not very driven.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Combining General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics results in some interesting conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Science is about testing hypotheses, not about generating interesting conclusions.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While many people don't like the implications, Penrose's OR quantum interpretation is testable and is being tested.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then point me to the data instead of his speculations.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Its implications to the study of consciousness is potentially very profound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Potentially, yes. Probably, not at all.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy claims to be a “professional fool”.  Sometimes listening to fools allows you to think outside artificial barriers of thinking (“outside the box”).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sometimes, but not this time.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,11:36

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 23 2007,11:31)
JAM, have you been censored at TT? If so, under what conditions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Severely. I've been banned three times, but TP keeps persisting in his fantasy that the folks at TT are tolerant.

Primarily, I've been banned for pointing out obvious ways to test their hypotheses. Most recently, I was banned for arguing with Sal about malaria.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,11:54

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,10:20)
from the peer reviewed paper <  Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP, let me explain some of the silliness in this paper:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Several types of studies suggest cytoskeletal involvement in cognition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Penrose omits is the fact that the evidence supporting the involvement of the ACTIN cytoskeleton is an order of magnitude greater than the evidence supporting the involvement of the MICROTUBULE cytoskeleton.

This alone trashes Penrose's credibility in my eyes.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example long term potentiation (LTP) is a form of synaptic plasticity that serves as a model for learning and memory in mammalian hippocampal cortex. LTP requires MAP-2, a dendrite-specific, MT-crosslinking MAP which is dephosphorylated as a result of synaptic membrane receptor activation (e.g. Halpain and Greengard, 1990).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But what else does it require? Penrose doesn't say, and you aren't reading carefully enough to be skeptical.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In cat visual cortex, MAP-2 is dephosphorylated when visual stimulation occurs (Aoki and Siekevitz, 1985).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that a cause or an effect, TP? Is this provoking any thought in your head?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Auditory Pavlovian conditioning elevates temporal cortex MAP-2 activity in rats (Woolf et al, 1994). Phosphorylation/ dephosphorylation of MAP-2 accounts for a large proportion of brain biochemical energy consumption (e.g. Theurkauf and Vallee, 1983) and is involved in functions which include strengthening specific networks, such as potentiating excitatory synaptic pathways in rat hippocampus (Montoro et al, 1993).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is trivial relative to the known roles of CaM kinase II, receptor phosphorylation, and receptor trafficking in LTP. Only the last of these (one of the things we study) is known to have any dependence on MTs, and the role of MTs and MAPs may still be constituitive.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The mechanism for regulating synaptic function appears related to rearrangement of MAP-2 connections on MTs (Bigot and Hunt, 1990; Friedrich, 1990)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think, TP. "Appears related...," is sufficiently convincing to someone who has the audacity to call himself "Thought Provoker"?

I suggest that you read some LTP reviews from folks in the LTP field and look at the primary literature cited. Very little of it has to do with MTs or MAPs.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2007,12:10

< I see steve's been moonlighting. >
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,12:39

Hi JAM,

You asked...


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

Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?

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



I may be wrong about this.  But this was included in the acknowledgement...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Citations to "This Volume"refer to Toward a Science of Consciousness, (1996) S Hameroff, A Kaszniak, A Scott (eds), MIT Press, Cambridge.

Also published in Mathematics and Computer Simulation 40:453-480, 1996

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



And the paper has been very much reviewed, and criticized, by the likes of Tegmark, Grush and Churchland.

But like I said, I may be wrong.  Maybe MIT Press and Mathematics and Computer Simulation are less particular than I gave them credit for.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,12:48

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,12:39)
Hi JAM,
You asked...
 

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

Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?

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


I may be wrong about this.  But this was included in the acknowledgement...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Citations to "This Volume"refer to Toward a Science of Consciousness, (1996) S Hameroff, A Kaszniak, A Scott (eds), MIT Press, Cambridge.

Also published in Mathematics and Computer Simulation 40:453-480, 1996
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


So what? Neither of those suggest that the paper was peer-reviewed.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the paper has been very much reviewed, and criticized, by the likes of Tegmark, Grush and Churchland.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, come on! That's not what "peer-reviewed" means, and you know it. "Peer-reviewed" means that it is reviewed by peers BEFORE publication, not after.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But like I said, I may be wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You probably are. My question is, why would you make such a claim without evidence?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe MIT Press and Mathematics and Computer Simulation are less particular than I gave them credit for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's just pathetic, TP. The point is that contributions to the secondary literature are rarely peer-reviewed, while those to the primary literature almost always are. I know that none of the reviews I have published were peer-reviewed.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,13:01

Hi JAM,

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Severely. I've been banned three times, but TP keeps persisting in his fantasy that the folks at TT are tolerant.

Primarily, I've been banned for pointing out obvious ways to test their hypotheses. Most recently, I was banned for arguing with Sal about malaria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I remember something about you being banned because you tried to use an alias after being banned previously.

Can you provide a link to the first time you were banned?

I have seen some biased use of sending comments to the memory hole (some of mine have ended up there).

I have only known of one person being banned, that was you.  Zachriel (an ID critic) pressed MikeGene pretty hard about why.  The answer was in reference to your subterfuge.

I have seen some pretty vocal critics on Telic Thoughts that didn't get banned.  Nick Matzke makes regular appearances there.  I have dared MikeGene to simply ask me to leave when the going has gotten tough between us.  He has not done so.

I am of the opinion that I would not stay where I am not welcome.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,13:55

Hi JAM,

Thank you for the opportunity for me to expand my understanding of Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR.

You wrote...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What Penrose omits is the fact that the evidence supporting the involvement of the ACTIN cytoskeleton is an order of magnitude greater than the evidence supporting the involvement of the MICROTUBULE cytoskeleton.

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



Dr. Hameroff provides an explanation for how the ACTIN in needed to support quantum isolation in microtubules.

I would be very interested in seeing a hypothesis on how actin can be a SOURCE of consciousness.


To the quote "In cat visual cortex, MAP-2 is dephosphorylated when visual stimulation occurs (Aoki and Siekevitz, 1985)."

You responded with...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is that a cause or an effect, TP? Is this provoking any thought in your head?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The time order of cause and effects gets very interesting when dealing with quantum mechanics.  Retrocausality is practically a given.

Libet's observation of the readiness potential for conscious actions brings provides support in considering consciousness is a retrocausual superposition of quantum states.

If you are not familiar with Libet, his experiments show a half a second time period of electrical brain activity prior to a conscious decision being made.

Libet's experiments have caused a stir in the study of consciousness.  Playing professional tennis and hitting a fastball should be a physical impossibility.  One answer is that we are helpless observers watching our bodies perform while deluding ourselves with false memories.

Another is that consciousness is a result of orchestrated quantum effects interconnected in both space and time.

Dealing with time as just another dimension is a given in the study of General Relativity.

The EPR paradox has demonstrated "spooky action at a distance" for seventy years in quantum experiment after experiment.

Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's.

As to direct experimental results...  I recently found this...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis mine)
< Nonlocal correlations between separated neural networks >

BTW, the term "nonlocal" is a direct reference to "spooky action at a distance" of the < EPR Paradox >
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,14:23

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,13:55)
Hi JAM,

Dr. Hameroff provides an explanation for how the ACTIN in needed to support quantum isolation in microtubules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Explanations aren't enough. Let's do real science, shall we?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would be very interested in seeing a hypothesis on how actin can be a SOURCE of consciousness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You won't get one from me, because it would still be silly, just less silly than hypothesizing that MTs are the source.

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm trying to explain to you that attributing the emergent property of consciousness to something as distinct as MTs is laughable.

Since the motile response of a single fibroblast to extracellular cues is an emergent property in which the roles of the actin and MT cytoskeletons are hopelessly intertwined, what reasonable person would assume that consciousness woud be so much simpler?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The time order of cause and effects gets very interesting when dealing with quantum mechanics.  Retrocausality is practically a given.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But dephosphorylation is not quantum mechanics, so you have no point. My point is that Penrose is pointing to things happening in the realm of MTs, while ignoring the much larger number of events that don't involve them. That's why the paper is a crock. You're trying to pretend that they are thinking on a less reductionist plane than I am, when the reality is that they are far more reductionist!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Libet's observation of the readiness potential for conscious actions brings provides support in considering consciousness is a retrocausual superposition of quantum states.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But none of that is relevant to an observation of dephosphorylation of a MAP.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reducing all these things to MTs is just laughable.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As to direct experimental results...  I recently found this...      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


The experiment has nothing at all to do with microtubules, TP. Therefore it doesn't even come close to testing a microtubule hypothesis.
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 23 2007,14:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The EPR paradox has demonstrated "spooky action at a distance" for seventy years in quantum experiment after experiment.

Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's.

As to direct experimental results...  I recently found this...  
Quote
“In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."
(emphasis mine)
Nonlocal correlations between separated neural networks

BTW, the term "nonlocal" is a direct reference to "spooky action at a distance" of the EPR Paradox
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the result of the experiment was to couple two macroscopic neural cultures, and then see how strongly coupled the state was? How did they deal with decoherence? Unless you're dealing with superconductors, optical qubits, ion traps, or cavity QED, there's no way to keep the quantum state from reverting to a classical state (300 ms is way too long). I think you could make a strong case that this is probably not a quantum effect they're observing.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 23 2007,15:31

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 23 2007,11:31)
 
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,12:26)
   
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,10:20)
MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False again.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
from the peer reviewed paper <  Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JAM, have you been censored at TT? If so, under what conditions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I attempted to find out the reasons why as I had never seen any behavior deserving expulsion. So I tried the direct approach in a Rabbit Thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: So what happened to JAM?

< MikeGene >: The contributors voted to ban ‘JAM’ for misbehavior with multiple members well over a year ago. Since then, the person has re-entered TT with new screen names, where ‘JAM’ was simply the fifth.

< Zachriel >: You have every right to control your own forum. However, I have never seen any post by JAM that could be construed as "misbehavior". Knowing that he was the same commenter, you nevertheless allowed him to post for quite some time under the nick "JAM", so what prompted the current banning? What other names did he post under?

< Bradford >: The individual we're discussing has resurrected himself under different identities. The initial misbehavoir took place quite some time ago under a different moniker. I am not going into identity details but to answer your question about "allowing," it was not immediately clear what was occuring.

< Zachriel >: That's understandable. Perhaps someone else can explain (on this open thread) why JAM has been accused of "misbehavior".

< Bradford >: Just to be clear. The reason "JAM" was banned centers on deception, namely, making an end run around a process through an identity change. There are other reasons why the individual was initially banned.

< Zachriel >: What reasons? Under what name? As I said, I have seen nothing that can be construed as "misbehavior" by JAM. But I haven't read all of his posts, either. The accusation has been made, and I would like to know the basis of that accusation. As JAM apparently has some knowledge of genetics, I would think his contribution to these discussions would be informative.

< MikeGene >: The misbehavior occurred under the first screen name (and frankly, I don’t recall the details as these things are not important in my life). But this is all irrelevant now and won’t be pursued.

< Zachriel >: That's your choice. I just thought I would ask.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never did find out why.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,15:34

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 23 2007,15:31)
I never did find out why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For pointing to data and offering ways to test hypotheses.
Posted by: Art on Sep. 23 2007,17:09

Telic Thoughts is as averse to facts and exposés that reveal their inconsistencies as any other creationist or ID forum.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2007,17:15

I'd say it's slightly better than other ID sites. I've put up maybe 10 comments and they've all gone through. Uncommon Descent would have banned me for that, and at FtK's site she would have deleted them all.
Posted by: Joy on Sep. 23 2007,17:17

Now, I ask you... Why in the world would I be disposed to take a new commenter to our blog at face value with this public sideshow going on? [Oy!] ...and you call US "idiots."

JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception. As soon as we had confirmation that a new pseud was him, he was locked back out. What his discussion as the new pseud was to that point on any thread is completely irrelevant - we do not allow banned pseuds to come back as different pseuds.

If/when a commenter's behavior becomes frequently disruptive, off-topic or obsessive to the point of creepy, they're outta there. Among the few who have been banned from TT are both critics and ID supporters. You yourselves apparently banned someone [pseud: "Supersport"] just yesterday for being a troublemaker. If "Supersport" signs in with three or four new pseuds (and you catch him via his computer address info) in the next couple of months, would you count those in your total of "people" banned, or count him and all his pseuds as a single ban?

Point being that one person's personality clash with a commenter isn't enough to get someone banned at TT, and one person's forgiveness doesn't get a banned commenter back into the fold once he's gone. This is completely reasonable. Whether it seems reasonable or not to posters here seeking new and better 'creationists' to play with is not a consideration.

Good luck with your recruiting efforts. You'll need it.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 23 2007,17:30

Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
Now, I ask you... Why in the world would I be disposed to take a new commenter to our blog at face value with this public sideshow going on? [Oy!] ...and you call US "idiots."

JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception. As soon as we had confirmation that a new pseud was him, he was locked back out. What his discussion as the new pseud was to that point on any thread is completely irrelevant - we do not allow banned pseuds to come back as different pseuds.

If/when a commenter's behavior becomes frequently disruptive, off-topic or obsessive to the point of creepy, they're outta there. Among the few who have been banned from TT are both critics and ID supporters. You yourselves apparently banned someone [pseud: "Supersport"] just yesterday for being a troublemaker. If "Supersport" signs in with three or four new pseuds (and you catch him via his computer address info) in the next couple of months, would you count those in your total of "people" banned, or count him and all his pseuds as a single ban?

Point being that one person's personality clash with a commenter isn't enough to get someone banned at TT, and one person's forgiveness doesn't get a banned commenter back into the fold once he's gone. This is completely reasonable. Whether it seems reasonable or not to posters here seeking new and better 'creationists' to play with is not a consideration.

Good luck with your recruiting efforts. You'll need it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Bad behavior" is pretty generic. "Personality clash" is also pretty vague.

Do you have any actual examples of "bad behavior" on the part of JAM?

As for the difficulties in recruiting "new and better "creationists" here, it is admittedly very difficult. But maybe that is because creationists these days are neither new nor better...
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 23 2007,17:45

Alan Fox wrote:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I recall Joy posting some interesting stuff about sustainability, (couldn't find it just now, sorry) so she ain't all bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nobody's all bad.  I've even found myself in agreement with DaveScot on occasion.

*shudders*

Thought Provoker wrote:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy is quite capable to defending herself.  MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.  If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did challenge Joy, directly.  We had a long exchange, during which she (like you) was unable to come up with any evidence for superconductivity in living organisms, much less humans.  Eventually she banished a comment of mine to the Memory Hole for < merely quoting her >.

TP:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meanwhile, I thank you for the opportunity for me to point out the use of quantum mechanics in life.

It appears photosynthesis involves quantum superposition to achieve super conductivity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did you get that idea?  The Berkeley research you cite doesn't involve superconductivity at all.  Nor does the Orch OR hypothesis.  Are you confusing superposition with superconductivity?

Look, TP, I know that you really, really want Joy to be right, but your desire is clouding your judgment. There is simply no evidence that superconductivity occurs in the human body, nor that life depends on it.  Joy is simply wrong.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 23 2007,18:33

Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could you point to his original banning?

Addendum: It seems to have happened sometime after late October 2006.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 23 2007,19:30

From this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: FYI, Smokey [a.k.a. JAM] was originally banned (if I recall correctly) for being your basic disruptive, insulting juvenile delinquent who constantly derailed topics and couldn't play nice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I found this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Krauze >: Smokey, I don't have time for your snearing attitude and your attempts to paint everything I write in the worst possible way. So consider yourself banned from this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not a complete ban, only from the thread. And I can't find "your basic disruptive, insulting juvenile delinquent who constantly derailed topics and couldn't play nice".
Posted by: silverspoon on Sep. 23 2007,21:44

Hi Joy. Maybe you’d be kind enough to expand on the topic you started here. < http://telicthoughts.com/tmi-29-years-later-lies-and-damned-lies/ >

I’m especially interested in several of your comments; like this one:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The steam being released from TMI-2's cooling tower in the hours, days and weeks following the accident was contaminated with primary coolant water and the lode of radioactive material released from failed fuel and melting core, to the tune of millions of curies of everything from noble gases to heavy metals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The natural draft cooling towers at TMI, and elsewhere including fossil plants, consist of condensate water. Condensate water is several systems removed from primary coolant water. For the condensate system to become contaminated first there would need to be tube ruptures in the generators, then tube ruptures in the condenser. Neither was documented at TMI. Even if TMI had experienced a steam generator tube rupture the primary water wouldn’t have entered the condensate system. What I see you doing here is perpetrating the misconception that the TV and print media fostered at that time, and since. Almost every time there’s a nuclear incident they show a cooling tower. If you really are an ex HP tech then you know better.

And this from you:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've seen a full-grown male human being get sucked through a 12-inch hatch that blew once in the airlock into containment, breaking every bone in his body and hurling him more than 50 feet through the air on the other side.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The emergency escape hatch at Surry is 18” in diameter. Please stop an think about this. An escape opening nowhere near large enough for someone to egress containment if the main door fails? Preposterous! I’ll take you saying you’ve seen this happen to mean that you were onsite, but did not personally witness the event. For that to happen you’d have to be looking through the outer hatches sight glass. That’s highly unlikely for someone who issued and read dosimetery. George came out of that accident with five or six broken bones, and a number of internal injuries. He’s doing well, and should retire within a few years. The next time I talk with him I’ll let him know he needs to check out all those other bones that were broken. Maybe he can sue the radiologists for malpractice.

And this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stillbirths rose 280% that year. Deformities of human and animal babies that were born were horrific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The incidents of miscarriages and stillbirths after the TMI accident was studied. It didn’t show what you have said. What it did show is a very slight increase of about 1% after the meltdown. The surrounding area had a spike in miscarriages a few months prior to the accident, up to very shortly after. I’m can’t remember what this was attributed to, but it certainly wasn’t the accident. It may very well have been a 280 % increase, but most came before the accident that year.  

All in all, your exaggerations, and lack of knowledge of basic nuclear plant systems leaves me somewhat skeptical of your honesty and sanity.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,21:45

Hi creeky belly,

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless you're dealing with superconductors, optical qubits, ion traps, or cavity QED, there's no way to keep the quantum state from reverting to a classical state (300 ms is way too long). I think you could make a strong case that this is probably not a quantum effect they're observing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am going to guess what you mean by "way too long".  Max Tegmark suggested the brain so wet, warm and noisy that it would force an almost immediate decoherence.

Penrose offers E=h/t as the equation for determining timing of decoherence where E is gravitational energy, h (h bar) is Planck’s constant over 2 pi and t is time.  The more mass that is involved the shorter the Objective Reduction (OR) because when E is large, t is small.  The tubulin dimers in microtubules are small enough that they can avoid decoherence for a long time as long as they remain isolated from large mass.

< Here > is a paper from Hameroff discussing the timing of consciousness.  It includes discussions on Libet, cutaneous rabbit and the “color phi” phenomenon.  These scientific observations support the idea that consciousness transcends time on the order of 100s of milliseconds.  Hameroff describes how and why the quantum effects in neural microtubules organized in dendritic structures for processing could and would account for these observations.

You have mentioned multiple artificial ways for quantum effects to last 100s of milliseconds.  Is it so hard to consider that billions of years of evolution could do the same thing naturally?
Posted by: Art on Sep. 23 2007,22:12

Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 23 2007,21:44)
....All in all, your exaggerations, and lack of knowledge of basic nuclear plant systems leaves me somewhat skeptical of your honesty and sanity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously, now.  Long-time ARN and TT participants understand that joy's ramblings are pretty far detached from reality.  But there's no reason to question her honesty - she really believes the stories she tells.

joy's, um, creative fiction gives TT much of its distinctive flavor.  Who's to argue with the wishes of the TT crew, and the face they choose to put forth to the world?  Read and enjoy, and remember who is doing the writing.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 23 2007,22:18

Hi TT


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
consciousness transcends time on the order of 100s of milliseconds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You do realize that *time itself is not quantifyable and may not exist in fact. That is to say time as a physical element and that your statement is as meaningless as the Behe pseudo quantity 'irreducable complexity'?

(Edit for clarity)
*The present moment as a boundary point between future and past moving through linear unitless history as perceived by conciousness.

Are you sure you are not talking about history or perish the thought ....the future?

It seems to me you are conflating an emotional concept i.e. how you feel about time with your personal perception of time.

You might as well say consciousness transcends digestion, which of course is a necessity, do I need to expand on that?

Who was it that said "I think therefore I tick" ?

Say that with an Irish accent TT.

Hitching your metaphysical wagon to Pennock .....*yawn* ....he's almost as prolix as Dembski just better at dodging raindrops ....for my taste anyway.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 23 2007,22:19

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 23 2007,18:33)
Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could you point to his original banning?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One would think that if I had been banned for bad behavior, the simplest way to demonstrate it would be to point the reader to my comment(s) that represented this behavior.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 23 2007,23:16

Hi K.E.

Thanks for your comment.  You wrote...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You do realize that *time itself is not quantifyable and may not exist in fact. That is to say time as a physical element and that your statement is as meaningless as the Behe pseudo quantity 'irreducable complexity'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I understand time to be just another dimension like the three spatial ones.  This is the lesson from General Relativity.  Each point in Minkowskian Geometry (Minkowski was one of Einstein's teachers) consists of four complex coordinates.

Things get interesting in Minkowskian Geometry.  For example, the shortest distance between two points isn't a straight line.  This is what happens in the Twins Paradox, it becomes a geometry problem.  The space traveling twin takes a shortcut.

All of this might be just an interesting mathematical exercise except for the scientific verification.  Flying planes East and West around the Earth shows General Relativity (i.e. Minkowskian Geometry) is reality.  Special Relativity was incomplete.  The universe has an inertial frame of reference with time just being one of the four dimensions.

The EPR paradox (which has become a given quantum property) demonstrates interconnected effects over space/time.  When merged with General Relativity, the effects cross both space and time.

If time is a “qseudo quantity” then so is length.  You may not want to know my opinion on the alleged existence of “particles”.

Bringing all the sciences to bear to the fundamental question of consciousness suggest explanations that we otherwise wouldn’t consider.  For example, interconnected effects across time and space.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 23 2007,23:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... For example, interconnected effects across time and space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course...I was wondering when you were going to get to that, you saved me a lot of time.

Now all you have to do ..... is produce the evidence.

...oh wait ,you aren't suggesting a cosmic quantum pantograph wrote the good book ....are you?

No? Those ancient scribes were dreaming....right?
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,00:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Penrose offers E=h/t as the equation for determining timing of decoherence where E is gravitational energy, h (h bar) is Planck’s constant over 2 pi and t is time.  The more mass that is involved the shorter the Objective Reduction (OR) because when E is large, t is small.  The tubulin dimers in microtubules are small enough that they can avoid decoherence for a long time as long as they remain isolated from large mass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absurd, they would most certain couple strongly with the EM force, it would be way more dominant. If you're talking about any type of molecule, it's their electric orbitals which count. And it's waaaaay stronger than gravity. Even the microtubules would be subject to it's coupling effects.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have mentioned multiple artificial ways for quantum effects to last 100s of milliseconds.  Is it so hard to consider that billions of years of evolution could do the same thing naturally?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pretty much all of them do not last for 100ms, most couple to the environment after anywhere from few pico/femto seconds to a micro second. In addition, all of them require great care in keeping them from coupling when they shouldn't and safety from decoherence. How are the atoms coupled specifically to send information? You don't just get spooky action at a distance, you need a specific interaction to generate it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 24 2007,01:07

Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 24 2007,00:28)
And it's waaaaay stronger than gravity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< HOMO >
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 24 2007,06:20

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,22:19)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 23 2007,18:33)
Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could you point to his original banning?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One would think that if I had been banned for bad behavior, the simplest way to demonstrate it would be to point the reader to my comment(s) that represented this behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One would think.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,07:22

Hi K.E,

You asked...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...oh wait ,you aren't suggesting a cosmic quantum pantograph wrote the good book ....are you?

No? Those ancient scribes were dreaming....right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Did I fail to mention that most people would consider me an Atheist in the same way Dawkins is an Atheist.  Technically I am agnostic towards God, fairies and orbiting tea pots.  These things might exist but I doubt there is empirical evidence any of them.

Where Dawkins and I are different is that I embrace Gould's NOMA.  I consider philosophical questions distinct and separate from scientific ones.  Philosophy is about searching for Truth (capital "T").  Science is about determining useful knowledge.

I believe the Oracle of Delphi was both accurate and prophetic with the proclamation that no one is wiser than Socrates.

I don't know the Truth, do you?

While the search for Truth is important, I generally find it more enjoyable, and fruitful, to discuss science.  At Telic Thoughts, I have a habit of suggesting...

Let's do Science!   :D

See my response to creeky belly for that.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 24 2007,07:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At Telic Thoughts, I have a habit of suggesting...

Let's do Science!  

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



Well ....what a suggestion! Does that method at that place seem slightly oxymoronic to you?

As far as teh TRVTH© is concerned .....I always reach for my dictionary.

< http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/ >

TRUTH, n. An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. Discovery of truth is the sole purpose of philosophy, which is the most ancient occupation of the human mind and has a fair prospect of existing with increasing activity to the end of time.

As I get older I become more suspcious of language and its uses.


Anyway good luck.
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 24 2007,08:00

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,10:23)
It's simply an observation. Joy routinely makes false claims to support her positions, and when her claims have been shown to be false, claims her positions to be supported anyway....
She is not knowledgable at all in the field of biology, TP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Joy is exceptionally paranoid > and self-important, and I agree with JAM - not very knowledgible in biology.
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 24 2007,08:13

Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
Good luck with your recruiting efforts. You'll need it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah...  I wonder - how many new people post at TT?

I've not wasted my time there in some time, but when last I visited, I recall seeing the same few names starting threads and making comments.

Must be all those folks that are signing on to ID are doig it elsewhere.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,11:03

Hi creeky belly,
You wrote...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is absurd, they would most certain couple strongly with the EM force, it would be way more dominant. If you're talking about any type of molecule, it's their electric orbitals which count. And it's waaaaay stronger than gravity. Even the microtubules would be subject to it's coupling effects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you heard of < Bucky Balls >?  These are miniature soccer balls made up of 60 carbon atoms.  They demonstrate EPR-like effects.  The basic question is, why do Bucky Balls behave differently than normal soccer balls?  Penrose offers it is due to their mass.

By the way, Penrose and Stephen Hawking had a famous debate over this issue in 1994.  While Hawking didn't agree with Penrose, he didn't suggest Penrose's idea was "absurd".  I would be curious as to what Hawking thinks about it today in light of advances in maintaining superposition longer and with larger massed objects.

The < Schrödinger's cat > paradox refuses to go away by itself.   Penrose's OR quantum interpretation explains it.

Penrose has suggested an experiment named FELIX to test his hypothesis with a tiny mirror.  The mirror is would have just the right mass to be in superposition for the forward going light beam but not for the return.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pretty much all of them do not last for 100ms, most couple to the environment after anywhere from few pico/femto seconds to a micro second. In addition, all of them require great care in keeping them from coupling when they shouldn't and safety from decoherence. How are the atoms coupled specifically to send information? You don't just get spooky action at a distance, you need a specific interaction to generate it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are correct that currently it doesn’t appear we are capable of developing long term quantum memory, yet (we are working on it).  However, we do know the photons can avoid decoherence for years.  I don’t know if any scientific observation like this has been done for cosmic particles other than photons.  Do you know of any?  I will look for them.

Penrose argues against Strong AI.  That is, Penrose argues the human mind can’t be a consistent formal algorithm.  And pseudorandom generators don’t help (they are algorithms).  Here is < Planet Math's > analysis of it.  Penrose argues that Quantum effects are non-algorithmic and non-random.  Ergo, it is extremely likely the human mind (consciousness) depends on quantum effects.

Whether or not Artificial Intelligence could have been accomplished without quantum effects has probably become a moot point since AI researchers are now designing quantum computers into their systems.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 24 2007,11:04

Quote (Art @ Sep. 23 2007,22:12)
But there's no reason to question her honesty - she really believes the stories she tells.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Art,

1) The hypothesis that she really believes that I was banned for "bad behavior" predicts that she will point to evidence of the behavior that she judged to be bad. We may not agree with her conclusion, but she shouldn't be reticent.

2) The hypothesis that she doesn't really believe that I was banned for "bad behavior" predicts that she won't point to any evidence, and continue to make vague accusations.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,11:13

Hi JAM,

I suggest the burdon of proof in this situation is yours.

Joy and MikeGene aren't any more capable of finding the comment(s) that caused the problem than you are.

You indicated that you were banned three times.  MikeGene and Joy have offered explaination as to why they automatically enforced the ban on your two aliases.

If you want to continue to try and make a case, then it is up to you to make it.  I already asked you once to provide a link to the first instance so I could judge for myself.  You have yet to do that.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 24 2007,11:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ergo, it is extremely likely the human mind (consciousness) depends on quantum effects.

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



Why limit your 'Ergo' just to one mannic mathematicians meanderings. I suggest you top it off with String Theory.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 24 2007,11:18

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,11:13)
Hi JAM,

I suggest the burdon of proof in this situation is yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

I think not. If JAM doesn't think that he misbehaved, how can he find the evidence that others feel is proof of this misbehavior?

It makes a lot more sense for the accusers to provide the evidence, since they are the ones who judged JAM to be unworthy of posting at their blog. They made the charge; they need to back it up with proof. And, in my view, the longer they go on giving excuses for not doing that, the weaker their case gets.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,12:15

Hi Albatrossity2 and K.E.,

One of the things I have noticed in blogs is the tendency to engage in "Shield Bashing".  This is generally done by trying to frame the debate where the other side is expected to prove their point thus allowing the shield basher to alternate between laughing at their pathetic attempts and/or be indignant over arrogance of the presumptions.

I have been banned from Uncommon Descent and Scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy.  I don't think my behavior warrented being banned in either case.  I can (and have) presented the comment that got me banned from UD with minor effort.

I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so.  Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.

The "innocent until proven guilty" works both ways.  Telic Thoughts should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The case needs to be made by TT's accuser, JAM.

Unless, of course, you just want to believe what you want to believe anyway.
Posted by: mitschlag on Sep. 24 2007,12:43

Wouldn't the simplest and fairest thing be to reinstate JAM?  Then, if he "misbehaves" again, ban him again.

It's easy.
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,12:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you heard of Bucky Balls?  These are miniature soccer balls made up of 60 carbon atoms.  They demonstrate EPR-like effects.  The basic question is, why do Bucky Balls behave differently than normal soccer balls?  Penrose offers it is due to their mass.

By the way, Penrose and Stephen Hawking had a famous debate over this issue in 1994.  While Hawking didn't agree with Penrose, he didn't suggest Penrose's idea was "absurd".  I would be curious as to what Hawking thinks about it today in light of advances in maintaining superposition longer and with larger massed objects.

The Schrödinger's cat paradox refuses to go away by itself.   Penrose's OR quantum interpretation explains it.

Penrose has suggested an experiment named FELIX to test his hypothesis with a tiny mirror.  The mirror is would have just the right mass to be in superposition for the forward going light beam but not for the return.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation). That's essentially the best way for determining whether something will exhibit quantum effects. In addition, nuclear spin quantum computers have made use of a rather large molecule (like the one that figured out that 15 factors into 3 and 5), however, there's big difference between 1 molecule of a substance and 1 mol.
I'm not here to debate with you the primary tenets of quantum mechanics; I know things like Schroedinger's cat are physical implications for the wave-like behavior of light and particles. (An aside: "Dead" is not a quantum state, it's a macroscopic description of the animal, what we're really asking is: which detector fired? That requires collapsing the wave function in order to fire the gun, release the poison, whatever.) What I called "absurd" was ignoring the effects of the EM potentials and interactions, when they are much more dominant than gravity. You can't just handwave it away and say it will be fine, especially when the quantum computer is immersed in a electric dipole fluid along with one of the strongest ferromagnetic substances. That's absurd. All of this makes it less feasible that our brain can properly transport quantum information.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are correct that currently it doesn’t appear we are capable of developing long term quantum memory, yet (we are working on it).  However, we do know the photons can avoid decoherence for years.  I don’t know if any scientific observation like this has been done for cosmic particles other than photons.  Do you know of any?  I will look for them.

Penrose argues against Strong AI.  That is, Penrose argues the human mind can’t be a consistent formal algorithm.  And pseudorandom generators don’t help (they are algorithms).  Here is Planet Math's analysis of it.  Penrose argues that Quantum effects are non-algorithmic and non-random.  Ergo, it is extremely likely the human mind (consciousness) depends on quantum effects.

Whether or not Artificial Intelligence could have been accomplished without quantum effects has probably become a moot point since AI researchers are now designing quantum computers into their systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Photon states work differently than electrons, they're based on the polarization rather than the spin state. We typically refer to them as flying qubits, and in fact some basic quantum cryptography systems (random number generators, AEC transmission lines) have already been created (google Magiq). Unfortunately, as you know, lower energy photons (like the kinds that would be safe to transmit through the body) are absorbed and scattered easily by electrons. They wouldn't make very good transmitters in our bodies.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 24 2007,12:46

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,12:15)
Hi Albatrossity2 and K.E.,

One of the things I have noticed in blogs is the tendency to engage in "Shield Bashing".  This is generally done by trying to frame the debate where the other side is expected to prove their point thus allowing the shield basher to alternate between laughing at their pathetic attempts and/or be indignant over arrogance of the presumptions.

I have been banned from Uncommon Descent and Scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy.  I don't think my behavior warrented being banned in either case.  I can (and have) presented the comment that got me banned from UD with minor effort.

I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so.  Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.

The "innocent until proven guilty" works both ways.  Telic Thoughts should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The case needs to be made by TT's accuser, JAM.

Unless, of course, you just want to believe what you want to believe anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm, I'm not understanding this at all.

When someone receives a punishment, when does it become their burden to prove they don't deserve it? Thats not generally how things work, anywhere.

Well, anywhere you'd want to emulate, at least.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Sep. 24 2007,13:00

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,12:15)
Hi Albatrossity2 and K.E.,

One of the things I have noticed in blogs is the tendency to engage in "Shield Bashing".  This is generally done by trying to frame the debate where the other side is expected to prove their point thus allowing the shield basher to alternate between laughing at their pathetic attempts and/or be indignant over arrogance of the presumptions.

I have been banned from Uncommon Descent and Scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy.  I don't think my behavior warrented being banned in either case.  I can (and have) presented the comment that got me banned from UD with minor effort.

I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so.  Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.

The "innocent until proven guilty" works both ways.  Telic Thoughts should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The case needs to be made by TT's accuser, JAM.

Unless, of course, you just want to believe what you want to believe anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think TP should be banned from ATBC. If he wants to know why he's been banned, just say "bad behavior" and let him prove that he didn't engage in any.

Note that I will personally define what constitutes bad behavior, perhaps next week, but I won't tell TP what my criteria are. ATBC will be presumed correct until TP proves otherwise.

Sounds fair, no?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 24 2007,13:02

[Interesting perspective, TP. But I don't think that this is "shield bashing", as you describe it. This is a simple lack of evidence, rather than any attempt to frame anything. I'll try to be a little clearer.

JAM maintains that he got banned for posting comments that included arguing for cogent hypotheses and testing of those hypotheses. TT admins maintain that he got banned because of despicable behaviors. Unless arguing for testable hypotheses is despicable, one of those is wrong.

JAM could undoubtedly link to a message where he said what he says he said. That would be pointless. It would then become incumbent on the TT admins to point out the messages that they were concerned about. Which is what I, and others, are asking them to do now. Why not bypass the intermediate step?

As for this statement    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. The burden of proof rests with the accuser (you). As it does in this case. Show the evidence, and let the jury make up their minds.

You seem to be arguing for a situation where the persons making the accusation (TT admins) don't have to prove it. I won't even speculate why you would do that.  While we wait for the TT folks to step up to the plate (or not), maybe you can expound on that interesting behavior.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 24 2007,13:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, that's given me a great idea for a film, intended to get more girls interested in physics:

  Bend it Like deBroglie

No?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 24 2007,13:14

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,11:13)
Hi JAM,

I suggest the burdon of proof in this situation is yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I disagree.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy and MikeGene aren't any more capable of finding the comment(s) that caused the problem than you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You indicated that you were banned three times.  MikeGene and Joy have offered explaination as to why they automatically enforced the ban on your two aliases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the ban wasn't enforced automatically, and their justification is entirely dependent on there being valid reasons for the first banning.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you want to continue to try and make a case, then it is up to you to make it.  I already asked you once to provide a link to the first instance so I could judge for myself.  You have yet to do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no idea when or what that first instance was, TP, except that it occurred before I was banned. Can we agree that TT is not nearly as tolerant as you have repeatedly claimed them to be?

And what about microtubules? Are you grasping the absurdity of the extent of Penrose's reductionism? How can consciousness be reduced to microtubules, if a fibroblast's "decision" about which way to turn resists such reduction?

Why microtubules and not the actin cytoskeleton?

Do you realize how ridiculous a mention of "cytoskeletal microtubules" appears to anyone with the most rudimentary education in cell biology? Can you name an instance of non-cytoskeletal microtubules?
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 24 2007,13:32

Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 24 2007,12:44)
Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Proportional, or inversely proportional? (And perhaps to mass rather than size?)

Henry
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,14:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Proportional, or inversely proportional? (And perhaps to mass rather than size?)

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


Sorry, I should have clarified. I said proportional when I meant comparable, and by size I meant volume. Essentially a 1000 kg car (average dimensions of 2m on a side) at 10 m/s has a wavelength of about 1e-37 m, or 1e-28 nm. An proton (1e-4 nm radius) moving at the same velocity has a wavelength of about 600 nm. That's not to say you can't see quantum effects through macroscopic objects (take NMR and spin-spin times), but it's a pretty good indicator of what basic objects are prone to quantum effects.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,14:16

Hi JAM,

I will deal with the politics first and then with the science in another comment.

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no idea when or what that first instance was, TP, except that it occurred before I was banned. Can we agree that TT is not nearly as tolerant as you have repeatedly claimed them to be?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, I have loudly questioned MikeGene about whether or not Telic Thoughts lives up to its About Us declaration multiple times.  I have even pointed out the biased treatment of the Smokey verses Bradford discussions.  I felt you two were opposite sides of the same coin.

MikeGene estimates Telic Thoughts has banned a total of 10 people (7 ID critics and 3 ID supporters) in the 2.5 years of its existence.  You (with your three aliases) were apparently one of them.

Telic Thoughts is a pro-ID blog.  In case it has escaped everyone's notice, I seem to be the only one who seems to care whether or not people from After the Bar Closes choose to participate in discussions at Telic Thoughts.

Jam, it is obvious that you have a biased opinion of Telic Thoughts.  Based on your actions here, I would have to agree it would not be in Telic Thoughts best interest to reinstate your privileges.

If you actually wanted to come back, you missed an opportunity.  It would have been relatively easy to convince me that you were unfairly treated if you tried.  Had you done that, I would have tried to make the case that Telic Thoughts could use more balanced discussions. Besides, I liked "Smokey".  I might have had a chance, but now, with the way you chose to approach this, I don't see how it would be remotely possible.

As it is, it looks like the shield bashing games will continue.  After the Bar Closes will be smug in their presumption that ID proponents are arrogant and unreasonable.  Meanwhile, Telic Thoughts will be smug in their presumption that ID critics are arrogant and unreasonable.

Everyone can continue to be comfortable with their stereotypes reconfirmed.

Oh well, I tried.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 24 2007,14:20

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,14:16)
As it is, it looks like the shield bashing games will continue.  After the Bar Closes will be smug in their presumption that ID proponents are arrogant and unreasonable.  Meanwhile, Telic Thoughts will be smug in their presumption that ID critics are arrogant and unreasonable.

Everyone can continue to be comfortable with their stereotypes confirmed.

Oh well, I tried.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Self-fulfilling prophecy. If you act arrogant ("I don't need to back up that accusation!"), and then get deemed arrogant, whose fault is it, anyway?

And actually, we weren't asking you to try. Speaking for myself only, I am pretty sure that I was asking the TT admins to back up an assertion. I don't think you are arrogant, but I gotta admit I wonder why you would stick up for some folks who do seem to be...
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,14:31

Hi Albatrossity2,

You wrote...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Self-fulfilling prophecy. If you act arrogant ("I don't need to back up that accusation!"), and then get deemed arrogant, whose fault is it, anyway?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is a double-edged sword.  Jam is accusing TT of being intolerant without backing up his accusation.  You are DEMANDING an explanation.

Which side is arrogant?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And actually, we weren't asking you to try. Speaking for myself only, I am pretty sure that I was asking the TT admins to back up an assertion. I don't think you are arrogant, but I gotta admit I wonder why you would stick up for some folks who do seem to be...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Most people consider me arrogant (so do I).

To me, this isn't about taking sides.  It is about provoking thought.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 24 2007,15:15

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,14:16)
Hi JAM,

I will deal with the politics first and then with the science in another comment.

You wrote...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no idea when or what that first instance was, TP, except that it occurred before I was banned. Can we agree that TT is not nearly as tolerant as you have repeatedly claimed them to be?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I have loudly questioned MikeGene about whether or not Telic Thoughts lives up to its About Us declaration multiple times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but elsewhere, you have touted TT as tolerant.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have even pointed out the biased treatment of the Smokey verses Bradford discussions.  I felt you two were opposite sides of the same coin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What sort of coin?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jam, it is obvious that you have a biased opinion of Telic Thoughts.  Based on your actions here, I would have to agree it would not be in Telic Thoughts best interest to reinstate your privileges.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what? That seems obvious, since they seem to be far more interested in shield-bashing than in discussing science.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you actually wanted to come back, you missed an opportunity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What makes you think I wanted to come back?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It would have been relatively easy to convince me that you were unfairly treated if you tried.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What makes you think that I was trying to convince you?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Had you done that, I would have tried to make the case that Telic Thoughts could use more balanced discussions. Besides, I liked "Smokey".  I might have had a chance, but now, with the way you chose to approach this, I don't see how it would be remotely possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think you would have had a chance.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As it is, it looks like the shield bashing games will continue.  After the Bar Closes will be smug in their presumption that ID proponents are arrogant and unreasonable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a presumption.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh well, I tried.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not willing to be as obsequious as you are to the TT crowd. Let's do science!

Or do you have too much invested in this microtubule hypothesis to discuss it with someone who knows something about the neuronal cytoskeleton?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 24 2007,16:05

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,13:15)
I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so.  Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hopefully I wasn't rude to you, and that was just a hypothetical.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 24 2007,16:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is a double-edged sword.  Jam is accusing TT of being intolerant without backing up his accusation.  You are DEMANDING an explanation.

Which side is arrogant?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't care if I get an explanation or not, so I am pretty sure that my DEMAND is something that exists only in your mind.

In my world discussions are enhanced, and thoughts are even provoked, by providing evidence. This happens faster if evidence is provided without DEMANDS, but it can still happen if someone (like me, or k.e, or a number of others on this board) asks for it (politely, at first). If it is available, then it is helpful for the rest of us to see it, and then make whatever conclusions that seem to be warranted by the evidence.

So let's go back to my previous message, with the hypothetical scenario played out as you want it to be.

1) JAM provides a link to a post which looks reasonable.

2) The TT admins, if they want the evidence to speak for itself, would then provide a link to the post(s) which they found so offensive.

3) Evidence in hand, the jaded and biased and horribly arrogant crowd at AtBC can conclude whatever they can conclude from the evidence.

As I said before, why not skip the first step, since it is obvious to all (except perhaps you) that we must proceed to step 2 regardless of what happens in step one? But if the TT admins deem this to be arrogance, or an unjustified waste of their time, we are reduced to making a conclusion without all the evidence. I don't like to do that.

Do you?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 24 2007,16:13

Burden of proof might not be a valid concept here. It makes sense in a courtroom where one side has to win. Having the burden of proof means the other side is the default winner. But does one side have to win in an argument about whether a banning was justified? I think visitors to a site can distinguish a site with 'ruthless' moderation from a site with laissez-faire moderation without making one side the default winner.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,16:34

Hi SteveStory,

My apologies.  I had intended on making it clear that it was a false hypothetical.

In fact, I found my welcome to After the Bar Close to be very warm (Kristine offered me "Shimmies").

As penance, I took the time to find my first post here (it was the career survey).  That turned out to be ironic, because as it happens I wasn't too happy at the time with Telic Thoughts. Here is what I wrote...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Excuse me while I take some time to mope in my beer.
I just said goodbye to Telic Thoughts after about 6 months of posting there.

BTW, I have a BS Electrical Engineering with an MBA.  I put myself down for BS Science.

Don't get me wrong, as ID Proponents go, the TT bunch are pretty intelligent and most want to be open minded.  You see, I like to think I am pretty good at getting to the heart of issues and pointing them out (my engineering training).  I think I did a pretty good job.  I bent over backwards to put it in terms they could embrace by accepting all base ID assumptions (even Dembski's "math").  To no avail.  If it didn't support Theism it wasn't a "science" they could find acceptable.

I know better than argue with anyone about their faith, but I thought that maybe with a little open-mindedness and a firm declaration it's about science and not religion, that maybe, just maybe I could make a dent.

Oh well, pass me another beer, will ya?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The interesting part was the reply by someone named SteveStory...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Telic Thoughts is a unique ID blog. Unlike all the others (UD, JoeG, FtK,...) they aren't scared to death of informed commenters. They don't ban people for being knowledgeable.

As far as I know. Which is really based on very little info. I've been to TT only a handful of times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< link >

I decided to give Telic Thoughts another chance.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 24 2007,17:04

I based that on very little information. I posted about 10 times and all they did was move some of my posts to the 'memory hole'. That's a downright reasonable reaction. A normal ID blog would have disallowed 9 out of 10 comments and then banned me.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,18:57

Hi K.E.,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why limit your 'Ergo' just to one mannic mathematicians meanderings. I suggest you top it off with String Theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am coming to the conclusion that the String Theory is the result of the last desparate holdout in a belief that matter is made up of something solid.

I happen to think the Universe is one giant wavefunction existing in Minkowskian space/time Geometry.  Something like a < Mandelbrot Set >.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,20:05

Hi creeky belly,

Thank you for your reasoned responses.

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation). That's essentially the best way for determining whether something will exhibit quantum effects. In addition, nuclear spin quantum computers have made use of a rather large molecule (like the one that figured out that 15 factors into 3 and 5), however, there's big difference between 1 molecule of a substance and 1 mol.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


um....

E = h/t came directly from deBroglie's work.

"The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy." < link >

Momentum and kinetic energy are proportional to mass, not size.

deBroglie's equations are...
p = hk
E = hw

When you substitute 1/t for w, you get the form Penrose uses.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not here to debate with you the primary tenets of quantum mechanics;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My point is there is no such thing as a minor inconsistency in logic.  You would not be the first one to attempt to hand-wave away the inconvenient existence of "quantum weirdness".  For seventy years people have been waiting for the logical explanation to present itself.  Penrose quit waiting.  He accepted it as reality and built a consistent model to explain it all.  The final piece was consciousness.

Are you familiar with the story behind < Penrose Tilings >?

It started out as a mathematical curiosity.  At one time it was assumed that any effort to tile a surface (e.g. a floor) with a limited number of shapes would result in a repeating pattern.  This is known as periodic tiling.  However, attempts to prove that mathematically failed.  One day, someone proved that aperiodic tiling was, in fact, possible.  The race was on to find examples.  The first example had 20426 tile shapes.  To make a long story short, Penrose found a solution that used only TWO tile shapes (he did it in his spare time as “a hobby”).

This still might be considered just an interesting mathematical curiosity except for two things.  Ten years later, an “impossible” crystal formation was discovered.  You see it was thought that all crystals had to be made up of repeating structures (periodic).  An aperiodic crystal formation was discovered, it matched Penrose Tilings.

The second interesting aspect is that Penrose claims his solution couldn’t have been found algorithmically, i.e. Turing Machine couldn’t be programmed to find the answer not matter how powerful it was.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I called "absurd" was ignoring the effects of the EM potentials and interactions, when they are much more dominant than gravity. You can't just handwave it away and say it will be fine, especially when the quantum computer is immersed in a electric dipole fluid along with one of the strongest ferromagnetic substances. That's absurd. All of this makes it less feasible that our brain can properly transport quantum information.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Penrose admits that he might be wrong on the details of how.  He isn't a biologist.  But it is obvious Penrose is firmly convinced he is right about the quantum physics.  The implications make others uncomfortable, but a lack of comfort doesn't hold a candle to experiment after experiment showing interconnected quantum effects are a reality.

Dr. Hameroff is convinced Penrose is right based on his experience in suppressing consciousness (anesthesia).
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,20:23

Hi Jam,

You asked...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you realize how ridiculous a mention of "cytoskeletal microtubules" appears to anyone with the most rudimentary education in cell biology? Can you name an instance of non-cytoskeletal microtubules?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here > is one of many hits I found using the term "cytoskeletal microtubules" in a google search.

It was from The Journal of Cell Biology where they were distinguishing cytoskeletal microtubules from flagellar microtubules.

This is one of those situations where being quiet would have been the smarter choice.  I had presumed that "Smokey" wasn't just arguing for argument sake.  Now I am not so sure.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 24 2007,21:05

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,20:23)
Hi Jam,

You asked...
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you realize how ridiculous a mention of "cytoskeletal microtubules" appears to anyone with the most rudimentary education in cell biology? Can you name an instance of non-cytoskeletal microtubules?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here > is one of many hits I found using the term "cytoskeletal microtubules" in a google search.

It was from The Journal of Cell Biology where they were distinguishing cytoskeletal microtubules from flagellar microtubules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In that context it is a meaningful distinction. However, neurons lack flagella, cilia, and mitotic spindles (the last of which is still the cytoskeleton IMO).

Are you trying to claim that Penrose was distinguishing anything from flagellar, ciliary, or spindle microtubules, or was he just adding extra polysyllabic words to his tome?

IMO, it's just part of an attempt to obfuscate his sloppy equivocation between the cytoskeleton and the microtubule cytoskeleton.

Again, changes in the actin cytoskeleton have been implicated in neuronal plasticity to a far greater degree than the microtubule cytoskeleton (including the transport of mRNAs encoding beta-actin and actin-binding proteins), yet Penrose ignores it. It seems to me as though he heard about MTs first and can't be bothered with anything more holistic, even though emergent properties involving both are involved in a fibroblast moving 5 microns on a plastic dish.

If that can't be reduced, how sensible is it to believe that consciousness can be reduced so much further?
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,21:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi creeky belly,

Thank you for your reasoned responses.

You wrote...
Quote
Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation). That's essentially the best way for determining whether something will exhibit quantum effects. In addition, nuclear spin quantum computers have made use of a rather large molecule (like the one that figured out that 15 factors into 3 and 5), however, there's big difference between 1 molecule of a substance and 1 mol.

um....

E = h/t came directly from deBroglie's work.

"The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy." link

Momentum and kinetic energy are proportional to mass, not size.

deBroglie's equations are...
p = hk
E = hw

When you substitute 1/t for w, you get the form Penrose uses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if you read my clarification you'd understand what I meant by "size":
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry, I should have clarified. I said proportional when I meant comparable, and by size I meant volume. Essentially a 1000 kg car (average dimensions of 2m on a side) at 10 m/s has a wavelength of about 1e-37 m, or 1e-28 nm. An proton (1e-4 nm radius) moving at the same velocity has a wavelength of about 600 nm. That's not to say you can't see quantum effects through macroscopic objects (take NMR and spin-spin times), but it's a pretty good indicator of what basic objects are prone to quantum effects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another way to write deBroglie's equation is obviously:

lambda = h/p

Where lambda is the quantum wavelength. When the quantum wavelength of the object is comparable to its size (cube root of volume if you want), it will exhibit quantum characteristics.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My point is there is no such thing as a minor inconsistency in logic.  You would not be the first one to attempt to hand-wave away the inconvenient existence of "quantum weirdness".  For seventy years people have been waiting for the logical explanation to present itself.  Penrose quit waiting.  He accepted it as reality and built a consistent model to explain it all.  The final piece was consciousness.

Are you familiar with the story behind Penrose Tilings?

It started out as a mathematical curiosity.  At one time it was assumed that any effort to tile a surface (e.g. a floor) with a limited number of shapes would result in a repeating pattern.  This is known as periodic tiling.  However, attempts to prove that mathematically failed.  One day, someone proved that aperiodic tiling was, in fact, possible.  The race was on to find examples.  The first example had 20426 tile shapes.  To make a long story short, Penrose found a solution that used only TWO tile shapes (he did it in his spare time as “a hobby”).

This still might be considered just an interesting mathematical curiosity except for two things.  Ten years later, an “impossible” crystal formation was discovered.  You see it was thought that all crystals had to be made up of repeating structures (periodic).  An aperiodic crystal formation was discovered, it matched Penrose Tilings.

The second interesting aspect is that Penrose claims his solution couldn’t have been found algorithmically, i.e. Turing Machine couldn’t be programmed to find the answer not matter how powerful it was.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which does nothing to address the point that I raised, namely that there's no way to express a macroscopic object in terms of a pure quantum state (instead of a mixed state). You seem (along with Penrose) to think that we can handwave our way up from QM with electrons to QM with mols of atoms. < Bulk QC with large magnets > This is realistically the only way to get even partial macroscopic entanglement: Large precision magnets, low temps, and photons. From the paper: "99.99999999% of the time a generously sized room-temperature sample (10^22 spins) contains no 100-spin molecules in the ground state a1, a2 . . . an, or in any other single one of its 2^100 quantum states." IOW: large molecule + room temperature = no entanglement
       

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

Penrose admits that he might be wrong on the details of how.  He isn't a biologist.  But it is obvious Penrose is firmly convinced he is right about the quantum physics.  The implications make others uncomfortable, but a lack of comfort doesn't hold a candle to experiment after experiment showing interconnected quantum effects are a reality.

Dr. Hameroff is convinced Penrose is right based on his experience in suppressing consciousness (anesthesia).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, maybe I missed it, but what was the last experimental quantum computation paper that Penrose wrote? Penrose can have all the theory he wants (gedanken out the wazoo); it's not discomfort if it doesn't describe reality, full stop. And this still doesn't explain why we can just handwave away EM interactions or temperature effects (how do you get a ground state in a 325K person?).
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,22:05

Hi Jam,

You ask...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you trying to claim that Penrose was distinguishing anything from flagellar, ciliary, or spindle microtubules, or was he just adding extra polysyllabic words to his tome?

IMO, it's just part of an attempt to obfuscate his sloppy equivocation between the cytoskeleton and the microtubule cytoskeleton.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It has been suggested that I am wasting my time here.  That may be true in your case, but on the chance that others are listening in I will continue.

You continue to make reference to Penrose.  Penrose is not the biologist, Dr. Hameroff is.  To avoid confusion, let me quote from < a paper > written by Dr. Hameroff and NOT the physicist Penrose...

III. The neural correlate of consciousness

a. Functional organization of the brain

Most brain activities are nonconscious; consciousness is a mere “tip of the iceberg” of neural functions. Many brain activities—e.g. brainstem-mediated autonomic functions—never enter consciousness. While consciousness is erased during general anesthesia, nonconscious brain EEG and evoked potentials continue, although reduced.[xiv]

...

Membrane-based neuronal input-output activities involve changes in synaptic plasticity, ion conductance, neurotransmitter vesicle transport/secretion and gap junction regulation—all controlled by the intra-neuronal networks of filamentous protein polymers known as the cytoskeleton. If simple input-output activities fully described neural function, then fine-grained details might not matter. But simple input-output activities—in which neurons function as switches—are only a guess, and most likely a poor imitation of the neuron’s actual activities and capabilities.

To gauge how single neuron functions may exceed simple input-output activities, consider the single cell organism paramecium. Such cells swim about gracefully, avoid obstacles and predators, find food and engage in sex with partner paramecia. They can also learn; if placed in capillary tubes they escape, and when placed back in the capillary tubes escape more quickly. As single cells with no synaptic connections, how do they do it? Pondering the seemingly intelligent activities of such single cell organisms, famed neuroscientist C.S. Sherrington (1957) conjectured: “of nerve there is no trace, but the cytoskeleton might serve”. If the cytoskeleton is the nervous system of protozoa, what might it do for neurons?

IV. The neuronal cytoskeleton

a. Microtubules and networks inside neurons

Shape, structure, growth and function of neurons are determined by their cytoskeleton, internal scaffoldings of filamentous protein polymers which include microtubules, actin and intermediate filaments. Rigid microtubules (MTs) interconnected by MT-associated proteins (MAPs) and immersed in actin form a self-supporting, dynamic tensegrity network which shapes all eukaryotic cells including highly asymmetrical neurons. The cytoskeleton also includes MT-based organelles called centrioles which organize mitosis, membrane-bound MT-based cilia, and proteins which link MTs with membranes. Disruption of intra-neuronal cytoskeletal structures impairs cognition, such as tangling of the tau MAP linking MTs in Alzheimer’s disease (Matsuyama and Jarvik, 1989, Iqbal and Grundke-Iqbal 2004).

Actin is the main component of dendritic spines and also exists throughout the rest of the neuronal interior in various forms depending on actin-binding proteins, calcium etc. When actin polymerizes into a dense meshwork, the cell interior converts from an aqueous solution (sol state) to a quasi-solid, gelatinous (gel) state. In the gel state, actin, MTs and other cytoskeletal structures form a negatively-charged matrix on which polar cell water molecules are bound and ordered (Pollack 2001). Glutamate binding to NMDA and AMPA receptors triggers gel states in actin spines (Fischer et al 2000).

Neuronal MTs self-assemble, and with cooperation of actin enable growth of axons and dendrites. Motor proteins transport materials along MTs to maintain and regulate synapses. The direction and guidance of motor proteins and synaptic components (e.g. from cell body through branching dendrites) depends on conformational states of MT subunits (Krebs et al 2004). Thus MTs are not merely passive tracks but appear to actively guide transport. Among neuronal cytoskeletal components, MTs are the most stable and appear best suited for information processing Wherever cellular organization and intelligence are required, MTs are present and involved.

MTs are cylindrical polymers 25 nanometers (nm = 10-9 meter) in diameter, comprised of 13 longitudinal protofilaments which are each chains of the protein tubulin (Figure 8). Each tubulin is a peanut-shaped dimer (8 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm) which consists of two slightly different monomers known as alpha and beta tubulin, (each 4 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm, weighing 55,000 daltons). Tubulin subunits within MTs are arranged in a hexagonal lattice which is slightly twisted, resulting in differing neighbor relationships among each subunit and its six nearest neighbors (Figure 9). Thus pathways along contiguous tubulins form helical pathways which repeat every 3, 5 and 8 rows (the Fibonacci series). Alpha tubulin monomers are more negatively charged than beta monomers, so each tubulin (and each MT as a whole) is a ferroelectric dipole with positive (beta monomer) and negative (alpha monomer) ends.[xxiii]

In non-neuronal cells and in neuronal axons, MTs are continuous and aligned radially like spokes of a wheel emanating from the cell center. MT negative (alpha) ends originate in the central cell hub (near the centrioles, or MT-organizing-center adjacent to the cell nucleus) and their positive (beta) ends extend outward to the cell perimeter. This is the case in axons, where the negative ends of continuous MTs originate in the axon hillock, and positive ends reach the pre-synaptic region.

However dendritic cytoskeleton is unique. Unlike axons and any other cells, MTs in dendrites are short, interrupted and mixed polarity. They form networks interconnected by MAPs (especially dendrite-specific MAP2) of roughly equal mixtures of polarity. There is no obvious reason why this is so—from a structural standpoint uninterrupted MTs would be preferable, as in axons. Networks of mixed polarity MTs connected may be optimal for information processing.  

Intra-dendritic MT-MAP networks are coupled to dendritic synaptic membrane and receptors (including dendritic spines) by mechanisms including calcium and sodium flux, actin and metabotropic inputs including second messenger signaling e.g. dephosphorylation of MAP2 (Halpain and Greengard 1990). Alterations in dendritic MT-MAP networks are correlated with locations, densities and sensitivities of receptors (e.g. Woolf et al 1999). Synaptic plasticity, learning and memory depend on dendritic MT-MAP networks.

Since Sherrington’s observation in 1957, the idea that the cytoskeleton—MTs in particular—may act as a cellular nervous system has occurred to many scientists. Vassilev et al (1985) reported that tubulin chains transmit signals between membranes, and Maniotis et al (1997a, 1997b) demonstrated that MTs convey information from membrane to nucleus. But MTs could be more than wires. The MT lattice is well designed to represent and process information, with the states of individual tubulins playing the role of bits in computers. Conformational states of proteins in general (e.g. ion channels opening/closing, receptor binding of neurotransmitter etc.) are the currency of real-time activities in living cells. Numerous factors influence a protein’s conformation at any one time, so individual protein conformation may be considered the essential input-output function in biology.


< Here is a diagram and video > showing microtubules appearing to actively orchestrate a cell dividing.

< Here is a video > that makes a mockery of thinking of microtubles as passive cytoskeletal components.

They one the DNA was just for structural support.  After all, how could something made up of only four bases be important?
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 24 2007,22:43

Hi creeky belly,
You wrote...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another way to write deBroglie's equation is obviously:

lambda = h/p

Where lambda is the quantum wavelength. When the quantum wavelength of the object is comparable to its size (cube root of volume if you want), it will exhibit quantum characteristics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you read the link I provided?

p = momentum = mass * velocity

"size" neither volume nor the cube-root of volume has anything to do with momentum.

From the career survey results, I would have thought a majority of the people in this forum would be explaining this obvious physics property to you.

Was I too polite?

YOU SCREWED UP!  LOOK AT THE LINK I PROVIDED.

Do you see the "m" in the first equation under the words "de Broglie relations"?

"m" stands for MASS!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which does nothing to address the point that I raised...IOW: large molecule + room temperature = no entanglement
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you see temperature in deBroglie's equations too?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, maybe I missed it, but what was the last experimental quantum computation paper that Penrose wrote? Penrose can have all the theory he wants (gedanken out the wazoo); it's not discomfort if it doesn't describe reality, full stop.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It does describe and explain the reality of quantum effects.

Did you happen to read Penrose's book The Road to Reality?  It came out in 2004.  It is 1100 pages of step by step explaination of his detailed view of reality.

Penrose is 65 years old.  He has been knighted.  He knows he will be proven correct.  This book should dissuade those tempted to suggest he got lucky again.  After all, Penrose was right about Black Holes and aperiodic tilings.  Why should he be correct in suggesting the obvious implications of deBroglie's equations are correct?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How do you get a ground state in a 325K person?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A tubulin dimer is 8 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm and weighs 55,000 daltons.
Posted by: BWE on Sep. 24 2007,22:51

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,10:23)
[quote=Thought Provoker,Sep. 22 2007,23:34]Hi Jam,

You wrote...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You might also find her political leanings surprising.  (let's just say she has never been a big fan of our current president).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not at all. That doesn't mean that she's not insane. Her support of the lies of the animal-rights movement is not surprising, either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lies... Hmmm... I smell a history???
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,23:13

Since my last post has been relegated to the Bathroom Wall for tone I'll just repost the calculations:

perhaps you should look at what I calculated:

For the car
lambda = 6.62 x 10e-34 m^2 kg/s / (1000 kg * 10 m/s)
lambda = 1e-37 m = 1e-28nm
size of car: 2 m
lambda is much smaller than the size of the car, thus the quantum effects are NEGLIGIBLE

For the electron
lambda = 6.62 X10e-34 m^2 kg/s /( 1.67 x10e-27 kg*10 m/s)
lambda = 60 nm
size of electron = 1e-4 nm
since lambda is larger than the size of the electron, it will exhibit quantum properties
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 24 2007,23:21

Oh FFS
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blah blah .....Penrose is 65 years old.  He has been knighted........blah blah
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



......So have Mick Jagger and Bob Geldoff .......your actual point?

In fact TP WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

You seem to be trying to describe a reality that requires a puppet operator. You seem to be pleading for the cosmic pantograph.

Do you have a way of testing Penrose's idea using the scientific method?

You should know I posted a couple of times on TT and was banned for saying a fact was not an idea and that ID was just an idea and just as useless as the idea of god or any other idea for that matter.

Why would they ban such an obvious...idea?
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 24 2007,23:25

Here are some links to places where they also did the calculation: < here > and < here > and < here's some stuff about that pesky cube root of volume > < here > < here's a page from a textbook > < here >
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 24 2007,23:34

Do you believe in UFO's TP?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 24 2007,23:51

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,22:05)
Hi Jam,

You ask...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you trying to claim that Penrose was distinguishing anything from flagellar, ciliary, or spindle microtubules, or was he just adding extra polysyllabic words to his tome?

IMO, it's just part of an attempt to obfuscate his sloppy equivocation between the cytoskeleton and the microtubule cytoskeleton.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It has been suggested that I am wasting my time here.  That may be true in your case, but on the chance that others are listening in I will continue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What you quote only confirms the sloppy reductionism of both Hameroff and Penrose.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Disruption of intra-neuronal cytoskeletal structures impairs cognition, such as tangling of the tau MAP linking MTs in Alzheimer’s disease (Matsuyama and Jarvik, 1989, Iqbal and Grundke-Iqbal 2004).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is an irresponsible case of stating hypothesis as fact. It's not yet known whether the plaques and NFTs of AD cause cognitive impairment or are the effects of a more subtle mechanism that causes cognitive problems. It's one of the major issues in AD research, and claiming that it is already solved is ludicrous.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wherever cellular organization and intelligence are required, MTs are present and involved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No quarrel there. You seem to have trouble understanding that presence and involvement don't justify reducing consciousness to MTs, just as knowing that MTs are involved in fibroblast motility doesn't justify a similar reduction.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since Sherrington’s observation in 1957, the idea that the cytoskeleton—MTs in particular—may act as a cellular nervous system has occurred to many scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I take issue with "in particular."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Here is a diagram and video > showing microtubules appearing to actively orchestrate a cell dividing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, TP. MTs are involved and essential, but there's no evidence of orchestration. The movement is caused by motors.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Here is a video > that makes a mockery of thinking of microtubles as passive cytoskeletal components.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Straw man, TP. I had hoped that you were more thoughtful than that. I'm not claiming that they are passive. I'm pointing out that there's no evidence to support the reductionist notion that it all (or even mostly) boils down to MTs.

TP, If I keep asking you this question:

If that [fibroblast motility] can't be reduced, how sensible is it to believe that consciousness can be reduced so much further?

...and you don't answer it, grossly misrepresenting my position instead, are you thinking about what I'm writing at all?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 25 2007,00:07

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,22:43)
Hi creeky belly,
YOU SCREWED UP!  LOOK AT THE LINK I PROVIDED.

Do you see the "m" in the first equation under the words "de Broglie relations"?

"m" stands for MASS!

...A tubulin dimer is 8 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm and weighs 55,000 daltons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You and Hameroff screwed up. The Dalton (always capitalized) is a unit of mass, not weight.
Posted by: qetzal on Sep. 25 2007,00:23

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 24 2007,23:51)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Disruption of intra-neuronal cytoskeletal structures impairs cognition, such as tangling of the tau MAP linking MTs in Alzheimer’s disease (Matsuyama and Jarvik, 1989, Iqbal and Grundke-Iqbal 2004).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is an irresponsible case of stating hypothesis as fact. It's not yet known whether the plaques and NFTs of AD cause cognitive impairment or are the effects of a more subtle mechanism that causes cognitive problems. It's one of the major issues in AD research, and claiming that it is already solved is ludicrous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hameroff seems to do that rather a lot. Consider this claim:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To gauge how single neuron functions may exceed simple input-output activities, consider the single cell organism paramecium. Such cells swim about gracefully, avoid obstacles and predators, find food and engage in sex with partner paramecia. They can also learn; if placed in capillary tubes they escape, and when placed back in the capillary tubes escape more quickly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A quick PubMed search suggests this is arguable at best:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Behav Neurosci. 1994 Feb;108(1):94-9.

Is tube-escape learning by protozoa associative learning?

Hinkle DJ, Wood DC.

Department of Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260.

The ciliate protozoa, Stentor and Paramecium, have been reported to escape from the bottom end of narrow capillary tubes into a larger volume of medium with increasing rapidity over the course of trials. This change in behavior has been considered an apparent example of associative learning. This decrease in escape time is not due to a change in the protozoa's environment, their swimming speed, frequency of ciliary reversals, or the proportion of time spent forward or backward swimming. Instead, most of the decrease results from a decrease in the proportion of time spent in upward swimming. However, a similar decrease in upward swimming occurs when the task is altered to require escape from the upper end of the capillary tubes. Because the protozoa exhibit the same change in behavior regardless of the reinforcing stimulus, tube-escape learning is not associative learning.

PMID: 8192854
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Skimming through some of the links on Hameroff's site, he seems to repeatedly oversimplify unsettled questions in ways that conveniently fit his preferred hypothesis. As one more example, he states that gaseous anesthetics work by binding to hydrophobic pockets in proteins, and argues that this supports his model of superposition of states in tubulin. Here again, a quick search suggests that this is just one possible model of how such anesthetics work.

None of this is actual evidence against Hameroff's claims, of course, but I'm always more suspicious of someone who's willing to employ such dubious arguments.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 25 2007,09:55

Hi All,

When SteveStory popped in at Telic Thoughts as "Steve" and started asking reasonable, yet probing questions, I was encouraged.  I think it is good to look at things from various points of view.

Once I realized who he was and that he had started a thread discussing Telic Thoughts here, I attempted to try and inform the discussion.

SteveStory indicated he was looking for something a little more substantial than the typical creationist fluff.

I suggest that I have offered such.

However, this has caused this thread to steer significantly off-topic (which, of course, happens all the time).

I also have got to get some real work done in real life.

Meanwhile, I hope I have managed to provoke some thinking here.  And, as a bonus, I started another thread called The Magic of Intelligent Design.

It is a repost of something I had presented at Telic Thoughts.  It provoked some thinking there (both for and against).  Maybe it could do the same here.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 26 2007,16:52

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 25 2007,09:55)
However, this has caused this thread to steer significantly off-topic (which, of course, happens all the time).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi TP,

< Over on TT > you claimed:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can defend the Penrose-Hamerof hypothesis, in detail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then defend in detail, using actual data and citing the primary literature, their attribution of consciousness to microtubule properties instead of those of actin filaments.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Sep. 28 2007,13:50

< Secret Message for Paul Nelson >

Paul Nelson comments, "No, I'm debating Michael Ruse in southern California, about what would make us adopt the opposing position on ID vs. Darwinian evolution." and he < links to UD >. There he offers this quote:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An alert mind keeps in reserve and in good trim all that’s needed to destroy its dogmas and opinions. It is always prepared to attack its “feelings” and to refute its “reasons.”
— Paul Valery, Analects
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YEC notions excepted, of course.  FFS, a YEC "debating" about what it would take to get him to accept Darwinian evolution?  I guess the following week, the KKK will give 5 good reasons for affirmative action and a representative for NOW will offer a scenario in which suffrage is a bad idea.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 28 2007,17:38

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2007,11:50)
One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant. While this makes for < some good laughs >, it's not very challenging. We've been trying to recruit some smarter creationist to debate here. It's not very easy. It seems for every educated creationist familiar with science, there are about a million AFDaves and FtKs. Since we haven't yet managed to recruit such an educated creationist, perhaps we should make do by discussing the best of the bunch, < Telic Thoughts. > It's slightly better than the others. If Uncommonly Dense is like a clown car, Telic Thoughts is more like an AMC Pacer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had a long-running argument with JoeG (Joe Gallien, I think his name is?) on Telic Thoughts a couple of years ago. He kept claiming there was no evidence for macroevolution, and that there was no proposed mechanism for macroevolution.

It got kind of repetitive after a while.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 06 2007,13:22

Weird. MikeGene goes way off in the weeds.

< Antievolution in a “Post-Wedge” World? >
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 09 2007,20:59

They're talking about < Abbie >, a.k.a. < ERV >. (I already let her know.)
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 09 2007,21:09

Telic Thoughts guy says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, it's not really surprising that some SIVcpz Vpus have only one CK II site, and have a string of negatively charged amino acids in place of the second site. CK-II site phosphorylation also results in negative charge.

I found it interesting though, that virtually all HIV-1 sequences have both serines, even though they undergo so much variation during replication. The reason why may actually be that changing from a serine codon, to , say aspartate, requires at least two nucleotide substitutions, thus resulting in a rugged fitness landscape where a possible tranversion would result in a poor replicator. It's got to climb up a peak in order to mutate again to aspartate. So here we get a better understanding of Behe's thinking regarding "the edge of evolution".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's a strikingly vague comment. Can you clarify this with some numbers, mister Telic Thinker? Or just this kind of hand waving?
Posted by: ERV on Oct. 09 2007,21:39

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 09 2007,21:09)
That's a strikingly vague comment. Can you clarify this with some numbers, mister Telic Thinker? Or just this kind of hand waving?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know, I totally dont get their point.

"Aspartic acid cant be phosphorylated, therefore Creationism is true.  Fitness landscapes."

What?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 09 2007,21:43

yeah, pretty much. They're like voodoo priests, muttering some incantations and hoping the bad juju goes away.
Posted by: Frostman on Nov. 26 2007,21:37

This post is to document my recent banning at Telic Thoughts (telicthoughts.com).  Like here, my username there is Frostman.

It all started when Bradford quoted a recent < NYT article > by Paul Davies which caused some discussion.                            
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
Davies's editorial ends on a note that anti-theists find most discordant.                                                          
Quote (Davies @ NYT)
But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

                                                       
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
However Davies wrote two important sentences preceding the above sentence:                                                        
Quote (Davies @ NYT)
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research.

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

Davies was quoted out of context. What Davies says, in context, is most certainly something non-theists would support.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                                                     
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
What Davies is clearly inferring is that an element of faith underlies human endeavors and science is no exception. Anti-theists are notorious for their distortions of the meaning of faith and an insistence it must be blind. That is inconsistent with Davies' points. I've used the term anti-theist which you altered to non-theist. Their meaning differs.

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

                                                     
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
I changed anti-theist to non-theist because the former appears inflammatory. I try to cool the discussion whenever possible.

   The term anti-theist connotes an us-vs-them mentality; two opposing sides warring against each other. On the other hand, non-theist connotes a person who happens to disagree with theism.

   My apologies if you were being inflammatory on purpose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is where things get interesting.  Bradford deleted the above post.  The policy at Telic Thoughts is to move off-topic posts to a page called the "memory hole".  On-topic posts are not so moved, and outright deletion of posts is not done at all (with the exception of spam, etc).  In response he said,                                                        
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
Frostman, do not accuse and pretend an apology in the same sentence. As for what is inflammatory, I'll be the judge of that. If you think the blog entry is inflammatory you can always exit. I'll show you the door.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I inquired if he indeed deleted my post (as I did not know then).  After my asking a second time, he said yes.

Bradford then wrote a very angry post, which he soon deleted himself (instead of moving it to the memory hole per the policy, again).  It was interesting to see the outburst, and sadly only part of it survives in my response to it,                                                          
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
                                                             
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
If you're going to accuse me of quoting someone out of context (when I linked to the actual article) then have the integrity to respond to the actual wording I used.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fact of the matter is that the Davies quote was clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and "anti-theists" alike would agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you clipped. There is nothing "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is true. It does not matter which term I use — they are equivalent insofar as agreeing with Davies or not.

As I said, "anti-theist" sets the stage for an us-verses-them mentality, which is to be avoided. By pointing out the problematic quoting, I did not wish to inadvertently take the side of "anti-theists". That is why the term is inflammatory — you are setting the stage for those who disagree to be on the "anti-theist" side. It's just modern-day tribalism.                                                        
Quote (Bradford @ TT)
You don't give a rat's behind about avoiding inflammatory language.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, a double entendre with irony. What are your reasons for believing that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not surprisingly, this post was soon deleted (not moved to the memory hole).  I begin to notice other posts being deleted.  There were two by someone protesting the deletion of my posts --- deleted.  There were a few by keiths (another member of TT) saying that he witnessed the deletion of the posts --- deleted.  Keiths wrote a post which quoted the deletion policy at Telic Thoughts --- deleted.  I quoted my first deleted post --- deleted.  I asked Bradford if his behavior was appropriate in light of the deletion policy --- deleted.

It should be noted that Guts, another member of Telic Thoughts, said the memory hole was not working soon after the deletion of my first post.  Guts also said that he fixed it, and his test posts at the memory hole presumably demonstrated this to him.  At first this appears to be the reason why posts were deleted rather than moved.  However, the rash of deletions occurred after Guts fixed it.

Furthermore, the deletions happened before and after Bradford cheekily said, "Frostman, you're wrong. The memory hole works fine. :grin:"  As it was obvious these posts were being deleted rather than moved, it was indeed an impudent comment.  There are two of my posts currently in the memory hole; I suspect they were moved there by Guts before Bradford was able to delete them, as Guts mentioned that he moved some posts.

At this point, Bradford's posts which reprimanded me were present, but my posts to which the reprimands refer were deleted.  This left a clear impression that I somehow flew off the handle, when in fact my posts were entirely appropriate, if only the reader could see them.

I made a couple posts calmly inquiring about this fit of deletions, about whether Bradford's behavior was appropriate --- deleted.  The last post I made was,                                    
Quote (Frostman @ TT)
It is unethical to make accusations while deleting (not moving to the memory hole) the posts upon which those accusations are made, and also deleting (again, not moving to the memory hole) responses to those accusations. Do you disagree?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That, of course, was promptly deleted.  Soon after I obtained a forbidden message from the Apache server at telicthoughts.com, meaning my IP address was banned.  I confirmed this by successfully being able to connect to telicthoughts.com from an anonymous proxy.

Therein lies the tale of Frostman's adventure with Telic Thoughts.  If I were to speculate, I would cite the various times in which Bradford was cornered by my direct questions.  For example, in < one thread >, I asked the same question eight times and he would not respond, as the question clearly indicated he made a mistake in reasoning.  He eventually responded by warning me that I was trolling.

I must say Bradford's meltdown was interesting to watch.  He threw the Telic Thoughts deletion policy out the window while behaving quite dishonorably.  Apparently the motivation was to avoid losing face at all costs.  The light at the end of the tunnel is the cognitive dissonance he will feel as a result.  As all that dissonance adds up, he may eventually question those things he holds dear about himself.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 26 2007,21:49

I think it was Bradford I told something like "It's clear that Mike Gene has at least some familiarity with science, and it's clear that you do not."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2007,22:07

which one of you guys is Bradford again?
Posted by: Frostman on Nov. 26 2007,22:31

Somehow I forgot to give the thread in which this all happened:

< http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
Posted by: JAM on Nov. 26 2007,23:13

Quote (Frostman @ Nov. 26 2007,21:37)
This post is to document my recent banning at Telic Thoughts (telicthoughts.com).  Like here, my username there is Frostman.

...Therein lies the tale of Frostman's adventure with Telic Thoughts.  If I were to speculate, I would cite the various times in which Bradford was cornered by my direct questions.  For example, in < one thread >, I asked the same question eight times and he would not respond, as the question clearly indicated he made a mistake in reasoning.  He eventually responded by warning me that I was trolling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford is incredibly stupid, incredibly ignorant, and incredibly dishonest. The three qualities have a delightful synergy.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I must say Bradford's meltdown was interesting to watch.  He threw the Telic Thoughts deletion policy out the window while behaving quite dishonorably.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the norm at TT, not the exception.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apparently the motivation was to avoid losing face at all costs.  The light at the end of the tunnel is the cognitive dissonance he will feel as a result.  As all that dissonance adds up, he may eventually question those things he holds dear about himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's not a chance in hell of that happening.
Posted by: Frostman on Nov. 27 2007,01:23

I have not yet addressed one aspect of my recent banning.  No doubt a Telic Thoughts member will write to me and say, "Well, we told you to stop posting on that thread, but you continued.  You got yourself banned."  I would interpret that statement as: "We told you to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, but you kept making a fuss about it."

Allow me to run with this analogy.  The man behind the curtain is Bradford.  The reality of the situation is the appropriateness of my posts together with the inappropriateness of his behavior.  The apparatus controlled by the man behind the curtain is an illusion-making machine.  It works by deleting all posts which mention his dishonest conduct, while preserving his posts which admonish my posts.  Voila, the illusion is complete: my behavior appears questionable, and Bradford appears to rightly scold me for it.

Well, the illusion is not very good, because I clearly see the man behind the curtain.  I bring attention to this fact.  The man looks at me and says, "You best not say anything more," wagging his finger at me, "or I'll ban you."

At this point there is no turning back, at least for me.  The illusion is directed toward falsely discrediting me while at the same time concealing his dishonest behavior.  It is inconceivable that I would put my head down and walk away.  The story ends either with my banishment or with the public recognition that there is a man behind the curtain engaged in mischief.  

I hope that is clear.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 27 2007,07:34

Telic Thoughts seems to be going the same way as all the pro-ID blogs. (That's imploding, in case anyone wasn't sure!)
Take UD's list of ID friendly blogs:

ARN
(Fair moderation policy has resulted in most pro-ID posters being beaten into submission by some excellent anti-ID regulars. Almost moribund.)

Design Inference
(Just Dembski stuff, no comments, not a true blog)

ID in the UK
( Just one witless guy's blog with nothing posted for a couple of months)

ID the future ID Superblog
(DI propaganda, no comments, not a true blog)

ISCID
(Moribund, apart from one notable exception.)

Overwhelming Evidence
(Moribund, supposedly for young ID folks, but same, sad faces)

Post-Darwinist The Blog of Denyse O'Leary
(Heavily-moderated, Gobbledegook threads, very few comments, none meaningful)

Telic Thoughts
(Somewhat of a maverick, used to be the thinking man's UD, what happened to Bilbo?)

Young Cosmos Personal site of Salvador Cordova
(Amazingly, Sal is still posting, so ID is not dead yet.)
Posted by: Guts on Nov. 27 2007,17:16

I normally don't feel like any website has to explain themselves with respect to banning. TT has always welcomed critics, but if you cross the line, you're gone. Thats just the way life is, and it's true for any blog/website (I was banned from an anti-ID forum myself once).

With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole).

This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.
Posted by: JAM on Nov. 27 2007,18:03

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16)
I normally don't feel like any website has to explain themselves with respect to banning. TT has always welcomed critics, but if you cross the line, you're gone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What line, Nelson? Suggesting ID predictions that Mike Gene might test instead of writing books? Pointing out one of the many times that the feckless Bradford contradicts himself?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Riiiight. So why is there nothing in the thread at TT to indicate that?
Posted by: JAM on Nov. 27 2007,18:26

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,18:19)
lol JAM, you're delusional, as always.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your avoidance of two simple questions makes me delusional?

That's pretty funny, coming from someone who claims that "Intelligent agents today build motors that look like the motors in bacteria."

They build nanometer-scale motors out of proteins? Who's done that?
Posted by: JAM on Nov. 27 2007,18:41

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16)
I normally don't feel like any website has to explain themselves with respect to banning. TT has always welcomed critics, but if you cross the line, you're gone. Thats just the way life is, and it's true for any blog/website (I was banned from an anti-ID forum myself once).

With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole).

This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it was a misunderstanding, why was Frostman banned, Nelson?
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 27 2007,18:53

A few insults have been moved to the Bathroom Wall.
Posted by: Guts on Nov. 27 2007,18:54

Well, at least I demonstrated the point.
Posted by: JAM on Nov. 27 2007,21:04

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,18:54)
Well, at least I demonstrated the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What point?
Posted by: keiths on Nov. 28 2007,01:36

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16)
With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole).

This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts,

Let me get this straight.  You acknowledge that deleting comments is against TT policy:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then you admit to violating that policy -- and not just temporarily:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The memory hole wasn't working for a while. It's working now, I asked that comments be deleted and saved for manual insertion. I am deleting, however, all the whining as well as my own comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You also acknowledge that the misunderstanding was completely your fault.

So Frostman and I were banned because

1) you created a misunderstanding that was completely your fault;
2) you went on to violate TT's comment policy by deleting comments that you never placed in the Memory Hole;
3) neither you nor Bradford stepped in to defuse the situation by telling us that comments were only being deleted temporarily (which, as it turns out, wouldn't have been true anyway);
4) Frostman and I correctly protested the violation of TT's comment policy; and
5) you and/or Bradford banned both of us, knowing the entire time that the whole situation was a "misunderstanding".

Synopsis:  You and Bradford screwed up, so Frostman and I got banned.

Makes perfect sense to me.
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 28 2007,05:02

You know, there used to be a word that described that sort of thing.

Facist lying bastard.

dang 3 words
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 28 2007,05:12

Keith,

What are you going to do with all your spare time, now? I just spent over an hour skimming through < this thread > and I think you owe me that hour back. :angry:
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 28 2007,05:21

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,18:54)
Well, at least I demonstrated the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eh?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 28 2007,06:25

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 28 2007,11:21)
Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,18:54)
Well, at least I demonstrated the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My advice: don't ask.

The answer might make you cry.

Louis
Posted by: keiths on Nov. 28 2007,10:10

Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 28 2007,05:12)
Keith,

What are you going to do with all your spare time, now? I just spent over an hour skimming through < this thread > and I think you owe me that hour back. :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan,

Long as it is, that thread was started only because the < previous thread > took too long to load over Joy's dialup modem.  (Go on, just take a peek -- you know you want to.  :p)

I'll give you 45 minutes back, but I'm keeping 15 for the < Adelson illusion >.  Deal?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 29 2007,02:27

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 28 2007,05:10)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 28 2007,05:12)
Keith,

What are you going to do with all your spare time, now? I just spent over an hour skimming through < this thread > and I think you owe me that hour back. :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan,

Long as it is, that thread was started only because the < previous thread > took too long to load over Joy's dialup modem.  (Go on, just take a peek -- you know you want to.  :p)

I'll give you 45 minutes back, but I'm keeping 15 for the < Adelson illusion >.  Deal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deal!
Posted by: Frostman on Dec. 02 2007,23:40

Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007, 17:16)
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?  The comments were deleted, against TT policy --- not "gave the impression that comments were just being deleted".  They were not saved.  They are not there now.  They are gone.                                                              
Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007, 17:16)
I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why on earth would you direct these statements toward me?  By deleting comments permanently, you have shown that you do not truly respect and understand the purpose of the memory hole.  Not me.  You are the one who violated TT policy.  Not me.

In reference to the previous analogy, it turns out the man behind the curtain was Guts, not Bradford.  To Guts' credit, he wrote a contrite apology to me privately in email, acknowledging that he made a serious mistake.  His private apology was nothing like the equivocal one he gave here, however.

The obvious question I asked him was, Why didn't he make an apology on TT?  As a direct consequence of his mistakes, the TT members had a false impression of what happened.  My conduct was entirely rational, yet since my posts were deleted, there was no record of my defense.  Guts had already apologized to me privately for this.  Most TT members do not frequent this thread here on antievolution.org.  Why didn't Guts come clean to the readers of TT?

You won't believe what came next.  Guts agreed to make such an apology --- but only on the condition that I renounce an opinion which I expressed on the TT thread!  It sounds unbelievable, I know.  Not only is Guts unwilling to do the right thing, but he commits extortion on top of it.

Guts wanted me to disavow my position that the Davies quote was out of context (bold mine):        
Quote (Paul Davies @ NYT)
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After many tries, Guts was unable to understand that, in regard to atheism or "anti-theism", using only the last (non-bolded) sentence without the previous two is inappropriate.  Davies is no theist, as is well known, and as the first two sentences above suggest.  Quoting only the last sentence misrepresents Davies' position.

Guts did not agree.  Which is fine.  We are free to disagree, and we are free to debate the issue further if we so choose.  Or so I thought.

As it turns out, Bradford was incredibly offended by my suggestion that the quote was out of context.  Indeed, the first permanent deletion was done by Bradford (the post was not "saved" to be later inserted in the memory hole).  Incidentally, it should be noted that Bradford was the first one to violate the TT deletion policy, and that action is what precipitated these events.  Guts was backing up Bradford the whole way.  Guts was also expressing outrage at the very idea of an out of context quote.

The interesting part is that my opinion of the quote is irrelevant.  I repeatedly made clear that all I wanted was for Guts to do the right thing --- to explain the situation to the readers of TT, as he at least tried to do here.  But Guts kept dodging, instead wanting to talk about the Davies quote and how my opinion is unacceptable.  He would only admit his mistakes on TT if I renounced my position.

Guts then took the desperate position that it doesn't matter where he makes the apology.  The following is the final unanswered email I sent to Guts:

TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred.  Some TT readers may also read AE, but many do not.  The honest course of action is to tell them.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Sincerely,
Frostman
Posted by: Joy on Dec. 03 2007,17:03

Frostman said...

"TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred.  Some TT readers may also read AE, but many do not.  The honest course of action is to tell them."

"Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that obligation."


LOL!!! Oh, goodness, Frosty! Why in the world do you think anyone at TT should be as attached to your typing as you are? There is no "ethical obligation." TT is a privately owned blog that doesn't have to let you participate at all, and may make decisions about moderation without consulting you. It's not an EEOC employer of yours, and isn't the government either. Unless you're getting paid by the post and have to produce links to them in order to get paid, you've no reason to complain.*

* And if you're getting paid per-post, we want half. §;o)

I knew the Hole was out of order, because I had to delete a post of Mark's just the week before (along with my reply). In a perfectly topical post to the subject of the thread he had inserted an accusation of sock-puppetry against a couple of our other participants, a serious no-no (as well as not true based on our stats info). Because the Hole was out of order - something about the server switchover - I simply deleted it after informing him why, then deleted that too. It didn't occur to me to make a copy to manually insert from Guts' end, so I didn't. The post simply had to go.

Mark wasn't upset about that action and didn't whine to high heaven about some non-existent "right" to have his typing etched into net-stone. He merely took up where he'd left off per the topic and there were no further issues and no hard feelings.

Get back to us when you grow up. Or not. No skin of our noses.
Posted by: JAM on Dec. 03 2007,18:05

Quote (Joy @ Dec. 03 2007,17:03)
...Mark wasn't upset about that action and didn't whine to high heaven about some non-existent "right" to have his typing etched into net-stone...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, a fake quote from the deluded Joy.

If you didn't have the reading comprehension of a seven-year-old, you would have noted that Frostman was stunned by the hypocrisy and dishonesty at TT. He made no claim of any "right."

What he doesn't realize is that your reflexive dishonesty is the norm, not the exception.
Posted by: slpage on Dec. 04 2007,08:02

Quote (JAM @ Dec. 03 2007,18:05)
Quote (Joy @ Dec. 03 2007,17:03)
...Mark wasn't upset about that action and didn't whine to high heaven about some non-existent "right" to have his typing etched into net-stone...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, a fake quote from the deluded Joy.

If you didn't have the reading comprehension of a seven-year-old, you would have noted that Frostman was stunned by the hypocrisy and dishonesty at TT. He made no claim of any "right."

What he doesn't realize is that your reflexive dishonesty is the norm, not the exception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Not to mention the paranoia... >
Posted by: Frostman on Jan. 06 2008,14:05

Just to wrap this up, I sent the following email to Mike Gene on 12/17/2007, to which there was no reply:

Hi Mike,

I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding my banishment from TT.

Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community, however.

A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90 >

My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told me.

At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of context.  This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for my banning.

Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of a free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not support such a free exchange.

Kind Regards,
Frostman
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,18:11

Keiths wrote:



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

You and Bradford screwed up, so Frostman and I got banned.

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



No, you and Frostman couldn't follow rules, so you and Frostman got banned.

Frostman wrote:



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

Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my comments permanently, against TT policy.  

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



Actually the situation went more like this:

1. Frostman accused Bradford of (falsely) taking a quote of context.

2. After Bradford explained himself, Frostman continued harrassing Bradford.

3. The memory hole wasn't working, so I advised all TT authors to delete them and I will insert them into the memory manually.

4. Frostman increased harrassment after a TT author deleted a comment.

5. Keiths joined in the harrassment by restoring a comment from the memory hole.

6. Frostman and Keiths were banned.

The interesting thing about this is that I acknowledged that Frostman may have misunderstood the situation sincerely. So I offered him an opportunity to return. He said he didn't care whether or not he was banned. I'm glad he admitted that, as it shows that this is all just some martydom show. The bottom line is that, posting on TT isn't your right, it's a priviledge. Unless you want to help out with the costs ;)
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,18:13

Wesley wrote:



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

Eh?

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



What was so hard to understand?
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,18:14

It's interesting how none of the insults spewed by the residents here get sent to the wall...
Posted by: rhmc on Jan. 06 2008,19:31

so the memory hole wasn't working?
and the other posts are gone?

curious, eh?
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 06 2008,19:51

Guts comes back to stumble over his shoelaces:  
Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,18:11)

5. Keiths joined in the harrassment by restoring a comment from the memory hole.

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


Guts,

< As I told you at the time >, I didn't restore the comment; Frostman did.  And he didn't restore it from the Memory Hole.  The Memory Hole was broken, remember?

I wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No. Frostman restored a deleted comment that was not in the Memory Hole, and I confirmed that I had seen it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the one thing that you just presented as a reason for banning me turns out to be false.  Good one, Guts.  Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

And by the way, you're still misspelling "martyrdom" as "martydom".
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,20:01

Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 06 2008,19:31)
so the memory hole wasn't working?
and the other posts are gone?

curious, eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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

so the memory hole wasn't working?
and the other posts are gone?

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



There's nothing curious about it. The posts that are gone were just him either repeating himself or complaining. It's working now, and there are plenty of critics on TT that post freely.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,20:04

Keiths:


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

As I told you at the time, I didn't restore the comment; Frostman did.  And he didn't restore it from the Memory Hole.  The Memory Hole was broken, remember?

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



Keiths, i'm looking right now at the copy of the comment of yours that I deleted. You can't even get basic facts right.

Keiths:


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

And by the way, you're still misspelling "martyrdom" as "martydom".

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



Yeah I keep leaving out the r. I'm not even sure why you're chiming in, in this situation, you look the worst, since I warned you about 5 times to get back on topic. It makes all your comments about the "martyrdom machine" rather hilarious.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,20:57

Perhaps you should have an scale from 1-5 for these things, with 4 categories, to see if someone should be banned.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,21:07

We're actually revamping the way these bannings go. Since there are many authors, and each of them have different levels of tolerance, I'm making a way for each author to police their threads individually. This will probably do away with the need for complete banishment.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,21:35

I was joking, based on this:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=5356 >
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,21:49

huh? That joke would be funnier if it lampooned the methodology accurately.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 06 2008,21:55

Marty Dom digs himself deeper:
Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,20:04)
Keiths, i'm looking right now at the copy of the comment of yours that I deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then post it here.  I know for a fact that I did not fish any comments out of the Memory Hole.  You've already admitted that the Memory Hole was not working -- how could I have fished out a comment that wasn't there, even if I had wanted to?

The only way that I could have quoted a deleted comment is if you deleted it after I quoted it.  Did that even occur to you?

What's amusing about this is that you've convicted yourself again.  By saying that you're "looking right now" at my comment that you deleted, you've confirmed that you violated TT's policy against deleting comments without placing them in the Memory Hole.  As you put it earlier:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Way to go, Marty.  Is there anything else you'd like to tell us?  Have you read Consilience? :p

(I'm still laughing about that one.  You were asked at least seven times if you had read Consilience, and you avoided the question each time, < starting here > through the end of the thread.)

To summarize:  You violated TT policy.  Frostman and I pointed it out.  You acknowledge it.  Yet we got banned for it.

Pathetic.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,21:56

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,21:49)
huh? That joke would be funnier if it lampooned the methodology accurately.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I'm sure its much more sciency than I understand. We can give you a thread here to make your case, if you like, but it sounds like telic thoughts has boilerplate creobot 'moderation', so I wont be going there.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:12

Keiths:


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

Then post it here.  I know for a fact that I did not fish any comments out of the Memory Hole.  You've already admitted that the Memory Hole was not working -- how could I have fished out a comment that wasn't there, even if I had wanted to?

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



Keiths, if the memory hole still wasn't working at that point (even though I said it was fixed at that point), then why are there comments by Frostman and Joy in the memory hole? ( see here < http://telicthoughts.com/57/#comment-157770) >

Obviously at that point, the memory hole was working, and several of Frostman's comments were sent there. You pathetically tried to fish them out.


Keiths:


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

The only way that I could have quoted a deleted comment is if you deleted it after I quoted it.  Did that even occur to you?

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



Except that I didn't delete it.

Keiths:


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

What's amusing about this is that you've convicted yourself again.  By saying that you're "looking right now" at my comment that you deleted, you've confirmed that you violated TT's policy against deleting comments without placing them in the Memory Hole.

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



Actually, I deleted a comment of yours because you tried to fish it out of the memory hole. This is a method used to deter anyone from doing just that. Others have been banned for doing similar things (fishing comments out of the memory hole). But anyway thats not even the reason why you were banned.
 As you put it earlier:

Keiths:


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

Way to go, Marty.  Is there anything else you'd like to tell us?  Have you read Consilience?

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



Yup, it's obvious though, that you never did. That was a funny one.

Keiths:


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

(I'm still laughing about that one.  You were asked at least seven times if you had read Consilience, and you avoided the question each time, starting here through the end of the thread.)

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



I didn't avoid the question, I showed, through refuting each and every one of your points, that I had read it, and you didn't. What does scienticism mean again?
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:17



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

We can give you a thread here to make your case, if you like, but it sounds like telic thoughts has boilerplate creobot 'moderation', so I wont be going there.

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



What are you talking about? TT is crawling with critics. If getting rid of trolls like Keiths is "boilerplate creobot moderation" then so be it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,22:34

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,22:17)


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

We can give you a thread here to make your case, if you like, but it sounds like telic thoughts has boilerplate creobot 'moderation', so I wont be going there.

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



What are you talking about? TT is crawling with critics. If getting rid of trolls like Keiths is "boilerplate creobot moderation" then so be it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan fox has a neutral venue if you'd be more comfortable. My dealings with Keiths have been fine. I must be troll tolerant, or perhaps you're full of it. I can always wait for the film of the book to be on TBS, or perhaps nature will pick it up.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:40



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

I must be troll tolerant, or perhaps you're full of it.

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



Actualy I am very troll tolerant, I gave Keiths chance after chance to avoid getting banned. He decided to become a cog in his own "martyrdom machine" instead.

Look at him now, he can't even get his facts straight.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,22:44

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,22:40)


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

I must be troll tolerant, or perhaps you're full of it.

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



Actualy I am very troll tolerant, I gave Keiths chance after chance to avoid getting banned. He decided to become a cog in his own "martyrdom machine" instead.

Look at him now, he can't even get his facts straight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I've just been reading this thread in its entirety. Doesn't bode well for telic thoughts. You can explain it here or go to Alan's neutral venue, or not, if you don't want to. But you have pretty standard creobot 'moderation' and it's a waste of any rational persons time to invest effort in dialogue that might not see the light of day.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:46

Yeah but of course you would say that.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:49

Who is Alan Fox, why do you want me to go there? Are you inviting me to debate something? I don't mind participating here, but none of the topics interest me at the moment. Maybe I will in the future. I just wanted to set the record straight, I'm done for now.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,22:49

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,22:46)
Yeah but of course you would say that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Woo Hoo, go design detective!
A neutral venue has been offered. Is the thought of not being able to disappear posts or to be asked difficult questions that scary? is your position *that* ridiculous?
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 06 2008,22:50

Guts, you wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, i'm looking right now at the copy of the comment of yours that I deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I asked you to post it here.  You're avoiding my request.

Why is that?
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,22:54

Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.

Richard, I have no idea what you're talking about, I have discussed on other forums, and I would be more than happy to debate anywhere you'd like, even on non-neutral venues.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,23:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's because it's a request, not a demand. A demand would be



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I told you to post it here.  You're avoiding my demand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



not



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I asked you to post it here.  You're avoiding my request.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Based on past experience, I'm sure the design detection at TT is a good as any other creobot site. How many designs have you guys found now? What about that bacterial flagella, eh? Is that designed? Start a thread here, and we'll chat. Or not.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,23:05

How about this, I'll do a scan of all your posts, or all of the threads that you've participated in, and if I feel inspired i'll start up a discussion there.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,23:09

You can participate in any thread you want, an amazing concept, I know. Tell me about your design detection. I want success stories. I'm still on board that ol' time evilution sinking ship... but being quite rat-like I'll be the first to leave if you make a compelling case.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 06 2008,23:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were the one who said you were "looking right now" at my comment.  Why won't you post it?  Were you hoping I wouldn't call your bluff?

For those interested in seeing more of Guts' particular brand of tard, observe his reaction when he was shown that the DI had encouraged the teaching of ID in public schools prior to Dover:
< Link >
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,23:16

Hmm, Richard, you think I'm not an evilutionist? I'm probably more of an evilutionist than you are.
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,23:16

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2008,23:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were the one who said you were "looking right now" at my comment.  Why won't you post it?  Were you hoping I wouldn't call your bluff?

For those interested in seeing more of Guts' particular brand of tard, observe his reaction when he was shown that the DI had encouraged the teaching of ID in public schools prior to Dover:
< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Keiths, are you denying that you quoted Frostman's post that was in the memory hole, you're ACTUALLY going to deny it?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,23:17

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2008,23:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were the one who said you were "looking right now" at my comment.  Why won't you post it?  Were you hoping I wouldn't call your bluff?

For those interested in seeing more of Guts' particular brand of tard, observe his reaction when he was shown that the DI had encouraged the teaching of ID in public schools prior to Dover:
< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like Uncommon Descent. Is Krause thier Davetard?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,23:18

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,23:16)
Hmm, Richard, you think I'm not an evilutionist? I'm probably more of an evilutionist than you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt it. I'm a minion of Satan.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 06 2008,23:18

So Guts, are you desperately trying to change the subject away from the comment that you're afraid to post?
Posted by: Guts on Jan. 06 2008,23:20

lol Keiths, you're not very good at this.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 06 2008,23:20

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2008,23:18)
So Guts, are you desperately trying to change the subject away from the comment that you're afraid to post?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


6

DaveScot

05/23/2006

1:02 am
Now that everyone is happy that this article isn’t a fabrication the comments are closed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 07 2008,01:12

Hypothesis:

Once the book is published and the fleecing of the credulous begins, other views are less welcome.
Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 07 2008,01:18

Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,21:16)
Hmm, Richard, you think I'm not an evilutionist? I'm probably more of an evilutionist than you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Dick, he believes that all the species evolved from pairs of a relative handful of kinds just a few thousand years ago.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 07 2008,01:43

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 07 2008,01:18)
Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,21:16)
Hmm, Richard, you think I'm not an evilutionist? I'm probably more of an evilutionist than you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Dick, he believes that all the species evolved from pairs of a relative handful of kinds just a few thousand years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooh! Suprise!
Posted by: Frostman on Jan. 07 2008,03:35

Guts has not denied that he attempted to commit extortion by asking to me to a make false statement in exchange for lifting my ban at TT.

Guts still believes that holding an opinion that a particular quote is taken out of context is sufficient grounds for banning.

Guts has ratcheted up the rhetoric.  My rational arguments about why a particular quote by Paul Davies is taken out of context is now construed as "harassment".  Let Guts provide the exact post of mine which he claims may be so construed: he will find none.  He will find each and every post of mine at TT to be calmly and rationally presented.

Guts has still not made a public apology at TT commensurate with his public apology here (and his profuse private apology to me in email).

Guts has officially discarded what he said to me in email.  It is normally bad form to quote a private email, but by practicing historical revisionism Guts forces my hand.                                          
Quote (Guts @ email to Frostman)
Bradford only deleted 1 of your posts, per my instruction, I deleted the rest because I perceived the situation as a hostile reaction to Bradford's initial decision, for which I apologize to you. This goes for the rest of the deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were my doing because of what I perceived as a hostile attack on Bradford, an attempt to circumvent his decision. Really you just felt that your posts were unjustly deleted out of existence, I would get mad at that as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since I used a temporary gmail account for this exchange, I am prepared to hand over the account to a neutral party who will verify that the above words are authentic.

As I have stated several times now, the particulars of a disagreement are unimportant compared to the right to disagree in the first place.  At TT, there is no right to disagree.

That said, Guts may indeed see my point of view even though he asserts otherwise.  The gist of my argument was that the omission of the two sentences preceding the Davies quote in question produced an impression which was unfaithful to Davies' intended meaning.                                    
Quote (Guts @ email to Frostman)
Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation to say he took it out of context, Bradford was not talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the reaction from various atheists on the internet to the one sentence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you nailed it precisely, Guts.  Bradford was not talking about Davies' intended meaning.  That is exactly why the quote is taken out of context.  The number one rule in quoting is to be faithful to the intended meaning.  Thank you for clarifying.

Lest the conversation gets sidetracked on this, let me repeat again: the particulars of a disagreement are unimportant compared to the right to disagree in the first place.  My position is a rational one which deserves a place in a forum which values a free exchange of ideas.

Blog owners have a right to censor content on their blog.  However, an ethical problem occurs when censors try to pretend they are not censoring.

TT does not support a free exchange of ideas.  And that is fine.  But let us not pretend otherwise, okay Guts?

Guts, I am not writing here because I want you to lift my ban.  In reference to your mistakes which you have admitted both here at AE and to me in email, I want you to come clean.  This is your ethical (though not legal) obligation.  I shall conclude by repeating what I have said to you before in this regard:

TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred.  Some TT readers may also read AE, but many do not.  The honest course of action is to tell them.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Sincerely,
Frostman
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 07 2008,09:00

Oh dear. Is it Telic Tards or Tardic Thoughts?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 07 2008,09:47

< http://telicthoughts.com/shermer-in-the-matrix-2/#more-1990 >

Oh dear.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 07 2008,09:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 07 2008,10:47)
< http://telicthoughts.com/shermer-in-the-matrix-2/#more-1990 >

Oh dear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sort of hard to ignore the uh... underlying ... um... envy of sorts... that seems to be the general tone of that substanceless post.

Just sayin'.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 07 2008,10:04

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 07 2008,09:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 07 2008,10:47)
< http://telicthoughts.com/shermer-in-the-matrix-2/#more-1990 >

Oh dear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sort of hard to ignore the uh... underlying ... um... envy of sorts... that seems to be the general tone of that substanceless post.

Just sayin'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, reminded me of a 5year old just saying "it just is" over and over.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 07 2008,15:15

*delurks*

Not to make Rich a fibber, I closed comments at my blog because it was starting to accumulate spam. but if Guts feels he can dig himself out of his hole better at Languedoc Diary than this den of ebola spredn' church burn'n iniquity, I will dust off the furniture and open up for him.

PM me if I can be of service.

*undelurks*
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 07 2008,15:25

Cheers Alan.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 07 2008,16:58

Just visited telic thoughts for the first time.  it looks like 50% of the threads are mike gene promoting mike gene's book.  

Funny how IDC blogs are all about selling products and have nothing science related to offer.  

"fossils? who needs them!"
"birth? the stork did it"
"hate homos, satanists and commies?  buy my ID sciency book!"

I need to find a way to cash in on the tard.  I should spend less time making fun of creationists and more time fleecing them!
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 13 2008,08:14

I decided to utilize < Dembski's Inference > on the ancient conundrum of why the peanut butter always falls face down.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: Dembski's Inference: Oh my God. I knew it! I knew it! Demons are causing my peanut butter to always end up face down! Yuck!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Valerie has Bradford doing the Pirouette.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: It's not a good means of refuting probability assesments. It's better suited to revealing causality.

< Zachriel >: In other words, it depends on our knowledge of the particulars. And if we are ignorant as to why certain patterns occur, the Inference may yield a false positive. Consequently, Dembski's Inference is unsound. Thanks!

< Bradford >: We also know that unequally weighted and formed objects would not be assessed the same way we would assess a perfectly symetrical coin, for example, in computing odds.

< Zachriel >: That's fine. Where in Dembski's formula do I find the falling dynamics of peanut butter sandwiches? It seems I have to already know the answer to work out the math.

< Bradford >: Where does Dembski imply that his methodology would be applicable to your attempted reduction to absurdity?

< valerie >: I'm not aware that Dembski has placed any limits on the scope of applicability of his methodology. Can you point us to any of his writings that establish such limits? Also, please explain why the methodology is applicable to flipped coins but not to falling slices of peanut-buttered bread.

< Bradford >: Why resort to a statistical analysis when explanations citing a physical cause are available.

< valerie >: Where did you get the idea that causal scenarios are outside the scope of statistical methods?

< Bradford >: Never said they were.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 13 2008,11:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: we are faced with the unpleasant prospect of peanut butter demons or that Dembski's Inference is unsound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 14 2008,21:22

Guts meowed

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does scienticism mean again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You know I was wondering the same damn thing!!!one!!!  Spooky, ain't it?



Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 25 2008,10:19

Tardic Tards:

< http://telicthoughts.com/mars-man-or-mars-rock/ >

Even worse than UD...
Posted by: Nerull on Jan. 25 2008,10:32

Joy's post is high quality tard.

Its a rock. Its been there in multiple photographs over the course of three days. Its not alive. Its not moving. Its 6cm tall. It resembles a tree-dwelling mammal on a planet with no mammals and no trees. Its a friggin rock.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Jan. 25 2008,10:38

Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 25 2008,10:32)
Joy's post is high quality tard.

Its a rock. Its been there in multiple photographs over the course of three days. Its not alive. Its not moving. Its 6cm tall. It resembles a tree-dwelling mammal on a planet with no mammals and no trees. Its a friggin rock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh no it's not. < According to Joy, >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At this resolution, it's a suggestive anomaly that begs further examination.

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


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 25 2008,11:00

The "Design Matrix" nonsense makes me laff.  And obviously that's NOT a rock formation on Mars, it's a freakin' Klingon which means Dave Springer was right all along!  OMG!!!
Posted by: Nerull on Jan. 25 2008,13:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most IDists take a very conservative approach to inferring design. Not only would the evidence indicate design but it would include indicators that a non-design conclusion is implausible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Most IDist say "Design!!!!" because their little holy book tells them so.
Posted by: Art on April 21 2008,22:57

< Simply unbelievable >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before writing this off, something like that has already been developed - the patent is jointly held by Monsanto and the USDA - it's called "Terminator Technology." It wasn't deployed because it makes plants sterile and transgenes are highly promiscuous. Just a little tweaking could have such a gene-packet targeted to human sterility, and it could be put into the whole world's staple food crops. Humanity could be sterile in less than 5 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Telic thinking at its finest.
Posted by: Zachriel on April 27 2008,10:32

I'm sure everyone has seen Allen MacNeill's excellent work at Uncommon Descent as documented on the < Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread >. But Teach' MacNeill has just unleashed a double-barrelled blast of pedagogy over at Telic Thoughts.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: And so today, Lynn Margulis's SET {serial endosymbiosis theory} has become the dominant theory explaining not only the origin of eukaryotes, but also the origin of evolutionary novelty at dozens of different levels in biology (see her Acquiring Genomes for a comprehensive review). So well accepted has her work become by evolutionary biologists that finally, after almost four decades, creationists and ID supporters have begun to attack her theories. As she said at our Darwin Day celebration at Cornell this past February, no greater affirmation of one's "having arrived" as a major theorist in evolutionary biology could be imagined.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: The point here is that, if ID wants to become accepted as part of evolutionary biology in the same way that Lynn Margulis's SET has become accepted, then ID supporters have to do the same thing she did: get out in the field and get your hands dirty, and get into the lab and do the same thing. Her ideas were just as unorthodox and unacceptable in 1969 as ID is now. However, she didn't put all of her effort into public relations and political propaganda. No "Symbiosis Institute" dumped millions into the production of deliberately distorted press kits and one-sided propaganda films. Legions of self-appointed experts whose only exposure to biology was in high school classes or what they read on Answers in Genesis or Uncommon Descent bloviated on SET and declared themselves experts after a week of superficial study of articles on Wikipedia...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: The difference between her and them is that they can't even begin to claim any credibility in science; their "work" is entirely parasitic on hers, and deserves nothing but contempt.

And unless and until IDers decide that it's finally time to stop doing agitprop and start doing science, they and the creationists will at best be a trivial footnote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------








Posted by: Richardthughes on April 27 2008,12:50

Mike Gene has a good cry about it in the comments.
Posted by: Art on April 27 2008,13:29

LOL

Commenter Jean asks about another commenter's publication record, responding to a quip about Berlinski. A quick check of Berlinski's h-factor on SCI yields a value of 1, and an average citation rate for his papers of 0.1 (probably rounded - he has three citations total for all 27 articles/notes/comments/reviews).

Yup, that's a real powerhouse of scholarly output.  Berlinski has been cited THREE times in scholarly works over the years.


Posted by: k.e.. on April 27 2008,13:46

Quote (Art @ April 27 2008,21:29)
LOL

Commenter Jean asks about another commenter's publication record, responding to a quip about Berlinski. A quick check of Berlinski's h-factor on SCI yields a value of 1, and an average citation rate for his papers of 0.1 (probably rounded - he has three citations total for all 27 articles/notes/comments/reviews).

Yup, that's a real powerhouse of scholarly output.  Berlinski has been cited THREE times in scholarly works over the years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And all probably IN HIS OWN publications!!

How can anyone forget Dr. Berlinski interviewing (wait for it...) Dr Berlinski.


Dr Berlinski (and so is my wife) has a persona not unlike our Dr. Dr. Dembski ...er except he's 2 assshats above and askew...or askhimself...or whateva.

PS. Louis isn't schizophrenic..... just the voices won't let him believe him.
Posted by: Art on April 27 2008,14:25

More amusement, courtesy of Bradford:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This ad hom response illustrates the value of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I never see an evolutionary biologist slimed like this and it is not because they are all stellar performers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, yeah.  Nothing like < this >.

Typical TT fare.  Heaping lies on top of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Henry J on April 27 2008,18:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As she [Lynn Margulis] said at our Darwin Day celebration at Cornell this past February, no greater affirmation of one's "having arrived" as a major theorist in evolutionary biology could be imagined.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, so the anti-evolutionists do have a use - they're a measuring stick of the importance of new hypotheses. :p



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And unless and until IDers decide that it's finally time to stop doing agitprop and start doing science, they and the creationists will at best be a trivial footnote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, the problem with that is that "doing science" would mean actually paying attention to the evidence, which they and we both know would lead right back to the very theory that they're trying to get rid of. Can't have that, ya know! :p

Henry
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 27 2008,18:33

Bradford snivels some more, gives us a clue to his educational background:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point of the reference was not Berlinksi. I referred to him out of respect for source material. The point is always what is said. I take every commenter at TT seriously. A HS dropout has the capacity for rational thought and may come out with a gem. Obviously a PhD is more likely to have insight into technical details but intellectual snobbery is a bore and a sign of insecurity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No 'signs of insecurity' here, nope, nuh-uh.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 27 2008,20:32

I'm just getting started on getting publications out, and I've got three citations from essays of mine on antievolution, two more from the article I co-authored with John Wilkins, and 17 from marine mammal work co-authored with several others.

The chunk of my life I lost in 2004 has set me back badly. I hope to catch up on things soon.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 27 2008,23:12

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 27 2008,18:32)
I'm just getting started on getting publications out, and I've got three citations from essays of mine on antievolution, two more from the article I co-authored with John Wilkins, and 17 from marine mammal work co-authored with several others.

The chunk of my life I lost in 2004 has set me back badly. I hope to catch up on things soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Incidentally, I think I just figured out why you were photographed at Macarthur BART. The apartment I lived at in north Oakland for 10 years is halfway between that BART station and the NCSE office. (Tho I don't think it was there when I lived there -- I left in '95.)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 27 2008,23:19

I think NCSE was in offices in El Cerrito in 1995. That was pretty much a hole-in-the-wall, but right around front was a pretty decent Mexican restaurant that went some way toward making up for the lack of ambiance. The newer offices off 40th Street in Oakland are much better offices, but in a less attractive neighborhood. No handy Mexican restaurant, fersure, though Nick Matzke kept the Subway at 40th and Telegraph in business.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 27 2008,23:32

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 27 2008,21:19)
I think NCSE was in offices in El Cerrito in 1995. That was pretty much a hole-in-the-wall, but right around front was a pretty decent Mexican restaurant that went some way toward making up for the lack of ambiance. The newer offices off 40th Street in Oakland are much better offices, but in a less attractive neighborhood. No handy Mexican restaurant, fersure, though Nick Matzke kept the Subway at 40th and Telegraph in business.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's funny, El Cerrito is where I moved in '95 (and still am now). Where in El Cerrito was it?

The best restaurants near the NCSE now would be the Eritrean and Korean restaurants along Telegraph, or maybe the Chinese places on Piedmont Avenue. There's nothing on 40th itself.

40th between MLK and Broadway is a ratty neighborhood. The best I can say for it is that it hasn't gotten any *worse* since 1985.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 28 2008,01:32

< http://telicthoughts.com/mitochondria-in-charge/#comment-181734 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JackT Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 1:21 am | Mike,

Where do you see yourself in ten years? Will you still be wagging your finger at Dawkins and PZ Myers? Posting rabbit pictures? Jiggling scientific articles until they vibrate to the tune of intelligent design? When are you going to be the author of one of those scientific articles? Will you buckle down and get your hands dirty, as Allen mentioned? Or do plan to keep blogging from the sidelines?

I don't mean this to sound disrespectful. I am just curious what you hope to accomplish?


Comment by JackT — April 28, 2008 @ 1:21 am

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



Arf.
Posted by: raguel on April 28 2008,04:47



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

Bradford: Why resort to a statistical analysis when explanations citing a physical cause are available.

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




Interesting position; now take it one step further...
Posted by: slpage on April 28 2008,14:12

Quote (Art @ April 27 2008,13:29)
LOL

Commenter Jean asks about another commenter's publication record, responding to a quip about Berlinski. A quick check of Berlinski's h-factor on SCI yields a value of 1, and an average citation rate for his papers of 0.1 (probably rounded - he has three citations total for all 27 articles/notes/comments/reviews).

Yup, that's a real powerhouse of scholarly output.  Berlinski has been cited THREE times in scholarly works over the years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jeez....  A paper I published when I was still in grad school has been cited 65 times....

I must be 22 times the scholar Berlinski is!
Posted by: slpage on April 28 2008,14:14

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 27 2008,18:33)
Bradford snivels some more, gives us a clue to his educational background:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Obviously a PhD is more likely to have insight into technical details but intellectual snobbery is a bore and a sign of insecurity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


So is that why IDcreationists are so quick to point out Dr.Dr.Dembski's  (irrelevant) credentials?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 28 2008,15:54

Erm, Yay? Mike Gene's mental diarrhoea shows no signs of stopping:

< http://telicthoughts.com/smile-for-the-camera/#comment-181712 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
MikeGene Says:
April 27th, 2008 at 8:51 pm | Hi Bilbo,

Now that sounds like a potential chapter for volume 2. The significance of scoring is not simply coming up with numbers, but in laying out one’s reasoning – thus, the need for a chapter. Yet simply think of proteins from the four perspectives of analogy, discontinuity, rationality, and foresight.


Comment by MikeGene — April 27, 2008 @ 8:51 pm

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


Posted by: Richardthughes on May 05 2008,11:26

Mike Gene.

< http://telicthoughts.com/on-holocaust-memorial-day/ >
Posted by: olegt on May 05 2008,11:43

Mike Gene it ain't.  The thread was started by a TT poster named Joy.  She demands an apology from the National Academy of Sciences and has declared Raevmo, Zachriel and myself Holocaust deniers.  Check it out.
Posted by: stevestory on May 05 2008,11:50

Quote (Zachriel @ April 27 2008,11:32)
I'm sure everyone has seen Allen MacNeill's excellent work at Uncommon Descent as documented on the < Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread >. But Teach' MacNeill has just unleashed a double-barrelled blast of pedagogy over at Telic Thoughts.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: And so today, Lynn Margulis's SET {serial endosymbiosis theory} has become the dominant theory explaining not only the origin of eukaryotes, but also the origin of evolutionary novelty at dozens of different levels in biology (see her Acquiring Genomes for a comprehensive review). So well accepted has her work become by evolutionary biologists that finally, after almost four decades, creationists and ID supporters have begun to attack her theories. As she said at our Darwin Day celebration at Cornell this past February, no greater affirmation of one's "having arrived" as a major theorist in evolutionary biology could be imagined.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: The point here is that, if ID wants to become accepted as part of evolutionary biology in the same way that Lynn Margulis's SET has become accepted, then ID supporters have to do the same thing she did: get out in the field and get your hands dirty, and get into the lab and do the same thing. Her ideas were just as unorthodox and unacceptable in 1969 as ID is now. However, she didn't put all of her effort into public relations and political propaganda. No "Symbiosis Institute" dumped millions into the production of deliberately distorted press kits and one-sided propaganda films. Legions of self-appointed experts whose only exposure to biology was in high school classes or what they read on Answers in Genesis or Uncommon Descent bloviated on SET and declared themselves experts after a week of superficial study of articles on Wikipedia...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Allen_MacNeill >: The difference between her and them is that they can't even begin to claim any credibility in science; their "work" is entirely parasitic on hers, and deserves nothing but contempt.

And unless and until IDers decide that it's finally time to stop doing agitprop and start doing science, they and the creationists will at best be a trivial footnote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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


Post of the Week, regardless of its timestamp.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 05 2008,11:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 05 2008,12:26)
Mike Gene.

< http://telicthoughts.com/on-holocaust-memorial-day/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wow.

brain freeze.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 05 2008,11:57

Quote (olegt @ May 05 2008,09:43)
Mike Gene it ain't.  The thread was started by a TT poster named Joy.  She demands an apology from the National Academy of Sciences and has declared Raevmo, Zachriel and myself Holocaust deniers.  Check it out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's fascinating. Someone who has declared herself to be of Irish ancestry is basically claiming that the ADL's definition of 'holocaust denier' is wrong, and that the ADL is mistaken in *not* blaming Big Science for the Holocaust.
Posted by: stevestory on May 05 2008,11:57

Mike Gene is much smarter and more honest than most creationists, but, in the end, he's still a creationist.
Posted by: stevestory on May 05 2008,12:08

MacNeill's last point there is the most interesting thing about the ID movement. Even if ID was correct, which it isn't, the behavior of the ID advocates wouldn't lead to success. Scientific revolutions succeed when the revolutionaries use the new ideas to solve old problems and advance research. The ID community isn't even trying to do this. Their journal sits there, defunct, while they make movies, gripe on the internet, write 'textbooks', and fly around collecting honoraria. (Enjoying Brazil, Paul?) And while some at the top know better, the footsoldiers of ID know so little about science that they don't see the glaring absence of research. Anyone who knows anything about science and how it changes can look at PCID for about 15 seconds and understand that ID is a con game.


Posted by: JAM on May 05 2008,13:32

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 05 2008,11:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 05 2008,12:26)
Mike Gene.

< http://telicthoughts.com/on-holocaust-memorial-day/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wow.

brain freeze.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy Busey's having quite the meltdown.

She got smacked around for suggesting the same thing at Daily Kos:

< http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/5/1/114545/9274/223#c223 >
Posted by: olegt on May 05 2008,14:19

Joy is a big girl, so she < makes her own definitions >:


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

I am not Jewish, and I am not the ADL (or even AIPAC). I can extend denial of the whole perversion of science that led to the Holocaust under the heading of denial because it IS denial. Sleight of mind, distraction and retreat into narrow definitions is SOP for DDs around here. I do not recognize ADL's "authority" to define the Holocaust - or the American experience that led to it - as an exclusively Jewish horror. "Authority" is what caused the whole mess. I'm not falling for this crazy sleight of mind at this late date.

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


It would be logical to conclude that everyone has the right to ignore her authority, but logic isn't exactly Joy's cup of tea.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 05 2008,14:26

Joy is an angry, unfocused blurt.

Mike Gene is using the Dembski validated 'sycophantic followers and a book to pimp' model.
Posted by: keiths on May 05 2008,15:01

Joy is a veritable fountain of tard.

When I have time over the next few days, I'll post some of her greatest hits.

For now, a teaser.  This is from < a long thread > in which Joy claimed that life depends on superconductivity.  I scoffed, pointing to the lack of evidence for such a claim.  Joy responded that the evidence had been suppressed:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this - seeking everything science knew about consciousness - superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhh...

*drops needle to floor as tard high washes over him*

That's the stuff!
Posted by: olegt on May 05 2008,15:04

Oh, the Joy of Tard...
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 06 2008,07:31

< oh joy >.

She showed up at 4 this morning on an old post at JanieBelle's place.

Quote (joy @ May 6, 2008 at 3:44 am)
I rebuke the lies spoken Amanda’s life in the divine name of Jesus.

Satan you have no power no authority, you have been beaten by the power of the blood.

I pray the covering of the precious blood of Jesus over the heart and spirit of Amanda, the that truth will once again flourish in her spirit.

Amen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(ETA - copied and pasted, the lovely grammar's in the original)


Posted by: keiths on May 06 2008,08:38

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 06 2008,07:31)
< oh joy >.

She showed up at 4 this morning on an old post at JanieBelle's place.

Quote (joy @ May 6, 2008 at 3:44 am)
I rebuke the lies spoken Amanda’s life in the divine name of Jesus.

Satan you have no power no authority, you have been beaten by the power of the blood.

I pray the covering of the precious blood of Jesus over the heart and spirit of Amanda, the that truth will once again flourish in her spirit.

Amen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(ETA - copied and pasted, the lovely grammar's in the original)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a different Joy.  Telic Thoughts Joy is as batty as the Congress Avenue Bridge, but she's not a Bible thumper.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 06 2008,09:27

Gil defines ID:

< http://telicthoughts.com/defining-intelligent-design/#comment-183990 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Based on what we know from modern science and mathematics, design should be the default position, to be refuted with evidence that chance and necessity can account for it all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




"We don't know" = "ID". Gotcha Gil. Get back to shaking your simulations.

Where does belly button fuzz come from? Design! There must a non corporeal fuzz fairy or summin'.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 06 2008,09:42

Here's the post that makes Brave sir Robin Sal realize he's left the oven on..


< http://telicthoughts.com/defining-intelligent-design/#comment-184545 >
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 06 2008,12:15

Quote (keiths @ May 06 2008,09:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 06 2008,07:31)
< oh joy >.

She showed up at 4 this morning on an old post at JanieBelle's place.

 
Quote (joy @ May 6, 2008 at 3:44 am)
I rebuke the lies spoken Amanda’s life in the divine name of Jesus.

Satan you have no power no authority, you have been beaten by the power of the blood.

I pray the covering of the precious blood of Jesus over the heart and spirit of Amanda, the that truth will once again flourish in her spirit.

Amen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(ETA - copied and pasted, the lovely grammar's in the original)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a different Joy.  Telic Thoughts Joy is as batty as the Congress Avenue Bridge, but she's not a Bible thumper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, thanks.

I was wondering how she might have found her way from whence to thence, as JanieBelle doesn't visit TT (nor do I).

The timing was a misleading coincidence, and it's an entirely different batshit crazy person named Joy.

Lovely, just what we need.

Being completely wrong is becoming a habit with me, I need to remember how to put my brain in gear before my mouth (or fingers, as it were).
Posted by: Zachriel on May 19 2008,07:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo: >: The Apology Thread

don't know if it's appropriate for me to post a thread like this, but my conscience has been bothering me for a while now, and I need to apologize. And since what I did wrong was on this blog, I thought I better make my apology public.

I want to aplogize to Jack T.I lost my temper, and accused you of things that I had no right to accuse you of. There was no excuse for it. If you still read this blog, I offer my sincere apologies for doing so, and I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is Bilbo apologizing for?  He didn't provide a link. I read through the < AtBC log on Frostman's banning >, but didn't see Bilbo mentioned. Or Nelson Alonso.
Posted by: keiths on May 19 2008,08:36

Quote (Zachriel @ May 19 2008,07:35)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo: >: The Apology Thread

don't know if it's appropriate for me to post a thread like this, but my conscience has been bothering me for a while now, and I need to apologize. And since what I did wrong was on this blog, I thought I better make my apology public.

I want to aplogize to Jack T.I lost my temper, and accused you of things that I had no right to accuse you of. There was no excuse for it. If you still read this blog, I offer my sincere apologies for doing so, and I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is Bilbo apologizing for?  He didn't provide a link. I read through the < AtBC log on Frostman's banning >, but didn't see Bilbo mentioned. Or Nelson Alonso.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As far as I can tell, Bilbo is apologizing for this comment:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bilbo Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 7:03 pm | Jack T.,

Where do you see yourself in 10 years? Still asking irrelevant questions at Telicthoughts? Still refusing to read Mike Gene's books? Still demanding positive evidence for ID, but never asking yourself what would constitute positive evidence? In other words, still never really contributing to either side in the debate? Still being a useless, tiresome sot?

Disrespect fully intended.


Comment by Bilbo — April 29, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on May 19 2008,21:34

< This comment by Raevmo > deserves wider circulation:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Raevmo Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Doug,

Don't be so hard on Oleg. "Tard" is a technical term reserved for collections of strongly correlated nonsensical beliefs, such as high-delusion supertarductors and frustrated goddidits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even Joy < had to admit > that was funny.
Posted by: olegt on May 19 2008,21:58

Quote (keiths @ May 19 2008,21:34)
< This comment by Raevmo > deserves wider circulation:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Raevmo Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Doug,

Don't be so hard on Oleg. "Tard" is a technical term reserved for collections of strongly correlated nonsensical beliefs, such as high-delusion supertarductors and frustrated goddidits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even Joy < had to admit > that was funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


keiths,

I believe the concept originated elsewhere.  Here's ERV:


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

< Goden TARD Award >

When it comes to The Arguments Regarding Design, few people can top our dear friend Egnor.

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


Posted by: stevestory on May 19 2008,23:59

Bilbo seems to imply that in 10 years ID will still be just a few guys arguing on the internet.
Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,00:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Being a professor doesn't mean you have to be a nice person, or even very smart about real world things - why, it's rudie-boy professors who RUN this so-called culture war! Perhaps Oleg is trading his starring role in a cage for a walk on part in the war.

Comment by Joy — May 19, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is completely out to lunch. An occasional meanie professor gets a lot of attention, but the fundamental culture war has a history throughout the 20th century. In brief, I'd describe it as a few events. 1) civil rights movements occur all 20th century and cause very uncomfortable changes for whites and men after WW2. 2) Nixon, Buchanan, et al figure out that they can take advantage of the fear and resentment by playing up culture issues like racism in the south and thereby fracture the democratic party. Also, over the course of the century people fled farms and moved to the big city, and there are cultural changes associated with that, and with generally being more educated, and with generally being richer.

I'd say those are the big trends in the culture war. If you think the central trends are too many 20-year-olds robotically parroting their meany biology professor then I think you're about as informed as Kevin James in the green room before Hardball.


Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,00:32

Additionally, I'd say the 'culture war' is basically on the decline. Abortion still gets some heat, but for the most part that group of reactionary voters is aging out. Conservatives and liberals still argue and fight, but then they both go watch Sex and the City, take their contraception, fail to care that their co-worker is black,  their boss is a woman, and that the waiter at lunch was flaming.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 20 2008,06:52

Quote (olegt @ May 19 2008,21:58)
 
Quote (keiths @ May 19 2008,21:34)
< This comment by Raevmo > deserves wider circulation:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Raevmo Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Doug,

Don't be so hard on Oleg. "Tard" is a technical term reserved for collections of strongly correlated nonsensical beliefs, such as high-delusion supertarductors and frustrated goddidits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even Joy < had to admit > that was funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


keiths,

I believe the concept originated elsewhere.  Here's ERV:
   

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

< Goden TARD Award >

When it comes to The Arguments Regarding Design, few people can top our dear friend Egnor.

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


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




Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 06 2007,06:55)


Just because the Bar is closed doesn't mean the < TARD >* has to stop.

* The Argument Regarding Design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on May 20 2008,10:47

Joy has a suggestion.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: Hmmm… maybe Bilbo should re-name this the "Joy of Tard" thread? How about the "Joy is Batshit Insane" thread? Or maybe the "Bradford is Incredibly Stupid, Incredibly Ignorant, and Incredibly Dishonest" thread? The "Guts is a Fascist Lying Bastard" thread?

Or we could just take up the suggestion and rename this blog "Telic Tards" or "Tardic Thoughts."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy gives AtBC a love-tap.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: These guys are a nasty piece of work, and it's not art. There is something positively creepy about a web forum calling itself The Critic's Resource that is nothing but a glorified chat-with-graphics for anti-social outcasts wasting endless days and nights calling people names, bitching about how many times they've been banned from other forums for abuse and general delinquency, and howling in rage whenever one of their chosen sacrificial lambs resists the knife and kicks them in the nuts instead of rolling over.

I personally don't know why we put up with ANY AtBC poser on this forum. It's not like they're capable of being what you might call honest or anything. I haven't seen any Swamp denizens offering apologies for bad behavior in this apology thread. And while I can certainly get as frustrated as anyone with juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats, I do not apologize for having little tolerance for narcissists with Asperger's or spoiled brats who need a spanking a whole lot more than they need 'understanding'.

But then, I do have other things to do with my time, and science has already brushed the mud of these dinosaurs off its collective bio-sneakers. Which is just what I predicted long ago would happen when it became inescapable that their restrictive paradigm was flat wrong. Have a happy life, and don't forget to laugh occasionally - it really is absurd!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".

She really does know the inhabitants of AtBC!
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,10:56

Thank you Joy for letting me reconcile my "anti-social outcasts" status with being a "poser". Your campaign to protect Telic Tards© / Tardic Thoughts© from reality is admirable, but I think we both know the proper solution: 3.4 metric tonnes of tinfoil.

Mike Gene is using the Dembski model of 'sycophants wooed by sciency sounding stuff'. For goodness sakes, Mikes book is just atrotious. 'Here's four things. Arbitrarily give them a number. Combine them with equal weighting for some reason that isn't explained.' Move over Karl Popper, there's a new kid in town.

Editationalismness for spelink.
Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,11:01

Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,11:04

Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,11:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think she's bitter because reality's not what her holy book says it is!
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,11:14

Awesome confusion from Doug!

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192067 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...And why do you think "tard" was selected, Zach.
In grade school we did similar things with Nerd, Jerk and moron. in grade school, Zach.
And why do you think we used those terms to be the head of our acronym?


Comment by Doug — May 20, 2008 @ 12:03 pm

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



Is he saying that NERD is an acronym or is he saying that team jebus picked TARD to describe themselves? Only he knows, and maybe not even!*

*not really a sentence, but I likes it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 20 2008,11:14

Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,09:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think she's mostly referring to Louis.

BTW, Joy sounds just like FTK if the latter had passed her SAT's.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 20 2008,11:18

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,12:14)
Is he saying that NERD is an acronym or is he saying that team jebus picked TARD to describe themselves? Only he knows, and maybe not even!*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, no speculating about the TermDesigner!
Posted by: Zachriel on May 20 2008,11:25

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,11:14)
 
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,09:01)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think she's mostly referring to Louis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't be modest.
Posted by: keiths on May 20 2008,12:12

I had to laugh when I saw this.  With impressive hypocrisy, Bradford explains that it is our character flaws that get us banned from blogs like TT:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That group would pretend it is the brilliance of their arguments or an inability of opponents to cope with them that causes their banning. Truthfully it is the corruption of their character and evidence of it is right there in the forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's odd.  Frostman and I were banned for upholding TT's comment policy:
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 28 2007,01:36)
   
Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16)
With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole).

This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts,

Let me get this straight.  You acknowledge that deleting comments is against TT policy:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then you admit to violating that policy -- and not just temporarily:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The memory hole wasn't working for a while. It's working now, I asked that comments be deleted and saved for manual insertion. I am deleting, however, all the whining as well as my own comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You also acknowledge that the misunderstanding was completely your fault.

So Frostman and I were banned because

1) you created a misunderstanding that was completely your fault;
2) you went on to violate TT's comment policy by deleting comments that you never placed in the Memory Hole;
3) neither you nor Bradford stepped in to defuse the situation by telling us that comments were only being deleted temporarily (which, as it turns out, wouldn't have been true anyway);
4) Frostman and I correctly protested the violation of TT's comment policy; and
5) you and/or Bradford banned both of us, knowing the entire time that the whole situation was a "misunderstanding".

Synopsis:  You and Bradford screwed up, so Frostman and I got banned.

Makes perfect sense to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you really want to talk about character, Bradford?
Posted by: ERV on May 20 2008,12:12

Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,10:47)
Joy has a suggestion.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: Hmmm… maybe Bilbo should re-name this the "Joy of Tard" thread?

Or we could just take up the suggestion and rename this blog "Telic Tards" or "Tardic Thoughts."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy gives AtBC a love-tap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


omg.

I laughed HARD at that!

Unfortunately, I was eating cottage cheese with cayenne pepper at the time... painful to snort...
Posted by: Louis on May 20 2008,12:33

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,17:14)
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,09:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think she's mostly referring to Louis.

BTW, Joy sounds just like FTK if the latter had passed her SAT's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyy I resemble some of those remarks!

Wait a minute!

Louis

P.S. Is she really offering a spanking?

{sound of Mrs Louis entering the room}

What am I doing? Ahahaha, nothing dear.
Posted by: Louis on May 20 2008,12:35

Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,17:25)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,11:14)
 
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,09:01)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,11:47)
"Anti-social outcasts", "banned from other forums", "howling in rage", "Swamp denizens", "juvenile delinquents, wannabe mind-tyrants and biting gnats", "narcissists with Asperger's", "spoiled brats who need a spanking", "dinosaurs".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's just bitter because ID is a failure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think she's mostly referring to Louis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't be modest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks.......I think.

;-)

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,13:41

Quote (ERV @ May 20 2008,12:12)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2008,10:47)
Joy has a suggestion.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: Hmmm… maybe Bilbo should re-name this the "Joy of Tard" thread?

Or we could just take up the suggestion and rename this blog "Telic Tards" or "Tardic Thoughts."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy gives AtBC a love-tap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


omg.

I laughed HARD at that!

Unfortunately, I was eating cottage cheese with cayenne pepper at the time... painful to snort...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should try coffee. Goes down regular comes up through the nose as cappuccino. More of a salty cappuccino, really.

Oh, it was < me. >

Also, Bradford appeals to the authority of... URBAN DICTIONARY.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192068 >


They'll be banning LOLCATS next.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,13:55

Joy, Bless her cotton socks, is upset.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192075 >

Its a big blurt. But here's the bit we'll look at for now:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...AtBC is a place where there are not just 8 pages devoted to calling us names, but 945 pages of the same old same for UD, another 19 pages of posts deleted from UD, 244 pages devoted to slamming a single poster from Kansas and 5 pages of "Top Tard Quotes" that makes no bones about what "Tard" really means. ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine. I think I've found the issue. As we catalogue the views of the cdesign proponentists in The Argument Regarding Design, they say some not very bright things. This is where Joy is getting confused. They were stupid before we copied them. That other 'Tard' you seem to think exists, well if they had it..they did it to themselves.

Oh, Joy, You are like the queen Tard or something.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 20 2008,13:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
# Bradford Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 12:32 pm |

Use of terms like tard indicate a shut-down mentality on the part of those flinging the word about. They may pay lip service to the notion that Telic Thoughts is a reasonable place for discourse but true intent is revealed by the remarks of Raevmo and Zachriel. You can't have reasoned exchanges while having to tolerate the trash talk of swamp denizens.

Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
# Alan Fox Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm |

Mote and beam, Bradford, mote and beam.

Comment by Alan Fox — May 20, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
# Bradford Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm |

Was that meant to be an intelligible response Alan?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA: Further comment would be gilding the lily.


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 20 2008,14:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...AtBC is a place where there are not just 8 pages devoted to calling us names, but 945 pages of the same old same for UD, another 19 pages of posts deleted from UD, 244 pages devoted to slamming a single poster from Kansas and 5 pages of "Top Tard Quotes" that makes no bones about what "Tard" really means. ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This completely ignores all the Lolcats here. :angry:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Emphasis mine. I think I've found the issue. As we catalogue the views of the cdesign proponentists in The Argument Regarding Design, they say some not very bright things. This is where Joy is getting confused. They were stupid before we copied them. That other 'Tard' you seem to think exists, well if they had it..they did it to themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, in much the same way as a tree falling in a forest makes noise no matter what, Tard is still Tard whether or not we're here to catalog it and laugh at Joy?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,14:02

FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!  :)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 20 2008,14:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,12:02)
FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this really matters. Joy's true classic -- the one that posterity will remember her for -- is claiming that she understands what holocaust denial is better than Jews do.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 20 2008,14:49

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,15:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,12:02)
FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this really matters. Joy's true classic -- the one that posterity will remember her for -- is claiming that she understands what holocaust denial is better than Jews do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link please?
Posted by: olegt on May 20 2008,15:02

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 20 2008,14:49)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,15:46)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,12:02)
FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of this really matters. Joy's true classic -- the one that posterity will remember her for -- is claiming that she understands what holocaust denial is better than Jews do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link please?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://telicthoughts.com/on-holocaust-memorial-day/#comment-184986 >

Everybody on that thread (including < mynym >.  mynym!) politely told her that she was off her rocker.  That didn't help much.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,15:49

Gerrin there Alan Fox:

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192087 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alan Fox Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 4:42 pm | # Bradford Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm |

Was that meant to be an intelligible response Alan?

You need me to explain?! Matthew 7:3

You complain about others using the word "tard" in a comment where you say:


You can't have reasoned exchanges while having to tolerate the trash talk of swamp denizens.

And you find my comment unintelligble?

Inconceivable!


Comment by Alan Fox — May 20, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

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



No comic sans for you!
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2008,16:46

Mike Gene on The Argument Regarding Design.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192094 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ll take you at your word, but that would be very surprising. My extensive experience with ID critics has taught me the vast majority do indeed paint with a broad brush. After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Great! now tell us what them Negros do, Mike.

Here's the new scientism TARD test

rate each criteria from 1 to 5, add the scores, then declare TARD anyway.

The bible. Do they bash it? Bash it real good with their sandals on?

Assclownery. Are they? Do they make a proper Bradford of themselves?

Reality averse. Do they abhor facts and research?

Doesn't work in Biology. That's rubbish for understanding Biology. You need an engineer for that.

This will all be in my book which I will be shamelessly touting on my heavily moderated blog.
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 20 2008,17:14

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,14:02)
FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ewwwww. That is just a little graphic, don't you think? I mean, Arden and RO'B are welcome to do whatever they want to each other, but I really don't need the visual imagery.   :angry:
Posted by: keiths on May 20 2008,17:16

Behold a marvel of hypocrisy and rationalization.  Bradford < explains > why name-calling is wrong, except when he does it:
 
Quote (Bradford @ May 20 2008,5:54)

 
Quote (Raevmo @ May 20 2008,5:48)
You are a hypocrite since you routinely engage in name-calling and various ad-homs. Fine by me, but don't deny it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me do some more name calling then. The quote is worth repeating as it is so applicable.

 
Quote (Mike Gene @ May 20 2008, 5:12)
Look, I suppose I can somewhat understand the appeal of ridiculing another as a ‘tard,’ especially when it is part of herd behavior. It’s the type of insult many of us remember from 7th and 8th grade. It appeals to our immature and primitive tribalistic instincts, as the label helps to denigrate the outgroup while at the same time creating a sense of camaraderie and superiority among the herd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note the difference in our name calling. You frequently label others and have used choice words like stupid, dishonest, hypocrite… As Harry Truman once said (paraphrasing) and this applies to you:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you'd stop telling lies about me, I'll stop telling the truth about you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,18:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,14:55)
Joy, Bless her cotton socks, is upset.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192075 >

Its a big blurt. But here's the bit we'll look at for now:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...AtBC is a place where there are not just 8 pages devoted to calling us names, but 945 pages of the same old same for UD, another 19 pages of posts deleted from UD, 244 pages devoted to slamming a single poster from Kansas and 5 pages of "Top Tard Quotes" that makes no bones about what "Tard" really means. ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine. I think I've found the issue. As we catalogue the views of the cdesign proponentists in The Argument Regarding Design, they say some not very bright things. This is where Joy is getting confused. They were stupid before we copied them. That other 'Tard' you seem to think exists, well if they had it..they did it to themselves.

Oh, Joy, You are like the queen Tard or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's one thing that can shut us up: them getting results.

Real scientific revolutions solve problems. They figure new things out. They force the scientific community to jump on the bandwagon or get left behind. They do hard work and they get results. < ID doesn't get results. > IDers just sit around babbling to each other. Real scientific revolutions don't consist of the internet babblings of nitwits like Bradford and Salvador, or propaganda movies, they consist of a few beleaguered scientists overcoming the objections of their peers by getting shit done.

As long as ID continues to be a clown show, as long as it continues to be a collection of ridiculous people promoting stupid misunderstandings of science, and not actually doing any new science with an ID hypothesis, we will continue to make fun of it.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 20 2008,20:10

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2008,16:46)
Mike Gene on The Argument Regarding Design.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192094 >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ll take you at your word, but that would be very surprising. My extensive experience with ID critics has taught me the vast majority do indeed paint with a broad brush. After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


But ID is nonsense. There's no there there. How are we supposed to be apologetic for understanding reality?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 20 2008,20:17

Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,16:37)
They do hard work and they get results. ID doesn't get results. IDers just sit around babbling to each other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How unfair! That's not all they do. Robert Marks, for example, stays up late on campus making little cartoons in Photoshop.
Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,22:40

Mike Gene really needs to ponder why scientists think ID is unproductive nonsense. There's a real easy insight he should be having about that. Until he does, I'm afraid people are indeed going to assume those things about him.
Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,22:44

Maybe Mike could go to a university library and create two stacks. One stack would be all the publications in evolutionary journals so far this calendar year. The other stack could be all the publications in the ID journal so far this calendar year, which is to say, a blank spot on the desk. Then maybe he could stare, back and forth, for a few hours if need be, and see if anything springs to mind...
Posted by: stevestory on May 20 2008,22:50

Let's help Mike out. Show him we're nice folks.

evolution:



intelligent design:



evolution:



intelligent design:



evolution:



intelligent design:



evolution:



intelligent design:



evolution:



intelligent design:



evolution:



intelligent design:




come on Mike...you can do it!
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 21 2008,08:49

*ahem*

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-apology-thread/#comment-192068 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm | Here are some definitions of tard from the urban dictionary.

1. tard: Adjective used to describe one so retarded, they do not deserve the 're'

2. tard: Any person who is not developmentally disabled, but rather has what is considered normal cognitive faculties but for whatever reason has opted out of using it. Whereas mental retardation is genetic in nature, this form of behavior is environmental usually resulting in too much daytime television, Brittany Spears piped in pop music, and other environmental factors.

My own view is that its useage constitutes a bannable offense. Let those so inclined use it in the swamps.


Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2008 @ 12:24 pm

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



Urban Dictionary:

< http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.....3099020 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1.  TARD      

Tard is an acronym for "The Argument Regarding Design" which concerns the Neo-Palean endeavour of finding God in things, only you're not allowed to call him God anymore.

'Telic Thoughts' is a great website for TARD

Bradford and Joy lead the field of TARD

design god interwebs bradford lolcats
by William Dembski May 20, 2008 email it  


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



Now that this is settled to every-one's satisfaction, comments are closed.
Posted by: dogdidit on May 21 2008,08:56

"Neo-Palean" - that's gold right there. But I'm new at this; has "Paley-ontology" been taken?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 21 2008,12:55

Can someone poke the 'apology' thread there please, I feel there is more TARD to mine. bonus points if you can get another nugget from Joy.
Posted by: JackT on May 22 2008,00:19

Um.  Yeah.  I am banned.

I only know about this forum via the link on the "Apology Thread" thread in question on Telic Thoughts.  In fact I just joined here a few minutes ago.

"anon9" is most certainly not my sock puppet.  He seems to be merely a rabble-rouser having some fun: that thread has 119 posts and counting.

I must say I am surprised.  Anyone with access to the server logs would immediately be able to confirm that "anon9" is not a sock puppet (of me, anyway).  But it would appear that everyone assumed it, whereupon it became true.  Who would have thought that ID proponents would believe in something without evidence?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 22 2008,00:23

Quote (JackT @ May 22 2008,00:19)
Um.  Yeah.  I am banned.

I only know about this forum via the link on the "Apology Thread" thread in question on Telic Thoughts.  In fact I just joined here a few minutes ago.

"anon9" is most certainly not my sock puppet.  He seems to be merely a rabble-rouser having some fun: that thread has 119 posts and counting.

I must say I am surprised.  Anyone with access to the server logs would immediately be able to confirm that "anon9" is not a sock puppet (of me, anyway).  But it would appear that everyone assumed it, whereupon it became true.  Who would have thought that ID proponents would believe in something without evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome JackT!
Posted by: olegt on May 22 2008,07:31

Hi JackT and welcome to the club.  After much posturing, Mike Gene < did answer > your questions.  His response boils down to this:
 

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

Q.: [Do you see yourself in 10 years] jiggling scientific articles until they vibrate to the tune of intelligent design?

A.: Probably, since the stack continues to grow. What’s so fascinating (to me, at least) is that all it takes is some gentle jiggling and the rabbit pokes his head out. This is because so much of molecular, cell, and evolutionary biology has become quite friendly (unintentionally so) to a teleological perspective and I expect this trend to continue. So why wouldn’t I maintain such an interest?

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


This is best left without comment.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 22 2008,08:27



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

After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.

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



I know quite a few IDC advocates who would fit into a "sincere but deluded" category, and I at least recognize the cognitive sway of confirmation bias.

That's probably not enough to get Mike Gene to stop yelling "Stereotyping!", though.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 22 2008,09:42

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 22 2008,06:27)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know quite a few IDC advocates who would fit into a "sincere but deluded" category, and I at least recognize the cognitive sway of confirmation bias.

That's probably not enough to get Mike Gene to stop yelling "Stereotyping!", though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mike's mistake is in thinking that stereotypes are by definition false.
Posted by: olegt on May 22 2008,10:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2008,12:55)
Can someone poke the 'apology' thread there please, I feel there is more TARD to mine. bonus points if you can get another nugget from Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here she is, in < Bunny and a Book >:


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

And this is no doubt what makes the "RM/NS" shorthand so popular among both IDers and DDs. The DDs like it (and teach it to everybody's children as the most instruction in biological evolution a huge majority of them ever receive) because it's catchy like a propaganda slogan, it's easy to impart, and it artificially supports their preference for selection as life's designer. IDers like it because it's so easily revealed to BE simplistic, dumbed-down pablum that looks a lot like ideological sloganeering, which leaves wide open the actual source and nature of biological evolution.

The deal is, it is known that biological evolution doesn't work exclusively or even primarily by RM/NS. It's not a good - or even adequate - description of what's going on. Obviously the pablum doesn't sell well to the public (or their children), since upwards of 60% don't believe it even after taking the requisite indoctrination and passing the test. The DD answer to that situation?

"Waaaaaa! You don't know enough to make that judgment!"

Which is darned lame. Of course they know enough to judge RM/NS insufficient for explanation - they were taught it on purpose, supposedly so they'd have enough knowledge to judge. When they DO judge, the truth comes out clearly - they were taught simplistic pablum that science knows very well to be insufficient! Tell me, aiguy… whose fault is that?

I'm just reading, don't care to enter into the arguments here. I simply note that you're pushing the pablum as if we're all 15-year old hormone-addled school children, when reality is that we are well beyond the RM/NS scam and have been for a long time. It's just a little bit insulting when you resort to this smokescreen when objects to your definitional distractions, that's all.

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


Zachriel provides a quick < smackdown by reductio ad absurdum >:


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

The deal is, it is known that planets don't orbit exclusively or even primarily by tracing ellipses. It's not a good - or even adequate - description of what's going on.

Turns out that elliptical orbits are a oversimplification of chaotic planetary dynamics. Why do they lie to children!?

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


Posted by: Richardthughes on May 22 2008,10:46

What is DD? Not her bra size... I'm guessing Divine Design?
Posted by: olegt on May 22 2008,10:53

I might add that Zachriel is taking it a bit too far, though I agree with the gist of his argument.  

In freshman physics we solve problems about planets moving in (gasp!) circular orbits.  We teach < Amontons' laws of friction > even though duct tapes and post-it notes violate both the 1st and 2nd of those.  There are no material points and ideal gases in Nature, etc. etc.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on May 22 2008,10:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2008,08:46)
What is DD? Not her bra size... I'm guessing Divine Design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Doctors of Divinity"?
Posted by: olegt on May 22 2008,10:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2008,10:46)
What is DD? Not her bra size... I'm guessing Divine Design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Darwin defenders >, I suppose.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 22 2008,11:26

Quote (olegt @ May 22 2008,10:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2008,10:46)
What is DD? Not her bra size... I'm guessing Divine Design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Darwin defenders >, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that's a Strawman, and denies all the things that came after Darwin (genetics, etc)
Posted by: Zachriel on May 23 2008,08:18

Quote (olegt @ May 22 2008,10:53)
I might add that Zachriel is taking it a bit too far, though I agree with the gist of his argument.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever watched the pirouette of the Earth and Moon as they orbit the Sun? In the Platonic Realm, an ellipse is an ellipse. The Moon's orbit around the sun is not much of an ellipse, but more of dodecagon with rounded corners (and even then, the orbits don't line up).

< >

If the Moon were pulled over and told to walk an ellipse, poor Luna would fail the sobriety test—again. (And let's not even bring up navigating the Asteroid Belt.)
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 23 2008,08:47

Quote (Zachriel @ May 23 2008,03:18)
 
Quote (olegt @ May 22 2008,10:53)
I might add that Zachriel is taking it a bit too far, though I agree with the gist of his argument.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you ever watched the pirouette of the Earth and Moon as they orbit the Sun? In the Platonic Realm, an ellipse is an ellipse. The Moon's orbit around the sun is not much of an ellipse, but more of dodecagon with rounded corners (and even then, the orbits don't line up).

< >

If the Moon were pulled over and told to walk an ellipse, poor Luna would fail the sobriety test—again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, obviously!
Posted by: stevestory on May 25 2008,16:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligence: A Useful Concept
Posted in Random Stuff on May 24th, 2008 by Bradford

Despite assertions to the contrary scientists, social scientists, educators and professionals in many fields have found the term intelligence to be both a useful concept and one that can be used in conjuction with explanations related to research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://telicthoughts.com/intelligence-a-useful-concept/ >

That Bradford is as dumb as a bag of rocks.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 27 2008,09:23

More Telic Tards:

< http://telicthoughts.com/naive-realism-redux/#comments >

Keep up the good work OlegT & Zach.
Posted by: JackT on June 01 2008,16:32

I emailed Guts (his address was listed at Telic Thoughts) asking him to check the server logs to verify that I have no sock puppets.  I do not know if he is the site administrator, but based on posts here it looks like he has some sort of admin priviledges.  His response,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Shut up frostman, you're pathetic lol. thanks for the ongoing entertainment this past year, it's been a hoot!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

My follow-up,

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At antievolution.org I took the criticism against Telic Thoughts with a grain of salt.  But now I see the irrational and unscrupulous behavior first-hand.  It would be easy to dismiss one data point, but with two it becomes harder to dismiss.  Ultimately I feel sorry for you, as you cannot seem to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate conduct.  You act rather young; I lament for this current generation of unscrupulous kids.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I wrote to Mike Gene's "idthink" email address with the same request but I did not receive a response.

Since I was banned before I had a chance to post on that thread ("The Apology Thread"), I left a response to Bilbo at his blog.  In that I said, in part: I am tempted to wax philosophical about how ID proponents are inclined to believe in propositions without evidence. It is enough, however, to merely state the facts: (1) "anon9" is not my sock puppet; (2) several members of Telic Thoughts assumed he/she is a sock puppet, without evidence; (3) I was banned on this assumption; (4) It would be trivial to clear my name by checking to server logs to confirm that anon9 is not my sock puppet; (5) This check was requested and (very immaturely) refused.
Posted by: JackT on June 01 2008,17:32

And may I add: is it not ironic that Mike Gene is himself a sock puppet?  It is no secret that for years the person who currently calls himself Mike Gene posted at talk.origins under the name Julie Thomas using the nntp feed at Case Western Reserve University.  And Michael Thomas (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or122/thomas.htm) is probably the same person as well.
Posted by: olegt on June 05 2008,09:39

Quote (JackT @ June 01 2008,17:32)
And may I add: is it not ironic that Mike Gene is himself a sock puppet?  It is no secret that for years the person who currently calls himself Mike Gene posted at talk.origins under the name Julie Thomas using the nntp feed at Case Western Reserve University.  And Michael Thomas (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or122/thomas.htm) is probably the same person as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JackT,

MikeGene < responded >.
Posted by: olegt on June 05 2008,09:42

< Zachriel > on the purported analogy between The Design Matrix and a police investigation:


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

I have no objection to shoe-leather. Indeed, I strongly support such an approach. The problem is that the putative spokespersons for the ID Movement claim to have strong evidence of the perpetrator, can't name the suspect, and their theories are rejected as vacuous or simply false by the courts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch!  Zachriel, you mean bully.
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 05 2008,11:19

Same old same old. Unspecified actions done by an unspecified agency having unspecified capabilities and limitations, done at unspecified times and places for unspecified reasons using unspecified methods, leaving no evidence.

Poof.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 05 2008,13:14

DougTard:

< http://telicthoughts.com/another-version-of-csi/#comment-193475 >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doug Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 2:02 pm | I got one, olegt.
How about intelligent professors being so embattled in their position they would call someone a 'tard'?


Comment by Doug — June 5, 2008 @ 2:02 pm

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


Posted by: Zachriel on June 05 2008,13:24

Quote (olegt @ June 05 2008,09:42)
< Zachriel > on the purported analogy between The Design Matrix and a police investigation:


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

I have no objection to shoe-leather. Indeed, I strongly support such an approach. The problem is that the putative spokespersons for the ID Movement claim to have strong evidence of the perpetrator, can't name the suspect, and their theories are rejected as vacuous or simply false by the courts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch!  Zachriel, you mean bully.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't try to be so, but from < chunkdz >'s responses, I think I did draw blood.
Posted by: keiths on June 06 2008,06:52

Meanwhile, aiguy absolutely pwns Salvador and nullasalus < in this thread >.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 06 2008,08:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: That's Dembski's opinion. Who cares other than a handful of people absorbed in discussions of intelligent design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh. Good one.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 06 2008,08:29

Quote (keiths @ June 06 2008,06:52)
Meanwhile, aiguy absolutely pwns Salvador and nullasalus < in this thread >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Totally. Enjoyable reading.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 06 2008,09:08

Funny Stuff. AngryOldFatman, it that's your area of 'expertise', you might want to get into something different..


Then Sal bangs on about genetic entropy again.. *sigh*


Sal, that dog don't hunt no more...
< http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1117048.aspx >
Posted by: keiths on June 06 2008,09:32

Quote (Zachriel @ June 06 2008,08:24)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: That's Dembski's opinion. Who cares other than a handful of people absorbed in discussions of intelligent design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh. Good one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How odd.  Bradford usually falls all over himself to defend Dembski.

Some time ago Bradford < wrote >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Much criticism of Dembski is of the demonization variety. He is a symbol of a hated concept.

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


In response, I < pointed out > that Dembski had done a good job of demonizing himself, listing:

1. The "street theater" incident involving Jeff Shallit's deposition.
2. The Judge Jones fart animation fiasco.
3. Dembski's accusations of racism against Kevin Padian.
4. Dembski's reporting of Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security.
5. His claim that Richard Dawkins had only a handful of scientific publications and citations.
6. And perhaps my favorite, his posting of an anonymous review on Amazon's website which badmouthed Mark Perakh's book and plugged his own.

Bradford's reply?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, most of the Dembski sins are in the foible category in my view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on June 06 2008,10:15

You forgot:

Getting upset that Dawkins is a successful author ("cashing in on ID")
Getting upset that Dawkins hadn't posted his ironic birthday message (when he had)
The many, many 404 Notpologies.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 06 2008,10:26

Quote (keiths @ June 06 2008,06:52)
Meanwhile, aiguy absolutely pwns Salvador and nullasalus < in this thread >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From that thread:



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

So yes, I think it's clear that this argument holds up perfectly well:

1) Computers operate according to deterministic law (or law + chance)
2) Computers are bona-fide intelligent agents
3) Therefore ID can draw no distinction between law+chance and intelligent agency (aka "guided" vs. "unguided" processes)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Also:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, you really are mistaken completely. I am regularly suprised (and usually disappointed) by what my programs do.


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



The computer program has  sinned!  :O
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 06 2008,15:00

Can we get some 'Chinese room' in there also? I'd register, but I'm probably prebanned by JoyTard.
Posted by: keiths on June 06 2008,16:13

Bradford is getting pounded in that thread.  Of course 90% of the damage is self-inflicted, Bradford being Bradford.
Posted by: keiths on June 06 2008,20:46

WTF?

This is the first time I've seen Salvador < claim to have worked > at the EIL:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The work Robert Marks, I, and others were doing at the EIL was to show that genetic algorithms, expert systems, and other evolutionary computation must reasonably regress to something not describable to by simple stochastic processes or regularity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on June 06 2008,21:37

My comment at TT:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  steve Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 10:31 pm | Edit This

I wish Sal was telling the truth and he actually worked at EIL. ID could use more labwork and less internet philosophizing.

Comment by steve — June 6, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We'll see if it stays.
Posted by: keiths on June 06 2008,21:45

The evolution of a lie:
Quote (Salvador @ Sept 01 2007)
I have been accepted into a graduate program at Johns Hopkins University. I attempted to apply both at Hopkins and at Baylor. I was attempting to work with Dr. Robert Marks at the evolutionary informatics lab. I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.

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


Quote (Salvador @ Oct 31 2007)
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Salvador @ June 06 2008)
The work Robert Marks, I, and others were doing at the EIL was to show that genetic algorithms, expert systems, and other evolutionary computation must reasonably regress to something not describable to by simple stochastic processes or regularity.

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


< link >
< link >
< link >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 06 2008,22:03

Quote (keiths @ June 06 2008,07:32)
1. The "street theater" incident involving Jeff Shallit's deposition.
2. The Judge Jones fart animation fiasco.
3. Dembski's accusations of racism against Kevin Padian.
4. Dembski's reporting of Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security.
5. His claim that Richard Dawkins had only a handful of scientific publications and citations.
6. And perhaps my favorite, his posting of an anonymous review on Amazon's website which badmouthed Mark Perakh's book and plugged his own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget him publicly posting the home addresses and phone numbers of the Baylor regents, so that the UDers could harass them into reinstituting the ID 'lab'.
Posted by: stevestory on June 06 2008,22:19

It appears I've been put in the moderation queue at TT. I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity.

my moderated comment is preserved here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
mikegene said:


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

Just as I have maintained for so long that ID is not science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

#

Mike, please take the following comments in the benevolent way I intend them:

"ID" in the parlance of our time means something different than how you're using it. Generally speaking when someone says Intelligent Design, they use it to mean

1) a valid scientific theory
2) comprised of IC and CSI
3) that disproves the theory of evolution
4) has nothing to do with religion
5) belongs in science classes
6) but is suppressed by a conspiracy of atheist scientists

to broadly outline it. If your argument is significantly different than that, it just confuses the issue to also call it "Intelligent Design".

What I'm saying might not be clear. So for example, let's say you were a tree-hugging communitarian type who really felt a lot of love for his country. And you said, hmm, I'm going to call myself a National Socialist, or Nazi for short. While your beliefs might literally fit that kind of usage, you're giving yourself a label which really carries a lot of baggage and means a lot of things you don't mean. So that makes it a bad label, and you need to get a different one.

Comment by steve — June 6, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on June 06 2008,22:23

The creationists need to grow a pair.

(By which I mean a pair of ovaries, like ERV. That girl's a wolverine.



RUN! RUN!

)
Posted by: stevestory on June 07 2008,00:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 12:09 am |  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   steve wrote:

   I wish Sal was telling the truth and he actually worked at EIL. ID could use more labwork and less internet philosophizing.

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

I did a little volunteer work for EIL since I was interested in the topic….a lot of ID work is not paid for, if you haven't noticed….

My small amounts of volunteer work (particularly in connection with Avida) was partly the reason I was offered a tuition and stipend, not to mention I got a good reference from Bill Dembski.

If you're accusing me of lying steve, you're welcome to say you're opinion….but it's just that, an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 12:12 am |  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   olegt asked:

   Sal, when did you work at EIL? I thought you went to Hopkins instead?

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

I did volunteer work via e-mail and phone from 2006-2007 sporadically. I don't know that it was formally known as EIL until whenever, but the nature of the work was the same — analyze Avida.

My small amounts of volunteer work (particularly in connection with Avida) was partly the reason I was offered a tuition and stipend, not to mention I got a good reference from Bill Dembski.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



my reply:


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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you're accusing me of lying steve, you're welcome to say you're [sic] opinion….but it's just that, an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal, you said in October 2007 that you had been offered a position, but that the lab was cancelled and you declined the position.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I did volunteer work via e-mail and phone from 2006-2007 sporadically. I don't know that it was formally known as EIL until whenever, but the nature of the work was the same — analyze Avida.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've emailed and talked on the phone with Wesley Elsberry about AVIDA, but I don't tell people I worked at the Devolab at MSU, because that would be dishonest. You need to not exaggerate your accomplishments if you want to retain credibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on June 07 2008,00:11

LOL



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  Salvador T. Cordova Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 1:01 am |

steve,

Your swipes at me are off-topic, and you can post your complaints about me in the lastest rabbit thread.

What you're doing is derailing the discussion….

Sal

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 7, 2008 @ 1:01 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know wtf the rabbit thread is, but it sounds like bannination.
Posted by: stevestory on June 07 2008,00:16

that's so great. 'Pointing out my lies derails the discussion! Das ist verboten!!!!!!!!!11111111'

UD and TT: tards of a feather.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 07 2008,06:27

MikeGene blogs,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< MikeGene >: The analogy between The Design Matrix and a police investigation is useful in many ways.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


MikeGene demonstrates his powers of suspiciosity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< MikeGene >: At this point, we ask a question. Did Zachriel try to derail the thread on purpose or was it an accident?
...
Yes, it's a function of evidence, and the evidence indicates you tried to derail the thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, MikeGene. Your powers of suspiciosity are faulty. From < shoe-leather > to < Sherlock Holmes >, I made every attempt to contribute to the analogy.

< >
Posted by: JackT on June 07 2008,17:38

Mike,

Wow.  You are either being willfully blind to counter-evidence or you are being outright dishonest.  You failed to mention that most of my posts were *not* made from an anonymous proxy.

I do use a proxy when I post from work.  I would advise everyone to use a proxy when posting from work.  Given the ideologically charged nature of the subject, it is not unlikely that a deranged kook could launch a DoS (or some other) attack on the originating IP address.  This does not matter so much for an anonymous residential ISP, where one can either ask the ISP to block the attacks or obtain a new IP by resetting the cable modem.  But for a work IP address the problem is huge, causing loss of business while threatening one's job security in the process.  If it is not commonplace for people to use a proxy from work, then it should be.

Now if I had *always* used an anonymous proxy then the situation would be completely different.  There would be no anchor point at all, no unique signature.  But you do have a unique signature: the Comcast Cable IP address used for the vast majority of my posts, which is obviously not a proxy.  By omitting this fact you have willingly made a fraudulent argument.  How many of my posts used a proxy?  One?  Two?  Shame on you.

So that explains the proxy.  No case there.  Next:

   

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

1. If we go back to the thread where you ask your multiple questions, many of us immediately recognized the disrespectful nature of that posting. You tried to spin it differently by portraying the questions as follows: "The questions certainly are direct, and they constitute a challenge." A couple of weeks later, anon9 is the only one to repeat this very spin: "His last posts were challenging Mike directly."

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



As I said previously in email, my questions were no more strident than what a British journalist would ask a British politician.  And as olegt said, it seems that it wasn't just my tone that offended you.  My tone is a different matter, however, which may be set aside for the moment.

Wait!  I just mentioned olegt, and I used almost the same phrase as he did: "it seems that it wasn't just my tone that offended you."  Does this mean I am a sock puppet of olegt?  No, I referenced olegt by name and attributed the quote to him.  In the same manner, anon9 referenced my post directly and repeated the same phrasing.  That you we see this as suspicious is odd to say the least.

   

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

2. Bilbo makes an understandable mistake in his OP – he refers to JackT as Jack T. I myself made this mistake in my early replies to you, as it comes from not paying close attention to a new person's screen name. anon9 neither makes the same mistake nor follows Bilbo's lead from the OP. He gets this trivial detail right – it's JackT from the start.

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



In anon9's post, he or she made reference to a weeks-old post.  If you do not assume what you are trying to prove, namely that anon9 is me, then the conclusion is that anon9 is a lurker.  He's talking about a post in the past!  He was lurking and he knows about JackT.  The vast majority of posters have *not* made the "Jack T"-instead-of-"JackT" mistake.  This puts anon9 into that vast majority.  Again I am quite amazed that you would view something like this as "evidence."

   

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

3. Mostly importantly, anon9 knows JackT’s very last posting: “His very last one embarrassed Joy (though deservedly so).” How many lurkers could accurately cite the very last posting of another TT member that was a couple of weeks old, especially a member who is new and hasn’t posted much? At the time, JackT wasn’t banned and no one had reason to think he was banned (anon9 is the first and only one to make that accusation). It gets even better. JackT’s questioning of Joy is buried in a thread with close to 200 comments and no one else seemed to notice that brief line of off-topic questioning (at least no one commented on it or followed it up). I noticed it only because I was looking for JackT while I was waiting for JackT to reply to my questions and answers. And then there is the fact that Joy shows no evidence of being embarrassed, but one might imagine the giggling JackT thought he had embarrassed Joy (JackT: “No results found in the standard legal databases. *giggle*”). Again, anon9 seems to be the only one who agrees.

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



Again, if you do not already assume what you are trying to prove, then the conclusion is that anon9 is a lurker.  And again I am in near disbelief that I have to point the following out to you.  The thread was about JackT.  It was an apology to JackT from Bilbo.  But Bilbo does not link to or reference what he is apologizing for.  Before the days of google, you *may* have had a point.  But since we do not live in the early 90s, and since anon9 is probably motivated to find the wrongdoing on behalf of Bilbo, he conducts the simple search:

< http://www.google.com/search?....+Search >

And with that he sees the complete history of JackT at Telic Thoughts.  Whether I made a post in a thread with 200 comments, 20000 comments, or 20 comments is immaterial.  My comments are all in plain view.  As you mentioned, there aren't many of them.

Joy made an extraordinary claim: that she witnessed "the only legally established miracle in American jurisprudence."  Just pause for a moment consider how significant this would be.  If there were such a "legally established miracle," it would be made famous by apologists and trumpeted ad infinitum.

When asked for a way to verify her claim, Joy did not answer.  A skeptical person would conclude that in all likelihood Joy is mistaken.  Thus your argument here boils down to: "JackT and anon9 are both skeptical, ergo they are the same person."

And Mike, I *hope* you did not mean to imply that anon9 made his post *after* I was banned.  That would indeed be suspicious.  But in fact I anon9 posted *before* I was banned.  Big difference.

   

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

Okay, we’re supposed to believe you stumbled upon this blog and were simply perplexed, wondering "What the heck is going on here?" But go back to one of your disrespectful questions: “Will you still be wagging your finger at Dawkins and PZ Myers?” Do you notice the problem?

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



I need only quote the first sentence of the first post I made at Telic Thoughts, < http://telicthoughts.com/the-rabbits-eye-view-of-the-duck >



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

Hello Mike,

I've skimmed through the archives here in order to get some bearing on your point of view, but frankly I haven't been able to get a clear picture.

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



Most or many of my posts at Telic Thoughts were focused on trying to understand your position, up to and including the last questions I asked you.  As you see above, I said at the very beginning that I was reading the archives.

And again you are operating under early-90s assumptions.  Google is your friend.  A key ingredient in assessing a person's point of view of ID is his attitude toward religion.  If you google "site:telicthoughts.com MikeGene religion", Myers is the third hit and Dawkins is the tenth.  Both are on the first page.  Since I read Dawkins and Myers, my curiousity was piqued.  You may choose not to believe me, but you cannot claim that your argument has merit, especially when I told you explicitly that I was rummaging through the history of Telic Thoughts.

The rest of your response consists of the proxy red herring, which I have already covered.

JackT
Posted by: keiths on June 07 2008,18:07

Joy < wrote >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks for cool subject matter, sorry I've been so busy. Carry on, I hope you all settle the matter. But I doubt that it'll be settled between critics in a manner satisfactory to me. That's okay, since if everybody agreed with me I'd think something was very, very wrong with the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If everybody agreed with Joy, I'd commit suicide.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 07 2008,18:18



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

Again I am quite amazed that you would view something like this as "evidence."

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



I'm not. Of course, I've been reading "Julie Thomas/Mike Gene" stuff since the early 90s. There's no bar too low for confirmatory "evidence" there.

Edit: The other way works, too, in that "Mike Gene"-land there is no bar too high for disconfirmatory evidence.


Posted by: keiths on June 10 2008,21:32

For the amusement of those who know Thought Provoker and Joy:

(Warning -- not suitable for those who have recently eaten)

Quote (Thought Provoker @ June 10 2008, 8:46 pm)

Hi Joy,

Thank you.

I am honored to know you too.

There aren't many people who can surprise and challenge me with their insight.

You have done that and more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on June 10 2008,21:39

Quote (keiths @ June 10 2008,22:32)
For the amusement of those who know Thought Provoker and Joy:

(Warning -- not suitable for those who have recently eaten)

 
Quote (Thought Provoker @ June 10 2008, 8:46 pm)

Hi Joy,

Thank you.

I am honored to know you too.

There aren't many people who can surprise and challenge me with their insight.

You have done that and more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Didn't Thought Provoker troll here for a bit before tucking his tail?

Seems like there was a real spanking involved...

ETA: or am I thinking of someone else?


Posted by: keiths on June 10 2008,22:18

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 10 2008,21:39)
 
Quote (keiths @ June 10 2008,22:32)
For the amusement of those who know Thought Provoker and Joy:

(Warning -- not suitable for those who have recently eaten)

   
Quote (Thought Provoker @ June 10 2008, 8:46 pm)

Hi Joy,

Thank you.

I am honored to know you too.

There aren't many people who can surprise and challenge me with their insight.

You have done that and more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Didn't Thought Provoker troll here for a bit before tucking his tail?

Seems like there was a real spanking involved...

ETA: or am I thinking of someone else?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, TP is the one who came over here and tried to lecture several of us on physics, before deciding he was safer in a woo-friendly environment like Telic Thoughts.
Posted by: Henry J on June 10 2008,22:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Didn't Thought Provoker troll here for a bit before tucking his tail?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remember "The Traveling Twin Takes a Short Cut", from late January and early February this year?

Henry
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 10 2008,23:39

Thanks, I'm glad I'm not senile, and that...

...what was I saying?
Posted by: olegt on June 11 2008,07:32

Quote (Henry J @ June 10 2008,22:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Didn't Thought Provoker troll here for a bit before tucking his tail?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remember "The Traveling Twin Takes a Short Cut", from late January and early February this year?

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


Some of us also followed TP to < Telic Thoughts >.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 11 2008,10:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: I see [sic] Rubin you've not even attempted to create a set of differential equations which will inevitably lead to a self replicating computer.

No I refutued that even your mischaracterization didn't hold water, [sic] Robbin.

By the way, [[sic] sick] Rubin, for the readers benefit ...

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


Robin had properly used the term sic (thus) to indicate that a misspelling was not a transcription error, but found in the original comment. Salvador T. Cordova turns it into self-parody.
Posted by: k.e.. on June 11 2008,11:02

Quote (Zachriel @ June 11 2008,18:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: II see [sic] Rubin you've not even attempted to create a set of differential equations which will inevitably lead to a self replicating computer.

No I refutued that even your mischaracterization didn't hold water, [sic] Robbin.

By the way, [[sic] sick] Rubin, for the readers benefit ...

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


Robin had properly used the term sic (thus) to indicate that a misspelling was not a transcription error, but found in the original comment. Salvador T. Cordova turns it into self-parody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then he will get this joke on misused latin "SEEK TRAINSEAT GLORIA MONDAY"
Posted by: stevestory on June 15 2008,18:45

< Salvador, Telic Thoughts, and Walt Brown >

The tard density threatens to tear a hole in the Space Time Continuum.
Posted by: olegt on June 15 2008,18:52

Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2008,18:45)
< Salvador, Telic Thoughts, and Walt Brown >

The tard density threatens to tear a hole in the Space Time Continuum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That thread is pretty long.  Here is a direct link to < Sal's comment on Brown >.

ETA: Walt's name was brought up by < Thought Provoker > who offered this delightful euphemism:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi Mike,

I think, therefore I am.

I can only presume that other people think at all, much less what they think unless they present it.

I find it difficult to trust people who do not honestly and openly present what they think and defend it.

I offer Walt Brown as a religiously oriented thinker willing to honestly present and defend his hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I must say that I actually enjoy TP's company there.  He's a good sport.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 15 2008,22:04

Quote (olegt @ June 15 2008,18:52)
Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2008,18:45)
< Salvador, Telic Thoughts, and Walt Brown >

The tard density threatens to tear a hole in the Space Time Continuum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That thread is pretty long.  Here is a direct link to < Sal's comment on Brown >.

ETA: Walt's name was brought up by < Thought Provoker > who offered this delightful euphemism:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi Mike,

I think, therefore I am.

I can only presume that other people think at all, much less what they think unless they present it.

I find it difficult to trust people who do not honestly and openly present what they think and defend it.

I offer Walt Brown as a religiously oriented thinker willing to honestly present and defend his hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I must say that I actually enjoy TP's company there.  He's a good sport.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP has quantum on the brain, so to speak.  :D
Posted by: stevestory on June 16 2008,02:35

I've been reading Telic Thoughts lately. I don't know much about the site, but reading the comments today I got the feeling that it's like an intervention, and a lot of the commenters are sympathetic and trying to talk "Mike Gene" out of saying such stupid things. Anybody else get that feeling.
Posted by: olegt on June 16 2008,06:26

The thread < Evidence and Truth > is a gem.  The opening post ends in the following way:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right there, in that scene, we see the difference between evidence and truth.  Relying solely on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on June 16 2008,06:42

Quote (olegt @ June 16 2008,06:26)
The thread < Evidence and Truth > is a gem.  The opening post ends in the following way:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right there, in that scene, we see the difference between evidence and truth.  Relying solely on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Your first comment is a concise summation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: Evidence, Shmevidence…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: olegt on June 16 2008,07:33

The Pixie, puzzled by Mike's opening post, < asks >:


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

What else are you suggesting we use, Mike?

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


Have at it, boys.  

My entry: Use the Force, Luke.
Posted by: keiths on June 16 2008,21:28

Have you ever wondered what life would be like under a theocracy?

Watch what happens when a commenter named 'robin' confronts the Telic Tards with these two Bible verses:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
(Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
(Exodus 21:20-21, NIV)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Priceless.

< Link >
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 16 2008,21:41

Quality thread. BUT IT MUST BE MORAL, IT COMES FROM GOD...
Posted by: stevestory on June 21 2008,17:20

Here's an interesting bit I saw recently at TT:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  robin Says:
June 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pm |

Since this is a 'Speak Your Mind' thread, I'd like to mention something that has been bothering me for a long time.

Salvador Cordova has earned a reputation among those involved in the ID/creationism/evolution debate for blatant and chronic quote-mining, deceitful ad hominems, questionable debate tactics, and general dishonesty. The evidence shows that this reputation is deserved (I'm happy to provide examples if requested, but I think they might be unnecessary given how notorious Sal's behavior has become).

What bothers me is the lack of public condemnation of this behavior from Sal's fellow ID supporters.

I'm not saying that every ID supporter should police every statement made by fellow supporters. We are not our brothers' keepers, after all. I'm also not saying that ID supporters at Telic Thoughts should go out of their way to monitor statements made on other blogs. That would be an unreasonable expectation. But Sal has behaved this way on this very blog, and certainly many of his offensive actions elsewhere have been noted here by critics. It seems odd that he has been criticized so rarely, if at all, by ID supporters here. (If you think I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to consider evidence to the contrary).

Though I may disagree with ID supporters on many issues, I do believe that almost all of you take morality seriously, and that your moral codes do not sanction the kind of behavior Sal consistently indulges in.

His dishonesty and weird ad hominems are not just distasteful, they are downright counterproductive to his aims. Since Sal likes to portray himself as being among the leaders of the ID movement, those who don't know better might think that this is what ID is about, and that this is how IDers argue. I also suspect that the lack of repudiation by fellow ID supporters leads some observers to the conclusion that Sal's tactics enjoy general approval. That is a terrible message to be sending.

Perhaps some of you haven't said anything because you thought that ID critics were taking care of the problem. Indeed, ID critics have learned to keep an eye on Salvador and are pretty quick to point out his offenses, so it's possible that many of you have felt no reason to add anything when the critics have already weighed in.

If so, perhaps now is a good time to go on record with your feelings about Sal's methods. Do you approve of his quote-mining and absurd ad hominems? What about his debate tactics? Do you think his behavior is an asset or a liability to the ID movement?

I'm also especially interested in hearing from people who think highly of Salvador and his efforts.

The more opinions, the better.

Thanks. I feel better, having gotten that off my chest.

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


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on June 21 2008,17:32

Quote (stevestory @ June 21 2008,15:20)
Here's an interesting bit I saw recently at TT:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  robin Says:
June 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pm |

Since this is a 'Speak Your Mind' thread, I'd like to mention something that has been bothering me for a long time.

Salvador Cordova has earned a reputation among those involved in the ID/creationism/evolution debate for blatant and chronic quote-mining, deceitful ad hominems, questionable debate tactics, and general dishonesty. The evidence shows that this reputation is deserved (I'm happy to provide examples if requested, but I think they might be unnecessary given how notorious Sal's behavior has become).

What bothers me is the lack of public condemnation of this behavior from Sal's fellow ID supporters.

I'm not saying that every ID supporter should police every statement made by fellow supporters. We are not our brothers' keepers, after all. I'm also not saying that ID supporters at Telic Thoughts should go out of their way to monitor statements made on other blogs. That would be an unreasonable expectation. But Sal has behaved this way on this very blog, and certainly many of his offensive actions elsewhere have been noted here by critics. It seems odd that he has been criticized so rarely, if at all, by ID supporters here. (If you think I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to consider evidence to the contrary).

Though I may disagree with ID supporters on many issues, I do believe that almost all of you take morality seriously, and that your moral codes do not sanction the kind of behavior Sal consistently indulges in.

His dishonesty and weird ad hominems are not just distasteful, they are downright counterproductive to his aims. Since Sal likes to portray himself as being among the leaders of the ID movement, those who don't know better might think that this is what ID is about, and that this is how IDers argue. I also suspect that the lack of repudiation by fellow ID supporters leads some observers to the conclusion that Sal's tactics enjoy general approval. That is a terrible message to be sending.

Perhaps some of you haven't said anything because you thought that ID critics were taking care of the problem. Indeed, ID critics have learned to keep an eye on Salvador and are pretty quick to point out his offenses, so it's possible that many of you have felt no reason to add anything when the critics have already weighed in.

If so, perhaps now is a good time to go on record with your feelings about Sal's methods. Do you approve of his quote-mining and absurd ad hominems? What about his debate tactics? Do you think his behavior is an asset or a liability to the ID movement?

I'm also especially interested in hearing from people who think highly of Salvador and his efforts.

The more opinions, the better.

Thanks. I feel better, having gotten that off my chest.

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


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


My explanatory filter predicts that Sal will never change and that after attacking Robin, ID supporters will ignore Robin's advice.

Got that? Write it down!
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 22 2008,10:22

There are now at least 13 Telic Tards currently trying to pry their offended eyes from their sockets (well, as soon as they finish reading the smut and scrolling with the wrong hand evaluating the depravity of the enemy of Jesus).

< Thank you robin >.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 22 2008,15:29

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 22 2008,11:22)
There are now at least 13 Telic Tards currently trying to pry their offended eyes from their sockets (well, as soon as they finish reading the smut and scrolling with the wrong hand evaluating the depravity of the enemy of Jesus).

< Thank you robin >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


35 and counting.  Boy are they thoroughly loving investigating the evils of
< The Lilith Obsession > and < Cinderella's Big Score >.

Really eating it up getting to understand the enemy of Jesus so they can pray for the conviction of JanieBelle's soul, I tell you.
Posted by: windy on June 23 2008,21:43

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 22 2008,10:22)
There are now at least 13 Telic Tards currently trying to pry their offended eyes from their sockets (well, as soon as they finish reading the smut and scrolling with the wrong hand evaluating the depravity of the enemy of Jesus).

< Thank you robin >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I went over to TT to find the "smarter creationist" that was mentioned at the start of this thread. Guess how I feel now.

Although I think bringing up Salvador's antics might have been an unwise move, since now they are all "how can you be so petty, we would never!" But still, this was funny:

Mikegene:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not our fault that you think Salvador is more important and interesting than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


robin:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Am I entitled to conclude that you think Richard Dawkins is more important and interesting than science simply because there are so many non-science-related posts here dealing with his atheism, his personality, who he's 'slumming' with, and even whether he's sexy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Art on June 23 2008,23:15

< MikeGene >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since he did try to stir up a witch hunt against you, I suppose the ethical and fair thing to do is to allow you to question your accuser. I'll leave the thread open a little longer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The concept of a telic thinker behaving ethically boggles the mind.  (And ruins keyboards...)
Posted by: keiths on June 24 2008,19:24

I was robin (now banned).  Bannings at TT are silent affairs, because the mods are afraid of the reaction they'll get if they announce them.  In that respect they are even slimier than UD.

Anyway, this has to be one of my favorite moments from the thread:

< I asked Salvador >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you think about the fact that only one person, out of the entire membership at TT — a pro-ID blog — was willing even to partially defend your tactics?

Has that sunk in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford, in an apparent effort to make Salvador feel better, < wrote this > in response:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador, you're not Attila the Hun and I've witnessed much, much worse on the web and in person during my life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, thanks, Bradford!
Posted by: keiths on June 24 2008,20:55

Cross-post from the UD thread:
Quote (keiths @ June 24 2008,20:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 24 2008,15:43)
I must admit, UD has been poor entertainment of late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sadly true, which is why I started commenting at Telic Thoughts again (as 'robin').

In my brief tenure there (I've been banned), I mined a few good tard seams:

< ID and Morality >:
Watch as good, upstanding Christians defend the morality of Bible verses such as these:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
(Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
(Exodus 21:20-21, NIV)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Trained Microbes! >:
Joy gloats over a paper in Science:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, I know I'm being smug here. I've had a bit of a rough spring out in the real world, so it feels pretty good to 'win' something for a change... So, Culture Warriors. What say you about this evidence of intelligent design in life and evolution? Is this science? Should the researchers be expelled from academia for heresy? Should the journal Science be taken to task and forced to issue a retraction?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...until Raevmo and I point out what the paper actually says, and Joy stops gloating and decides that the authors are dogmatic Darwinists after all.

< Evidence and Truth >:
Mike Gene explains why evidence is overrated.

< Speak Your Mind >:
I accept the invitation and speak my mind regarding Salvador Cordova's behavior in the blogosphere, asking TTers whether they approve of it.  None of the ID supporters can bring themselves to express approval -- or disapproval.  Except for DaveScot, who says he disapproves of the quotemining but approves of the way Sal "bends over backwards trying not to offend anyone"!

To make Sal feel better, Bradford offers this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador, you're not Attila the Hun and I've witnessed much, much worse on the web and in person during my life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Long-time tardaholics know that it is good to have a back-up supply in case your primary source runs dry.  Telic Thoughts will never match the pure, uncut tard at UD, but it's better than withdrawal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on June 24 2008,21:01

Quote (windy @ June 23 2008,22:43)
Mikegene:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not our fault that you think Salvador is more important and interesting than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


robin:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Am I entitled to conclude that you think Richard Dawkins is more important and interesting than science simply because there are so many non-science-related posts here dealing with his atheism, his personality, who he's 'slumming' with, and even whether he's sexy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


A long time ago I learned that if I was about to swing a sword, I should check and make sure it wasn't double-edged.
Posted by: keiths on June 25 2008,11:03

At TT, Raevmo < asks >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
robin has been a bit quiet lately. (s)he didn't get banned did (s)he? I seem to recall Mike saying that he wouldn't do that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mike Gene dislocates his spine trying to rationalize the banning:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, this is what I wrote on June 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW robin, I think it is rather obvious you are keiths. And pay attention to this – even though I think this, I don’t advocate that you be banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note the present tense.

At the time, I did not know he was keiths; I just believed it to be the case. And I did not say I wouldn’t ban keiths; I said that I did not advocate banning him at the time that I wrote that. And I clearly said “Pay attention to this.” In other words, keiths was being given a second chance. He was being allowed to post when he knew that we thought he was who he was. How would he react to this act of courtesy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on June 25 2008,11:21

Mike Gene is a true master of the double standard.

He excoriates me repeatedly for having posted < this >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If so, perhaps now is a good time to go on record with your feelings about Sal's methods. Do you approve of his quote-mining and absurd ad hominems? What about his debate tactics? Do you think his behavior is an asset or a liability to the ID movement?

I'm also especially interested in hearing from people who think highly of Salvador and his efforts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then he posts this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If someone opposes the banning because you either approve of what he was trying to do in that thread or you think we are somehow obligated to tolerate such behavior, now is the time to go on record and say so in this open thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You sort of have to admire his self-blindness; it saves him from what would otherwise be intolerable amounts of cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: keiths on June 30 2008,22:04

Two and a half years ago, a Telic Thoughts contributor named "bipod" had < this advice > for his fellow ID proponents:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just Do It: 9 Pieces of Advice for the Next 3 Years

by bipod

This message is aimed at that minority of individuals who 1) acknowledge that Intelligent Design (ID) is immature as a scientific research program, 2) recognize that the current generation of intelligent design theorists have laid a unique foundation for exploring the biotic world, and 3) want to be participants (and possible failures) in the development of a telic science.

The next 3 years should prove to be pivotal for any prospective intelligent design research program. It really is time (er, has been time) to stop arguing about the scientific status of ID and to let history play itself out by conducting research and doing the hard work.

Just do it, as they say.

Here's some primitive guiding advice for the small minority.

1. Start small and be meticulous
2. Don't aim for "smoking-gun" results
3. Don't be afraid to make mistakes; take chances - speculate and imagine
4. Don't extrapolate wildly from the data and don't look for grandiose results
5. Explore the world with unfettered curiosity
6. Don't force the data into your model.
7. Ignore the buzzbots and cherish the true skeptics.
8. Resist the temptation to spectate.
9. Don't hold your breath for Mike Gene to publish a book;-)

This entry was posted on Friday, December 23rd, 2005 at 10:59 am and is filed under Intelligent Design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How's that project coming along, bipod?
Posted by: keiths on July 05 2008,02:57

Joy is a veritable fountain of what I call 'blowtard'.  Designed to impress the rubes as deep erudition, it elicits hysterical laughter from people who actually understand the subjects that Joy pretends to discuss.

A recent < example >:
Quote (Rock @ June 30 2008, 3:12 PM)
Which reminds me–Does anyone know anything about the Hanoi Tower puzzle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Joy @ June 30 2008, 4:22 PM)
Yeah, used to 'play' it all the time with my toddlers and their plastic rainbow donut towers (which is what I call it, since I'm married to a Viet-era vet). Recursion. Which of course plays a role in deep time adaptation, but not so much in things like punk-eek. Sans directed mutation, that is, and while channeling also plays its role, there's not enough time there (apparently) for straight randomness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on July 05 2008,03:05

< Another choice example of blowtard > from Joy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I was working with Matti Pitkanen on an attempt to quantify an anomalous issue under his TGD model of consciousness, I was introduced to a whole "new math" that this subject probably deserves - much as gravity deserved calculus back when Leibniz and Newton were arguing the details. Needless to say, I wasn't very "up" on the technicalities, so tried to frame what I was being exposed to in terms my ancient QM training would allow.

It turned out to be slightly easier than grokking multiverses, but not by much. Matti's only got 8 dimensions to work with, which I think is probably better than 11, 22 or infinite [FWIW]. Penrose is still working in a 4-D manifold, which is a good place to start, though he does give some lip service per Nigel Cook in his latest tome to Matti's p-adic primes as a mathematical framework the world's just not ready for yet.

I had stubbornly insisted on equating Matti's multi-stage vector alignment for the extremal of consciousness as akin to the vector of a magnetic monopole. It was the only theoretically existent particle I knew of that would take more than one phase transition to align to 'reality', so my mind kept focusing on its hedgehog extremal vector. Recently Matti has indeed integrated magnetic field dynamics into his 20+-year project, and it's starting to almost make sense! Check his blog for incoming details.

JohnJoe McFadden had a pretty good EM field ubertheory for consciousness that would be deducible from both Penrose's dynamic and Matti's. Since neuronal biophysics does operate on electrical circuitry, and biophotons must of course generate an EM field that extends not only throughout the brain itself, but also extending exterior like an 'aura' around the biophysical body.

True, the world isn't ready for multi-sheeted 8-dimensional spacetimes, hierarchial 'selves' or even magnetic monopoles. Penrose, at the late end of a long and storied career, can risk censure because nobody would dare censure him. He's plowing the road, and some of Matti's students may just plant some seeds. For the subject of life and biological evolution, it's the PCCs and NCCs that count. And these are well on the way to quantification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Frostman on July 05 2008,14:42

It has come to my attention that Mike Gene and Bradford have recently been engaging in historical revisionism with respect to their dishonest behavior surrounding the banning of myself and keiths.  In a despicable and shameless comment, Bradford has even tried to reverse the tables on the situation (I shall refrain from linking to it).

In light of this, I have decided to publish the full, unedited correspondence between Guts and myself.  If you have the patience to read it, you will walk away with only one conclusion: he is a sleazeball.

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.  anon9 said that Nelson Alonso was unethical, not Guts.  My posts here do not mention Nelson.  Only Frostman would know that Nelson Alonso is Guts, as revealed in the following correspondence where he changes his name in mid-stream.

[Two large posts to follow.]
Posted by: Frostman on July 05 2008,15:15

Remember, at the beginning of this correspondence neither of us knew what the problem really was.  Normally I would remove the unnecessary quoting and other cruft, but I cannot risk any appearance that I have made editions.  The following is pristine and unedited.  Due to the 76800 character limit, I have split it into four parts (two should have sufficed, but the site was still dropping text).

Part 1:

Subject:
farewell -- The Design Matrix contact form
From:
Frostman <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:56:45 -0700
To:
furtive.clown@gmail.com

This message is for Mike Gene.

Happy vacation to you, and also a fond farewell.

As you may know, I have been banned from Telic Thoughts.  Though this may
not concern you, I have documented the banning here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >

Good luck with the book.







Subject:
farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:49:56 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com, krauze_id@hotmail.com

Hello,

Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few Telic Thoughts
members who list their email address.  It's been fun.

Though you may have no interest in this, I have detailed my recent
banning from TT here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >

In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT thread in question:

< http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >

Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:09:05 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you had
at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You continued
to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a 4
year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the choir,
sorry for not being impressed.  


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hello,
> >
> > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
> > Telic Thoughts
> > members who list their email address.  It's been
> > fun.
> >
> > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
> > detailed my recent
> > banning from TT here:
> >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >
> >
> > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
> > thread in question:
> >
> > < http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
> >
> > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
> > Frostman
> >



Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:14:43 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

By the way , your banishment is only temporary, it was
not approved by the majority of TTers, if you agree
from now on to respect the decisions of the various
blog authors, I might be able to get you back in.


--- Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
> > had
> > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
> > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
> > continued
> > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
> > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
> > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
> > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
> > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a
> > 4
> > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> > choir,
> > sorry for not being impressed.  
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
>> > > Telic Thoughts
>> > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>> > > fun.
>> > >
>> > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>> > > detailed my recent
>> > > banning from TT here:
>> > >
>> > >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >
>> > >
>> > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
>> > > thread in question:
>> > >
>> > > < http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >      
> >
> > Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> > < http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >
> >



Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:57:01 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I found the panda's thumb section of antievolution.org after I was banned
while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find their email addresses.
The only reason I posted there was to have a record of the event to which I
could link.  You'll see that I registered there just before posting --- I've
never been one to hang around with those who agree with me, and it's not my
choir  :)

To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have already anticipated that
objection here

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556 >

As you know, the issue is not that my posts were deleted --- as completely
unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not moved to the memory hole,
contrary to TT policy.

As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately you are unable to judge
my position and my arguments, as my posts were deleted.  You only have a
record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.  Do you believe
Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his disregard for the deletion
policy hold any relevance to you?

Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT than non-ID members.  I
respond to as much as I can, and when that is not enough, I'll inevitably
hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring posts which "refute" mine.

Please forward to me any and all posts which, in your view, refute any of my
arguments.  I regret that you have been left with this impression.  However
you must cite the specific posts in question, otherwise your claims are
empty.

There is one case where I intentionally held off my responses.  In the "eyes
have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical mistake in reasoning
which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after eight times asking.
Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to his arguments while
focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those counterpoints.  I was
determined not to let that happen again, so I held off my responses.

Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue brought up by someone
else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk about that.  Bradford
escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away in the confusion of
irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to explain this in that thread.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you had
> > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
> > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You continued
> > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
> > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
> > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
> > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
> > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a 4
> > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the choir,
> > sorry for not being impressed.
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
>> > > Telic Thoughts
>> > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>> > > fun.
>> > >
>> > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>> > > detailed my recent
>> > > banning from TT here:
>> > >
>> > >
> >
> > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >
>> > >
>> > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
>> > > thread in question:
>> > >
>> > > < http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
> >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:10:10 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is not
that my posts were deleted --- as completely
unwarranted as that is but that they were not
moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I already
explained to you what was happening with the deletions
(again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
told people to save comments because the memory hole
wasn't working, I double as technical support for TT,
I know everything that was ever posted.

Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones ,
join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
reason why you were temporarily banned was because you
were acting like a baby.

So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
your response to this offer? If you ignore it again, I
can only conclude that you are truly just trying to
trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I found the panda's thumb section of
> > antievolution.org after I was banned
> > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find
> > their email addresses.
> > The only reason I posted there was to have a record
> > of the event to which I
> > could link.  You'll see that I registered there just
> > before posting --- I've
> > never been one to hang around with those who agree
> > with me, and it's not my
> > choir  :)
> >
> > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
> > already anticipated that
> > objection here
> >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556 >
> >
> > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
> > deleted --- as completely
> > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not
> > moved to the memory hole,
> > contrary to TT policy.
> >
> > As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately
> > you are unable to judge
> > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
> > deleted.  You only have a
> > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.
> >  Do you believe
> > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
> > disregard for the deletion
> > policy hold any relevance to you?
> >
> > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT
> > than non-ID members.  I
> > respond to as much as I can, and when that is not
> > enough, I'll inevitably
> > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
> > posts which "refute" mine.
> >
> > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
> > your view, refute any of my
> > arguments.  I regret that you have been left with
> > this impression.  However
> > you must cite the specific posts in question,
> > otherwise your claims are
> > empty.
> >
> > There is one case where I intentionally held off my
> > responses.  In the "eyes
> > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical
> > mistake in reasoning
> > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after
> > eight times asking.
> > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to
> > his arguments while
> > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those
> > counterpoints.  I was
> > determined not to let that happen again, so I held
> > off my responses.
> >
> > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue
> > brought up by someone
> > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk
> > about that.  Bradford
> > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away
> > in the confusion of
> > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
> > explain this in that thread.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
> > had
>> > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
>> > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
> > continued
>> > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
>> > > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
>> > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
>> > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when
> > we
>> > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like
> > a 4
>> > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> > choir,
>> > > sorry for not being impressed.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > Hello,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those
> > few
>>> > > > Telic Thoughts
>>> > > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>>> > > > fun.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>>> > > > detailed my recent
>>> > > > banning from TT here:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the
> > TT
>>> > > > thread in question:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > < http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:15:54 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I don't even understand what you are saying now.  Please bear with me.
Previously you said,

"You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you would
ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other threads as well, such as
the Fodor one)"

So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in your opinion, I ignored
posts which refuted my assertions?  This doesn't even make sense.  When did
I do that?  And when has such an opinion been sufficient grounds for
deletion?

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here.  Are you saying the memory hole
works for you, but not for Bradford?

I promise that I am acting in good faith.  There is obviously something I'm
not understanding about the situation.

"So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
your response to this offer?"

I don't even understand the offer.  Do you agree with Bradford's decision to
jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy?  Does TT have a deletion
policy, or not?  I am not ignoring your offer --- I am just trying to
understand it.

Frostman


On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is not
> > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
> > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
> >  moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
> > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I already
> > explained to you what was happening with the deletions
> > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
> > told people to save comments because the memory hole
> > wasn't working, I double as technical support for TT,
> > I know everything that was ever posted.
> >
> > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones ,
> > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
> > reason why you were temporarily banned was because you
> > were acting like a baby.
> >
> > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
> > your response to this offer? If you ignore it again, I
> > can only conclude that you are truly just trying to
> > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>> > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>> > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find
>> > > their email addresses.
>> > > The only reason I posted there was to have a record
>> > > of the event to which I
>> > > could link.  You'll see that I registered there just
>> > > before posting --- I've
>> > > never been one to hang around with those who agree
>> > > with me, and it's not my
>> > > choir  :)
>> > >
>> > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>> > > already anticipated that
>> > > objection here
>> > >
>> > >
> >
> > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556 >
>> > >
>> > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>> > > deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not
>> > > moved to the memory hole,
>> > > contrary to TT policy.
>> > >
>> > > As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately
>> > > you are unable to judge
>> > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>> > > deleted.  You only have a
>> > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.
>> > >  Do you believe
>> > > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
>> > > disregard for the deletion
>> > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>> > >
>> > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT
>> > > than non-ID members.  I
>> > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is not
>> > > enough, I'll inevitably
>> > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>> > > posts which "refute" mine.
>> > >
>> > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>> > > your view, refute any of my
>> > > arguments.  I regret that you have been left with
>> > > this impression.  However
>> > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>> > > otherwise your claims are
>> > > empty.
>> > >
>> > > There is one case where I intentionally held off my
>> > > responses.  In the "eyes
>> > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical
>> > > mistake in reasoning
>> > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after
>> > > eight times asking.
>> > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to
>> > > his arguments while
>> > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those
>> > > counterpoints.  I was
>> > > determined not to let that happen again, so I held
>> > > off my responses.
>> > >
>> > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue
>> > > brought up by someone
>> > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk
>> > > about that.  Bradford
>> > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away
>> > > in the confusion of
>> > > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
>> > > explain this in that thread.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
>> > > had
>>> > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
>>> > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>> > > continued
>>> > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
>>> > > > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
>>> > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
>>> > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when
>> > > we
>>> > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like
>> > > a 4
>>> > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
>> > > choir,
>>> > > > sorry for not being impressed.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Hello,
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those
>> > > few
>>>> > > > > Telic Thoughts
>>>> > > > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>>>> > > > > fun.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>>>> > > > > detailed my recent
>>>> > > > > banning from TT here:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518 >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the
>> > > TT
>>>> > > > > thread in question:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > < http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/ >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>>>> > > > > Frostman
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Be a better pen pal.
> > Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
> > < http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:23:52 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Wow. These are simple points:


- There was NO jettison of any policy, the website
recently moved servers, which broke the Memory Hole
function, it didn't work for anyone. I instructed
everyone to delete offending comments and save them
for manual insertion of the memory hole.

- This completely refutes any assertion that your
posts were deleted due to unethical behavior or to
circumvent TT policy.

- You were banned because despite constant and patient
requests for you to stop, you continued like a spoiled
brat.

You say you don't understand my offer but then you ask
completely irrelevant questions. Note, I will make a
note of this publically if you once again ignore my
offer.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't even understand what you are saying now.
> > Please bear with me.
> > Previously you said,
> >
> > "You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were
> > deleted (you would
> > ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other
> > threads as well, such as
> > the Fodor one)"
> >
> > So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in
> > your opinion, I ignored
> > posts which refuted my assertions?  This doesn't
> > even make sense.  When did
> > I do that?  And when has such an opinion been
> > sufficient grounds for
> > deletion?
> >
> > Maybe there is a misunderstanding here.  Are you
> > saying the memory hole
> > works for you, but not for Bradford?
> >
> > I promise that I am acting in good faith.  There is
> > obviously something I'm
> > not understanding about the situation.
> >
> > "So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what
> > is
> > your response to this offer?"
> >
> > I don't even understand the offer.  Do you agree
> > with Bradford's decision to
> > jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy?  Does
> > TT have a deletion
> > policy, or not?  I am not ignoring your offer --- I
> > am just trying to
> > understand it.
> >
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is
> > not
>> > > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
>> > >  moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
>> > > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I
> > already
>> > > explained to you what was happening with the
> > deletions
>> > > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
>> > > told people to save comments because the memory
> > hole
>> > > wasn't working, I double as technical support for
> > TT,
>> > > I know everything that was ever posted.
>> > >
>> > > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones
> > ,
>> > > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
>> > > reason why you were temporarily banned was because
> > you
>> > > were acting like a baby.
>> > >
>> > > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
>> > > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in,
> > what is
>> > > your response to this offer? If you ignore it
> > again, I
>> > > can only conclude that you are truly just trying
> > to
>> > > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>>> > > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>>> > > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't
> > find
>>> > > > their email addresses.
>>> > > > The only reason I posted there was to have a
> > record
>>> > > > of the event to which I
>>> > > > could link.  You'll see that I registered there
> > just
>>> > > > before posting --- I've
>>> > > > never been one to hang around with those who
> > agree
>>> > > > with me, and it's not my
>>> > > > choir  :)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>>> > > > already anticipated that
>>> > > > objection here
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556 >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>>> > > > deleted --- as completely
>>> > > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were
> > not
>>> > > > moved to the memory hole,
>>> > > > contrary to TT policy.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As to the reasons for the deletions,
> > unfortunately
>>> > > > you are unable to judge
>>> > > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>>> > > > deleted.  You only have a
>>> > > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is
> > gone.
>>> > > >  Do you believe
>>> > > > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
>>> > > > disregard for the deletion
>>> > > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at
> > TT
>>> > > > than non-ID members.  I
>>> > > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is
> > not
>>> > > > enough, I'll inevitably
>>> > > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>>> > > > posts which "refute" mine.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>>> > > > your view, refute any of my
>>> > > > arguments.  I regret that you have been left
> > with
>>> > > > this impression.  However
>>> > > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>>> > > > otherwise your claims are
>>> > > > empty.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There is one case where I intentionally held off
> > my
>>> > > > responses.  In the "eyes
>>> > > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a
> > logical
>>> > > > mistake in reasoning
>>> > > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer
> > after
>>> > > > eight times asking.
>>> > > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints
> > to
>>> > > > his arguments while
>>> > > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding
> > those
>>> > > > counterpoints.  I was
>>> > > > determined not to let that happen again, so I
> > held
>>> > > > off my responses.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side
> > issue
>>> > > > brought up by someone
>>> > > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to
> > talk
>>> > > > about that.  Bradford
>>> > > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run
> > away
>>> > > > in the confusion of
>>> > > > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
>>> > > > explain this in that thread.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought
> > you
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your
> > friend
>>>> > > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>>> > > > continued
>>>> > > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted
> > (you
>>>> > > > > would ignore posts that refuted your
> > assertions in
>>>> > > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one),
> > and
>>>> > > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even
> > when
>>> > > > we
>>>> > > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit
> > like
>>> > > > a 4
>>>> > > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:46:38 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually, I can understand how one would misunderstand
the first point, which is one of the reasons I'm
giving you this opportunity to come back (with
stipulations), it's not like you understand how
internal functions work, and we should have announced
this when it actually broke. So nix my last statement.






--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't even understand what you are saying now.
> > Please bear with me.
> > Previously you said,
> >
> > "You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were
> > deleted (you would
> > ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other
> > threads as well, such as
> > the Fodor one)"
> >
> > So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in
> > your opinion, I ignored
> > posts which refuted my assertions?  This doesn't
> > even make sense.  When did
> > I do that?  And when has such an opinion been
> > sufficient grounds for
> > deletion?
> >
> > Maybe there is a misunderstanding here.  Are you
> > saying the memory hole
> > works for you, but not for Bradford?
> >
> > I promise that I am acting in good faith.  There is
> > obviously something I'm
> > not understanding about the situation.
> >
> > "So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what
> > is
> > your response to this offer?"
> >
> > I don't even understand the offer.  Do you agree
> > with Bradford's decision to
> > jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy?  Does
> > TT have a deletion
> > policy, or not?  I am not ignoring your offer --- I
> > am just trying to
> > understand it.
> >
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is
> > not
>> > > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
>> > >  moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
>> > > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I
> > already
>> > > explained to you what was happening with the
> > deletions
>> > > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
>> > > told people to save comments because the memory
> > hole
>> > > wasn't working, I double as technical support for
> > TT,
>> > > I know everything that was ever posted.
>> > >
>> > > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones
> > ,
>> > > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
>> > > reason why you were temporarily banned was because
> > you
>> > > were acting like a baby.
>> > >
>> > > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
>> > > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in,
> > what is
>> > > your response to this offer? If you ignore it
> > again, I
>> > > can only conclude that you are truly just trying
> > to
>> > > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>>> > > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>>> > > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't
> > find
>>> > > > their email addresses.
>>> > > > The only reason I posted there was to have a
> > record
>>> > > > of the event to which I
>>> > > > could link.  You'll see that I registered there
> > just
>>> > > > before posting --- I've
>>> > > > never been one to hang around with those who
> > agree
>>> > > > with me, and it's not my
>>> > > > choir  :)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>>> > > > already anticipated that
>>> > > > objection here
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556 >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>>> > > > deleted --- as completely
>>> > > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were
> > not
>>> > > > moved to the memory hole,
>>> > > > contrary to TT policy.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As to the reasons for the deletions,
> > unfortunately
>>> > > > you are unable to judge
>>> > > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>>> > > > deleted.  You only have a
>>> > > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is
> > gone.
>>> > > >  Do you believe
>>> > > > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
>>> > > > disregard for the deletion
>>> > > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at
> > TT
>>> > > > than non-ID members.  I
>>> > > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is
> > not
>>> > > > enough, I'll inevitably
>>> > > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>>> > > > posts which "refute" mine.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>>> > > > your view, refute any of my
>>> > > > arguments.  I regret that you have been left
> > with
>>> > > > this impression.  However
>>> > > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>>> > > > otherwise your claims are
>>> > > > empty.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There is one case where I intentionally held off
> > my
>>> > > > responses.  In the "eyes
>>> > > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a
> > logical
>>> > > > mistake in reasoning
>>> > > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer
> > after
>>> > > > eight times asking.
>>> > > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints
> > to
>>> > > > his arguments while
>>> > > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding
> > those
>>> > > > counterpoints.  I was
>>> > > > determined not to let that happen again, so I
> > held
>>> > > > off my responses.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side
> > issue
>>> > > > brought up by someone
>>> > > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to
> > talk
>>> > > > about that.  Bradford
>>> > > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run
> > away
>>> > > > in the confusion of
>>> > > > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
>>> > > > explain this in that thread.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought
> > you
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your
> > friend
>>>> > > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>>> > > > continued
>>>> > > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted
> > (you
>>>> > > > > would ignore posts that refuted your
> > assertions in
>>>> > > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one),
> > and
>>>> > > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even
> > when
>>> > > > we
>>>> > > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit
> > like
>>> > > > a 4
>>>> > > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Posted by: Frostman on July 05 2008,15:16

Part 2:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:14:33 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

OK we may be getting closer to understanding each other.  Again I pledge
that I am acting in good faith, and I will assume you are doing likewise.

This was the series of observations which upon which I drew my conclusions:

- A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
- Bradford says he deleted it.
- You say the memory hole wasn't working, but it's working now.
- I see two posts by you which say "test" and "test2" in them memory hole.
This is evidence that the memory hole is working, as your tests presumably
confirmed it to for you.
- Afterward, several of my posts which defend my position on the Davies
quote and defend my position on "non-theism" vs "anti-theism" disappear,
without going to the memory hole.
- I ask if the memory hole is really working.
- Bradford responds, "Frostman, you're wrong. The memory hole works fine.
:grin:"
- I notice the last post in which I so asked is moved to the memory hole.
This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the memory hole is
working.
- Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I defend my position on
the theism thing.  That is an entirely rational, on-topic post.
- That post is deleted, without going to the memory hole.
- I inquire again about these deletions.  Those inquiries are deleted.
- Keith posts the deletion policy at TT.  That is deleted.
- Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my position, or (2)
questions these deletions in light of the policy, is deleted without being
moved to the memory hole.
- The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh claims against me, with
all of my responses to those claims deleted.

In your penultimate (I love that word) email to me, it appeared that you
were asking me the respect Bradford's decision to delete posts permanently,
without moving them the memory hole.  Surely you weren't really asking that,
I thought.  Hence my last email mentioned the phrase "don't understand" like
ten times.

Actually I still don't understand.  What *is* the decision I am asked to
respect?  I promise I am not playing dumb.  I am just dumbfounded.




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:28:45 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually, I thought you were playing dumb, which is
why my last few e-mails were rather aggressive, for
which I apologize deeply. I completely see how you are
confused and feel like you have been done an
injustice, for which again I apologize. But I can
assure you that everything that happened was a huge
misunderstanding. Let me see if I can make the series
of events clear to you, by quoting each of your
points:

- A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
- Bradford says he deleted it.

This is when the Memory Hole was not working, he
deleted because he was following my instructions, I
told all the bloggers to save a copy of any offending
comments and send them to me. In hindsight, this was
bad advice because of the impression it gave.

- Afterward, several of my posts which defend position
on the Davies quote and defend my position on
"non-theism" vs "anti-theism" disappear, without going
to the memory hole.

This was all me. I deleted them, as I said in the
thread, because I was reacting to what I saw as an
attempted circumvention of Bradford's initial decision
(I called it whining), that is, Bradford only deleted
1 of your posts, per my instruction, I deleted the
rest because I perceived the situation as a hostile
reaction to Bradford's initial decision, for which I
apologize to you. This goes for the rest of the
deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were
my doing because of what I perceived as a hostile
attack on Bradford, an attempt to circumvent his
decision. Really you just felt that your posts were
unjustly deleted out of existence, I would get mad at
that as well.

Let me give you an idea of my thinking here. Our
policy is to move a comment to the memory hole, but
you can understand the frustration if someone takes
that comment, and reposts it *again* in the thread.
This is what I perceived as happening. However you had
no way of knowing that the memory hole was not
working, and my instructions to the crew, so I see now
that this was all just a really bad misunderstanding,
and it's completely my fault. I usually delete posts
as a deterent, if you attempt to circumvent the
decision of the blogger, you will see that you have
wasted your time, kind of deal, I hope you can
understand.

So like I said, you were not banned as a result of a
vote, which is usually how TT decides to ban people.
So I have no problem with you comming back. You also
understand though, that if a blogger asks you to stop
commenting in their thread, you should respect that.
If you see a comment of yours moved to the memory
hole, don't try to re-summarize it in an attempt to
restore it to the thread. I'm sure you aware of all
this I'm just letting you know so that this whole
schmiel doesn't happen again.

I will be more careful in the future with that delete
button. So, if we understand eachother now, I'll be
more than happy to lift your ban.





--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > OK we may be getting closer to understanding each
> > other.  Again I pledge
> > that I am acting in good faith, and I will assume
> > you are doing likewise.
> >
> > This was the series of observations which upon which
> > I drew my conclusions:
> >
> > - A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
> > - Bradford says he deleted it.
> > - You say the memory hole wasn't working, but it's
> > working now.
> > - I see two posts by you which say "test" and
> > "test2" in them memory hole.
> > This is evidence that the memory hole is working, as
> > your tests presumably
> > confirmed it to for you.
> > - Afterward, several of my posts which defend my
> > position on the Davies
> > quote and defend my position on "non-theism" vs
> > "anti-theism" disappear,
> > without going to the memory hole.
> > - I ask if the memory hole is really working.
> > - Bradford responds, "Frostman, you're wrong. The
> > memory hole works fine.
> > :grin:"
> > - I notice the last post in which I so asked is
> > moved to the memory hole.
> > This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that
> > the memory hole is
> > working.
> > - Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I
> > defend my position on
> > the theism thing.  That is an entirely rational,
> > on-topic post.
> > - That post is deleted, without going to the memory
> > hole.
> > - I inquire again about these deletions.  Those
> > inquiries are deleted.
> > - Keith posts the deletion policy at TT.  That is
> > deleted.
> > - Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my
> > position, or (2)
> > questions these deletions in light of the policy, is
> > deleted without being
> > moved to the memory hole.
> > - The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh
> > claims against me, with
> > all of my responses to those claims deleted.
> >
> > In your penultimate (I love that word) email to me,
> > it appeared that you
> > were asking me the respect Bradford's decision to
> > delete posts permanently,
> > without moving them the memory hole.  Surely you
> > weren't really asking that,
> > I thought.  Hence my last email mentioned the phrase
> > "don't understand" like
> > ten times.
> >
> > Actually I still don't understand.  What *is* the
> > decision I am asked to
> > respect?  I promise I am not playing dumb.  I am
> > just dumbfounded.
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:00:34 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know how easily
misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.  Normally at this point I
would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would both have a laugh at
the confluence of coincidences which brought about the misunderstanding.

But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't been made on TT
explaining the situation.  You continue to stand mute in the face of all the
derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took place in the aftermath of
our ban.




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:00:28 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

I feel that this is justified given your false charge
of out of context quotation, which you have not yet
apologized for.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know
> > how easily
> > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
> > Normally at this point I
> > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would
> > both have a laugh at
> > the confluence of coincidences which brought about
> > the misunderstanding.
> >
> > But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
> > been made on TT
> > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
> > mute in the face of all the
> > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
> > place in the aftermath of
> > our ban.
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:23:24 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so quickly.  When I
pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I would assume you were
also, it appeared that we at last discovered the misunderstanding at root in
these events.

Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly viewed as a pariah again, for
some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in good faith, you
assume.  There is little I can do once that assumption is made, however I
will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.

On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that the Davies quote was
clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and "anti-theists" alike would
agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you clipped. There is nothing
"most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is true..."

The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the final three-sentence
paragraph of his editorial?

In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides both are wrong, and says
something entirely antithetical in the third sentence.  He forgets to delete
the first two sentences on his word processor, a mistake which goes
unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New York Times.

In the second scenario, he writes the three disparate sentences
intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final paragraph as a whole is
meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is destroyed when just the
final sentence is taken without the preceding two.

Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is certainly no theist.
What are the chances that he meant his final paragraph to be used in the way
Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.

Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I still can't fathom how),
that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined an entirely reasonable
and rational position, and I expect all or most non-ID folks would agree
with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational discussion were people are
free to disagree, or not?

Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You have done several things
which were outright wrong, and you have apologized for them (thank you).
Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My posts were not saved, and
they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts outlined my position on
the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting those posts permanently,
you denied me the chance to defend myself against Bradford's accusations.

And now I am required to defend my position again.  Actually you did not ask
for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my position!  Moreover, my
renouncement is being held as a precondition for *you* to admit the mistakes
*you* made!

I am astonished.

On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I feel that this is justified given your false charge
> > of out of context quotation, which you have not yet
> > apologized for.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know
>> > > how easily
>> > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>> > > Normally at this point I
>> > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would
>> > > both have a laugh at
>> > > the confluence of coincidences which brought about
>> > > the misunderstanding.
>> > >
>> > > But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
>> > > been made on TT
>> > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>> > > mute in the face of all the
>> > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>> > > place in the aftermath of
>> > > our ban.
>> > >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:07:53 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

This is just more misunderstanding, but in a debate,
you should always offer your opponent the benefit of
the doubt. He disagreed with you that including the
preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
leaving out changed the meaning of his post much, if
at all.

But anyway, the details here don't matter. Accusing
him of taking the quote out of context was
inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.

Actually this was part of my stipulation all along, I
just didn't mention it because you had not agreed yet
to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize to
Bradford before returning.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
> > quickly.  When I
> > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
> > would assume you were
> > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
> > misunderstanding at root in
> > these events.
> >
> > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
> > viewed as a pariah again, for
> > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
> > good faith, you
> > assume.  There is little I can do once that
> > assumption is made, however I
> > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
> >
> > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
> > the Davies quote was
> > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
> > "anti-theists" alike would
> > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
> > clipped. There is nothing
> > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
> > true..."
> >
> > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
> > final three-sentence
> > paragraph of his editorial?
> >
> > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
> > both are wrong, and says
> > something entirely antithetical in the third
> > sentence.  He forgets to delete
> > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
> > mistake which goes
> > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
> > York Times.
> >
> > In the second scenario, he writes the three
> > disparate sentences
> > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
> > paragraph as a whole is
> > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
> > destroyed when just the
> > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
> >
> > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
> > certainly no theist.
> > What are the chances that he meant his final
> > paragraph to be used in the way
> > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
> >
> > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
> > still can't fathom how),
> > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
> > an entirely reasonable
> > and rational position, and I expect all or most
> > non-ID folks would agree
> > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
> > discussion were people are
> > free to disagree, or not?
> >
> > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
> > have done several things
> > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
> > for them (thank you).
> > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
> > posts were not saved, and
> > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
> > outlined my position on
> > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
> > those posts permanently,
> > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
> > Bradford's accusations.
> >
> > And now I am required to defend my position again.
> > Actually you did not ask
> > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
> > position!  Moreover, my
> > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
> > *you* to admit the mistakes
> > *you* made!
> >
> > I am astonished.
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> > charge
>> > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
> > yet
>> > > apologized for.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
> > know
>>> > > > how easily
>>> > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>> > > > Normally at this point I
>>> > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
> > would
>>> > > > both have a laugh at
>>> > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
> > about
>>> > > > the misunderstanding.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
> > hasn't
>>> > > > been made on TT
>>> > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>> > > > mute in the face of all the
>>> > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>> > > > place in the aftermath of
>>> > > > our ban.
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >



Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:26:11 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Hi Frostman,

I am going to be very busy for the rest of the day,
but I'll have a chance to post your apology later this
evening, you can just send it to me whenever your
ready, no need to do it in Word, just as an e-mail
message is fine.

In the blog, I'll also include my apology to you, and
explaining the situation and then everything should be
ok.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
> > quickly.  When I
> > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
> > would assume you were
> > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
> > misunderstanding at root in
> > these events.
> >
> > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
> > viewed as a pariah again, for
> > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
> > good faith, you
> > assume.  There is little I can do once that
> > assumption is made, however I
> > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
> >
> > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
> > the Davies quote was
> > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
> > "anti-theists" alike would
> > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
> > clipped. There is nothing
> > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
> > true..."
> >
> > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
> > final three-sentence
> > paragraph of his editorial?
> >
> > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
> > both are wrong, and says
> > something entirely antithetical in the third
> > sentence.  He forgets to delete
> > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
> > mistake which goes
> > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
> > York Times.
> >
> > In the second scenario, he writes the three
> > disparate sentences
> > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
> > paragraph as a whole is
> > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
> > destroyed when just the
> > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
> >
> > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
> > certainly no theist.
> > What are the chances that he meant his final
> > paragraph to be used in the way
> > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
> >
> > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
> > still can't fathom how),
> > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
> > an entirely reasonable
> > and rational position, and I expect all or most
> > non-ID folks would agree
> > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
> > discussion were people are
> > free to disagree, or not?
> >
> > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
> > have done several things
> > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
> > for them (thank you).
> > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
> > posts were not saved, and
> > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
> > outlined my position on
> > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
> > those posts permanently,
> > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
> > Bradford's accusations.
> >
> > And now I am required to defend my position again.
> > Actually you did not ask
> > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
> > position!  Moreover, my
> > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
> > *you* to admit the mistakes
> > *you* made!
> >
> > I am astonished.
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> > charge
>> > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
> > yet
>> > > apologized for.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
> > know
>>> > > > how easily
>>> > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>> > > > Normally at this point I
>>> > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
> > would
>>> > > > both have a laugh at
>>> > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
> > about
>>> > > > the misunderstanding.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
> > hasn't
>>> > > > been made on TT
>>> > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>> > > > mute in the face of all the
>>> > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>> > > > place in the aftermath of
>>> > > > our ban.
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:34:33 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear with me again.  Again, I
am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I pledge once more that I am
acting in good faith.

I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been explained thoroughly
enough.  I also hope that, even though you may disagree with it, you see it
is as a position someone could take (albeit erroneously).  I know that
others agree with me.

It is my understanding that participants at Telic Thoughts are allowed to
disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago if this was not the
case, as would a slew of others.

You and Bradford disagree with my position on the Davies quote.  That is
fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get somewhere, but that is
not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that we should be allowed to
disagree.

Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my position.  It appears that I
am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement offends Bradford.  Surely
you can't mean that, so what do you mean?

It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of context!"  That certainly
would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.  Look at my post --- it
merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."

Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are quoted out of context on
Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny fraction of bloggers
actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no accusations of malicious
intent.

As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling that I am being asked
to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my renouncement in order
to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging those mistakes that you
have heretofore only privately acknowledged.

I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but I am still fumbling
around trying to understand your position.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a debate,
> > you should always offer your opponent the benefit of
> > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including the
> > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
> > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much, if
> > at all.
> >
> > But anyway, the details here don't matter. Accusing
> > him of taking the quote out of context was
> > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
> >
> > Actually this was part of my stipulation all along, I
> > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed yet
> > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize to
> > Bradford before returning.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
>> > > quickly.  When I
>> > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
>> > > would assume you were
>> > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>> > > misunderstanding at root in
>> > > these events.
>> > >
>> > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>> > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>> > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
>> > > good faith, you
>> > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>> > > assumption is made, however I
>> > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>> > >
>> > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
>> > > the Davies quote was
>> > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>> > > "anti-theists" alike would
>> > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>> > > clipped. There is nothing
>> > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
>> > > true..."
>> > >
>> > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>> > > final three-sentence
>> > > paragraph of his editorial?
>> > >
>> > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
>> > > both are wrong, and says
>> > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>> > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>> > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>> > > mistake which goes
>> > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
>> > > York Times.
>> > >
>> > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>> > > disparate sentences
>> > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
>> > > paragraph as a whole is
>> > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
>> > > destroyed when just the
>> > > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
>> > >
>> > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
>> > > certainly no theist.
>> > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>> > > paragraph to be used in the way
>> > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>> > >
>> > > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
>> > > still can't fathom how),
>> > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
>> > > an entirely reasonable
>> > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>> > > non-ID folks would agree
>> > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>> > > discussion were people are
>> > > free to disagree, or not?
>> > >
>> > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
>> > > have done several things
>> > > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
>> > > for them (thank you).
>> > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>> > > posts were not saved, and
>> > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
>> > > outlined my position on
>> > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>> > > those posts permanently,
>> > > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
>> > > Bradford's accusations.
>> > >
>> > > And now I am required to defend my position again.
>> > > Actually you did not ask
>> > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>> > > position!  Moreover, my
>> > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>> > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>> > > *you* made!
>> > >
>> > > I am astonished.
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
>> > > charge
>>> > > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
>> > > yet
>>> > > > apologized for.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
>> > > know
>>>> > > > > how easily
>>>> > > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>>> > > > > Normally at this point I
>>>> > > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
>> > > would
>>>> > > > > both have a laugh at
>>>> > > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
>> > > about
>>>> > > > > the misunderstanding.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
>> > > hasn't
>>>> > > > > been made on TT
>>>> > > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>>> > > > > mute in the face of all the
>>>> > > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>>> > > > > place in the aftermath of
>>>> > > > > our ban.
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >
Posted by: Frostman on July 05 2008,15:17

Part 3:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:37:23 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the quote
out of context". You were clearly making it out to be
a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking quotes
out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.  If
that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you can
see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
should apologize for such sloppy use of language (as I
apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding what
to do about the broken memory hole).

For future reference, perhaps understanding that
telling someone that they have taken a quote out of
context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is not
commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
selectively choose sentences that would clearly alter
the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do it
with various phrases from the Talmud.

Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation to
say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
reaction from various atheists on the internet to the
one sentence.

So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
least for using sloppy language and then accusing
Bradford of unethically deleting your posts because he
was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
language). It would go a long way in putting this
situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
rationally disagree but still engage with eachother in
a civil manner.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear
> > with me again.  Again, I
> > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I
> > pledge once more that I am
> > acting in good faith.
> >
> > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been
> > explained thoroughly
> > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
> > disagree with it, you see it
> > is as a position someone could take (albeit
> > erroneously).  I know that
> > others agree with me.
> >
> > It is my understanding that participants at Telic
> > Thoughts are allowed to
> > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago
> > if this was not the
> > case, as would a slew of others.
> >
> > You and Bradford disagree with my position on the
> > Davies quote.  That is
> > fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get
> > somewhere, but that is
> > not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that
> > we should be allowed to
> > disagree.
> >
> > Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my
> > position.  It appears that I
> > am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement
> > offends Bradford.  Surely
> > you can't mean that, so what do you mean?
> >
> > It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you
> > <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
> > accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of
> > context!"  That certainly
> > would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.
> > Look at my post --- it
> > merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."
> >
> > Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are
> > quoted out of context on
> > Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny
> > fraction of bloggers
> > actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no
> > accusations of malicious
> > intent.
> >
> > As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling
> > that I am being asked
> > to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my
> > renouncement in order
> > to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging
> > those mistakes that you
> > have heretofore only privately acknowledged.
> >
> > I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but
> > I am still fumbling
> > around trying to understand your position.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a
> > debate,
>> > > you should always offer your opponent the benefit
> > of
>> > > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including
> > the
>> > > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
>> > > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much,
> > if
>> > > at all.
>> > >
>> > > But anyway, the details here don't matter.
> > Accusing
>> > > him of taking the quote out of context was
>> > > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
>> > >
>> > > Actually this was part of my stipulation all
> > along, I
>> > > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed
> > yet
>> > > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize
> > to
>> > > Bradford before returning.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour
> > again so
>>> > > > quickly.  When I
>>> > > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and
> > that I
>>> > > > would assume you were
>>> > > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>>> > > > misunderstanding at root in
>>> > > > these events.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>>> > > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>>> > > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer
> > acting in
>>> > > > good faith, you
>>> > > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>>> > > > assumption is made, however I
>>> > > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is
> > that
>>> > > > the Davies quote was
>>> > > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>>> > > > "anti-theists" alike would
>>> > > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>>> > > > clipped. There is nothing
>>> > > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the
> > contrary is
>>> > > > true..."
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>>> > > > final three-sentence
>>> > > > paragraph of his editorial?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences,
> > decides
>>> > > > both are wrong, and says
>>> > > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>>> > > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>>> > > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>>> > > > mistake which goes
>>> > > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the
> > New
>>> > > > York Times.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>>> > > > disparate sentences
>>> > > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The
> > final
>>> > > > paragraph as a whole is
>>> > > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning
> > is
>>> > > > destroyed when just the
>>> > > > final sentence is taken without the preceding
> > two.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies
> > is
>>> > > > certainly no theist.
>>> > > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>>> > > > paragraph to be used in the way
>>> > > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Though you personally disagree with me (and
> > sorry I
>>> > > > still can't fathom how),
>>> > > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have
> > outlined
>>> > > > an entirely reasonable
>>> > > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>>> > > > non-ID folks would agree
>>> > > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>>> > > > discussion were people are
>>> > > > free to disagree, or not?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.
> > You
>>> > > > have done several things
>>> > > > which were outright wrong, and you have
> > apologized
>>> > > > for them (thank you).
>>> > > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>>> > > > posts were not saved, and
>>> > > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those
> > posts
>>> > > > outlined my position on
>>> > > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>>> > > > those posts permanently,
>>> > > > you denied me the chance to defend myself
> > against
>>> > > > Bradford's accusations.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And now I am required to defend my position
> > again.
>>> > > > Actually you did not ask
>>> > > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>>> > > > position!  Moreover, my
>>> > > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>>> > > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>>> > > > *you* made!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I am astonished.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> >
=== message truncated ===



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:55:17 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies quote again.  In short, I
believe it was a mistake to use only the final sentence of that
three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part of any quoting is to be
faithful to the author's intention.  As you said, Bradford was not talking
about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by definition an out of context
quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You have reinforced my
position on this.

Calling attention to an out of context quote is not inherently offensive or
derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more often than you believe
it does --- and the reason for it happening is well-known.  It does not
involve malicious intent.

All you have to do is put yourself in the position of the blogger.  Imagine
you are reading an article, and a particular sentence or passage gives you a
jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is possible that you may not
take the surrounding text sufficiently into account --- you just love that
passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.  And in your focusing, you
may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing conniving about it.
It's just part of the package of human emotions, which is our greatest
asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead us into logical troubles.

This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally be taken out of
context, but you see the gist of it.

And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed once again!

This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a digression from the original
issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is the number one issue.
My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a separate issue, of which I
have no concern at the moment.

When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you wrote a very contrite email
to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am grateful that we both stuck
it out long enough to figure out what really happened.  That in itself may
be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a little less tolerant, one
party may have stomped away, and the problem would be left unsolved.

The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It took genuine honor to
write that email, but there was no public display of that honor.  I waited
for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear on the TT thread, but
none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a false impression of my
actions there.  And they still do.  With all the dignity you showed in your
email, you could not muster the strength to clear my name.

And then came the email which bowled me over: that you would disclose the
misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon certain conditions which
I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return you will admit your
mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the unintentional consequence of
wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that, and we both know what it
is.

It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is to tell a lie.  You want
me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a position which I firmly
believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended this position.
(Remember, my position is that the quote is simply out of context, not that
Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow that, I would be lying.

Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?  What is stopping you from
explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is it contingent upon *my*
actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the Davies quote is totally
unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the right thing.

We both know what is right and what is wrong in this situation.  Why am I
even put in a position of persuading you to do the right thing?  Why don't
you just do it?

Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
> > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the quote
> > out of context". You were clearly making it out to be
> > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking quotes
> > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.  If
> > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you can
> > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
> > should apologize for such sloppy use of language (as I
> > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding what
> > to do about the broken memory hole).
> >
> > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
> > telling someone that they have taken a quote out of
> > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is not
> > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
> > selectively choose sentences that would clearly alter
> > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do it
> > with various phrases from the Talmud.
> >
> > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation to
> > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
> > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
> > reaction from various atheists on the internet to the
> > one sentence.
> >
> > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
> > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
> > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts because he
> > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
> > language). It would go a long way in putting this
> > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
> > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
> > rationally disagree but still engage with eachother in
> > a civil manner.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear
>> > > with me again.  Again, I
>> > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I
>> > > pledge once more that I am
>> > > acting in good faith.
>> > >
>> > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been
>> > > explained thoroughly
>> > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>> > > disagree with it, you see it
>> > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>> > > erroneously).  I know that
>> > > others agree with me.
>> > >
>> > > It is my understanding that participants at Telic
>> > > Thoughts are allowed to
>> > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago
>> > > if this was not the
>> > > case, as would a slew of others.
>> > >
>> > > You and Bradford disagree with my position on the
>> > > Davies quote.  That is
>> > > fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get
>> > > somewhere, but that is
>> > > not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that
>> > > we should be allowed to
>> > > disagree.
>> > >
>> > > Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my
>> > > position.  It appears that I
>> > > am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement
>> > > offends Bradford.  Surely
>> > > you can't mean that, so what do you mean?
>> > >
>> > > It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you
>> > > <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
>> > > accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of
>> > > context!"  That certainly
>> > > would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.
>> > > Look at my post --- it
>> > > merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."
>> > >
>> > > Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are
>> > > quoted out of context on
>> > > Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny
>> > > fraction of bloggers
>> > > actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no
>> > > accusations of malicious
>> > > intent.
>> > >
>> > > As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling
>> > > that I am being asked
>> > > to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my
>> > > renouncement in order
>> > > to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging
>> > > those mistakes that you
>> > > have heretofore only privately acknowledged.
>> > >
>> > > I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but
>> > > I am still fumbling
>> > > around trying to understand your position.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a
>> > > debate,
>>> > > > you should always offer your opponent the benefit
>> > > of
>>> > > > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including
>> > > the
>>> > > > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
>>> > > > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much,
>> > > if
>>> > > > at all.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But anyway, the details here don't matter.
>> > > Accusing
>>> > > > him of taking the quote out of context was
>>> > > > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Actually this was part of my stipulation all
>> > > along, I
>>> > > > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed
>> > > yet
>>> > > > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize
>> > > to
>>> > > > Bradford before returning.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour
>> > > again so
>>>> > > > > quickly.  When I
>>>> > > > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and
>> > > that I
>>>> > > > > would assume you were
>>>> > > > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>>>> > > > > misunderstanding at root in
>>>> > > > > these events.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>>>> > > > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>>>> > > > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer
>> > > acting in
>>>> > > > > good faith, you
>>>> > > > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>>>> > > > > assumption is made, however I
>>>> > > > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is
>> > > that
>>>> > > > > the Davies quote was
>>>> > > > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>>>> > > > > "anti-theists" alike would
>>>> > > > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>>>> > > > > clipped. There is nothing
>>>> > > > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the
>> > > contrary is
>>>> > > > > true..."
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>>>> > > > > final three-sentence
>>>> > > > > paragraph of his editorial?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences,
>> > > decides
>>>> > > > > both are wrong, and says
>>>> > > > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>>>> > > > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>>>> > > > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>>>> > > > > mistake which goes
>>>> > > > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the
>> > > New
>>>> > > > > York Times.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>>>> > > > > disparate sentences
>>>> > > > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The
>> > > final
>>>> > > > > paragraph as a whole is
>>>> > > > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning
>> > > is
>>>> > > > > destroyed when just the
>>>> > > > > final sentence is taken without the preceding
>> > > two.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies
>> > > is
>>>> > > > > certainly no theist.
>>>> > > > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>>>> > > > > paragraph to be used in the way
>>>> > > > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Though you personally disagree with me (and
>> > > sorry I
>>>> > > > > still can't fathom how),
>>>> > > > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have
>> > > outlined
>>>> > > > > an entirely reasonable
>>>> > > > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>>>> > > > > non-ID folks would agree
>>>> > > > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>>>> > > > > discussion were people are
>>>> > > > > free to disagree, or not?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.
>> > > You
>>>> > > > > have done several things
>>>> > > > > which were outright wrong, and you have
>> > > apologized
>>>> > > > > for them (thank you).
>>>> > > > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>>>> > > > > posts were not saved, and
>>>> > > > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those
>> > > posts
>>>> > > > > outlined my position on
>>>> > > > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>>>> > > > > those posts permanently,
>>>> > > > > you denied me the chance to defend myself
>> > > against
>>>> > > > > Bradford's accusations.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > And now I am required to defend my position
>> > > again.
>>>> > > > > Actually you did not ask
>>>> > > > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>>>> > > > > position!  Moreover, my
>>>> > > > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>>>> > > > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>>>> > > > > *you* made!
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I am astonished.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>>>> > > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
>> > >
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > Make Yahoo! your homepage.
> > < http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:16:32 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Hello again Frostman,

Unfortunately on this point, I see no out for you.
That the last sentence in question makes atheists
uncomfortable is an irrefutable fact. You can see this
in that none of the critics that have been confronted
with this lone quote have taken your position (out of
context).

You also don't see how disingenuous it is to accuse
someone of such a thing, when the evidence can point
either way, which means you are willing to do it again
even if I let you back in. I cannot allow that.

So in conclusion, I must say once again, farewell
Frostman. It's a shame, you had potential.

Soon banning at TT will become a thing of the past,
because I've programmed an alternative to the memory
hole. It's too bad you were not part of this new era.
Still, I frequently visit anti-ID forums, so perhaps
this is not goodbye, just a farewell, for now.

Sincerely,
Guts


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies
> > quote again.  In short, I
> > believe it was a mistake to use only the final
> > sentence of that
> > three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part
> > of any quoting is to be
> > faithful to the author's intention.  As you said,
> > Bradford was not talking
> > about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by
> > definition an out of context
> > quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You
> > have reinforced my
> > position on this.
> >
> > Calling attention to an out of context quote is not
> > inherently offensive or
> > derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more
> > often than you believe
> > it does --- and the reason for it happening is
> > well-known.  It does not
> > involve malicious intent.
> >
> > All you have to do is put yourself in the position
> > of the blogger.  Imagine
> > you are reading an article, and a particular
> > sentence or passage gives you a
> > jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is
> > possible that you may not
> > take the surrounding text sufficiently into account
> > --- you just love that
> > passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.
> > And in your focusing, you
> > may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing
> > conniving about it.
> > It's just part of the package of human emotions,
> > which is our greatest
> > asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead
> > us into logical troubles.
> >
> > This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally
> > be taken out of
> > context, but you see the gist of it.
> >
> > And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed
> > once again!
> >
> > This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a
> > digression from the original
> > issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is
> > that a statement hasn't
> > been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is
> > the number one issue.
> > My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a
> > separate issue, of which I
> > have no concern at the moment.
> >
> > When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you
> > wrote a very contrite email
> > to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am
> > grateful that we both stuck
> > it out long enough to figure out what really
> > happened.  That in itself may
> > be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a
> > little less tolerant, one
> > party may have stomped away, and the problem would
> > be left unsolved.
> >
> > The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It
> > took genuine honor to
> > write that email, but there was no public display of
> > that honor.  I waited
> > for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear
> > on the TT thread, but
> > none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a
> > false impression of my
> > actions there.  And they still do.  With all the
> > dignity you showed in your
> > email, you could not muster the strength to clear my
> > name.
> >
> > And then came the email which bowled me over: that
> > you would disclose the
> > misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon
> > certain conditions which
> > I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return
> > you will admit your
> > mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the
> > unintentional consequence of
> > wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that,
> > and we both know what it
> > is.
> >
> > It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is
> > to tell a lie.  You want
> > me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a
> > position which I firmly
> > believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended
> > this position.
> > (Remember, my position is that the quote is simply
> > out of context, not that
> > Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow
> > that, I would be lying.
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
>> > > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the
> > quote
>> > > out of context". You were clearly making it out to
> > be
>> > > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking
> > quotes
>> > > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.
> >  If
>> > > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you
> > can
>> > > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
>> > > should apologize for such sloppy use of language
> > (as I
>> > > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding
> > what
>> > > to do about the broken memory hole).
>> > >
>> > > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
>> > > telling someone that they have taken a quote out
> > of
>> > > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is
> > not
>> > > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
>> > > selectively choose sentences that would clearly
> > alter
>> > > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do
> > it
>> > > with various phrases from the Talmud.
>> > >
>> > > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation
> > to
>> > > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
>> > > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
>> > > reaction from various atheists on the internet to
> > the
>> > > one sentence.
>> > >
>> > > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
>> > > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
>> > > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts
> > because he
>> > > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
>> > > language). It would go a long way in putting this
>> > > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
>> > > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
>> > > rationally disagree but still engage with
> > eachother in
>> > > a civil manner.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please
> > bear
>>> > > > with me again.  Again, I
>>> > > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.
> > I
>>> > > > pledge once more that I am
>>> > > > acting in good faith.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has
> > been
>>> > > > explained thoroughly
>>> > > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>>> > > > disagree with it, you see it
>>> > > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>>> > > > erroneously).  I know that
>>> > > > others agree with me.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It is my understanding that participants at
> > Telic
>>> > > > Thoughts are allowed to
>>> > > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long
> > ago
>>> > > > if this was not the
>>> > > > case, as would a slew of others.
>>> > > >
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Posted by: Frostman on July 05 2008,15:17

Part 4:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:03:25 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

You have misunderstood.  In my last email I made clear, or I thought I made
clear, that I am unconcerned about the state of my banning.  That's not the
issue here.

The issue is that you have not done the right thing by publicly explaining
the mistakes you made to those at TT, and the unfortunate consequences of
those mistakes.  Like I said in my last email, "This is the number one
issue.  My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a separate issue, of
which I have no concern at the moment."

Previously you said to me, among other things, "...I deleted the rest
because I perceived the situation as a hostile reaction to Bradford's
initial decision, for which I apologize to you. This goes for the rest of
the deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were my doing because
of what I perceived as a hostile attack on Bradford, an attempt to
circumvent his decision. Really you just felt that your posts were unjustly
deleted out of existence, I would get mad at that as well."

Why would you continue to hold that information to yourself?  When you
realized the misunderstanding, why didn't you rush to correct it?  Why have
you still not corrected it?  You may not like me, but obviously that is no
excuse.  We both know what is right and what is wrong here.  Why have you
not done the right thing?

Sincerely,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 3:16 AM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Hello again Frostman,
> >
> > Unfortunately on this point, I see no out for you.
> > That the last sentence in question makes atheists
> > uncomfortable is an irrefutable fact. You can see this
> > in that none of the critics that have been confronted
> > with this lone quote have taken your position (out of
> > context).
> >
> > You also don't see how disingenuous it is to accuse
> > someone of such a thing, when the evidence can point
> > either way, which means you are willing to do it again
> > even if I let you back in. I cannot allow that.
> >
> > So in conclusion, I must say once again, farewell
> > Frostman. It's a shame, you had potential.
> >
> > Soon banning at TT will become a thing of the past,
> > because I've programmed an alternative to the memory
> > hole. It's too bad you were not part of this new era.
> > Still, I frequently visit anti-ID forums, so perhaps
> > this is not goodbye, just a farewell, for now.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Guts
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies
>> > > quote again.  In short, I
>> > > believe it was a mistake to use only the final
>> > > sentence of that
>> > > three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part
>> > > of any quoting is to be
>> > > faithful to the author's intention.  As you said,
>> > > Bradford was not talking
>> > > about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by
>> > > definition an out of context
>> > > quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You
>> > > have reinforced my
>> > > position on this.
>> > >
>> > > Calling attention to an out of context quote is not
>> > > inherently offensive or
>> > > derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more
>> > > often than you believe
>> > > it does --- and the reason for it happening is
>> > > well-known.  It does not
>> > > involve malicious intent.
>> > >
>> > > All you have to do is put yourself in the position
>> > > of the blogger.  Imagine
>> > > you are reading an article, and a particular
>> > > sentence or passage gives you a
>> > > jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is
>> > > possible that you may not
>> > > take the surrounding text sufficiently into account
>> > > --- you just love that
>> > > passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.
>> > > And in your focusing, you
>> > > may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing
>> > > conniving about it.
>> > > It's just part of the package of human emotions,
>> > > which is our greatest
>> > > asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead
>> > > us into logical troubles.
>> > >
>> > > This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally
>> > > be taken out of
>> > > context, but you see the gist of it.
>> > >
>> > > And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed
>> > > once again!
>> > >
>> > > This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a
>> > > digression from the original
>> > > issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is
>> > > that a statement hasn't
>> > > been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is
>> > > the number one issue.
>> > > My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a
>> > > separate issue, of which I
>> > > have no concern at the moment.
>> > >
>> > > When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you
>> > > wrote a very contrite email
>> > > to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am
>> > > grateful that we both stuck
>> > > it out long enough to figure out what really
>> > > happened.  That in itself may
>> > > be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a
>> > > little less tolerant, one
>> > > party may have stomped away, and the problem would
>> > > be left unsolved.
>> > >
>> > > The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It
>> > > took genuine honor to
>> > > write that email, but there was no public display of
>> > > that honor.  I waited
>> > > for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear
>> > > on the TT thread, but
>> > > none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a
>> > > false impression of my
>> > > actions there.  And they still do.  With all the
>> > > dignity you showed in your
>> > > email, you could not muster the strength to clear my
>> > > name.
>> > >
>> > > And then came the email which bowled me over: that
>> > > you would disclose the
>> > > misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon
>> > > certain conditions which
>> > > I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return
>> > > you will admit your
>> > > mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the
>> > > unintentional consequence of
>> > > wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that,
>> > > and we both know what it
>> > > is.
>> > >
>> > > It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is
>> > > to tell a lie.  You want
>> > > me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a
>> > > position which I firmly
>> > > believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended
>> > > this position.
>> > > (Remember, my position is that the quote is simply
>> > > out of context, not that
>> > > Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow
>> > > that, I would be lying.
>> > >
>> > > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
>> > > What is stopping you from
>> > > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
>> > > it contingent upon *my*
>> > > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
>> > > Davies quote is totally
>> > > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
>> > > right thing.
>> > >
>> > > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
>> > > situation.  Why am I
>> > > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
>> > > right thing?  Why don't
>> > > you just do it?
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
>>> > > > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the
>> > > quote
>>> > > > out of context". You were clearly making it out to
>> > > be
>>> > > > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking
>> > > quotes
>>> > > > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.
>> > >  If
>>> > > > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you
>> > > can
>>> > > > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
>>> > > > should apologize for such sloppy use of language
>> > > (as I
>>> > > > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding
>> > > what
>>> > > > to do about the broken memory hole).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
>>> > > > telling someone that they have taken a quote out
>> > > of
>>> > > > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is
>> > > not
>>> > > > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
>>> > > > selectively choose sentences that would clearly
>> > > alter
>>> > > > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do
>> > > it
>>> > > > with various phrases from the Talmud.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation
>> > > to
>>> > > > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
>>> > > > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
>>> > > > reaction from various atheists on the internet to
>> > > the
>>> > > > one sentence.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
>>> > > > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
>>> > > > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts
>> > > because he
>>> > > > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
>>> > > > language). It would go a long way in putting this
>>> > > > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
>>> > > > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
>>> > > > rationally disagree but still engage with
>> > > eachother in
>>> > > > a civil manner.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please
>> > > bear
>>>> > > > > with me again.  Again, I
>>>> > > > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.
>> > > I
>>>> > > > > pledge once more that I am
>>>> > > > > acting in good faith.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has
>> > > been
>>>> > > > > explained thoroughly
>>>> > > > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>>>> > > > > disagree with it, you see it
>>>> > > > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>>>> > > > > erroneously).  I know that
>>>> > > > > others agree with me.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > It is my understanding that participants at
>> > > Telic
>>>> > > > > Thoughts are allowed to
>>>> > > > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long
>> > > ago
>>>> > > > > if this was not the
>>>> > > > > case, as would a slew of others.
>>>> > > > >
>> > >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:47:28 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

Though you have not answered yet (been very little time), I feel obligated
to address what I suspect your response will be.

You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first, and then I will do the
right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused this misunderstanding at
TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from
doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task alone: to candidly say
publicly what you have candidly said to me privately.

I regret to simply restate what I said in my penultimate (I love that word!)
email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored it:

Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?  What is stopping you from
explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is it contingent upon *my*
actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the Davies quote is totally
unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the right thing.

We both know what is right and what is wrong in this situation.  Why am I
even put in a position of persuading you to do the right thing?  Why don't
you just do it?

Sincerely,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:57:05 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First,
unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
publically, check out your thread on AE (ironically,
although there were many insults flung at TT, they
moved the comments to threw it right back, but I bet
you won't protest that).

Second, in that thread , I have *already* explained
what happened with numerous posts indicating what had
occured. However, the fact remains that your
accusation of out of context quotation was
inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thats
it.



--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little
> > time), I feel obligated
> > to address what I suspect your response will be.
> >
> > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first,
> > and then I will do the
> > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused
> > this misunderstanding at
> > TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing
> > whatsoever preventing you from
> > doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task
> > alone: to candidly say
> > publicly what you have candidly said to me
> > privately.
> >
> > I regret to simply restate what I said in my
> > penultimate (I love that word!)
> > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored
> > it:
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Frostman
> >



Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:01:41 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually one last thing,

The offer still stands as to lifting your ban. You can
send me an apology to Bradford, which I will post as a
Blog Entry, along with my apology to you. I think two
paragraphs is enough.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little
> > time), I feel obligated
> > to address what I suspect your response will be.
> >
> > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first,
> > and then I will do the
> > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused
> > this misunderstanding at
> > TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing
> > whatsoever preventing you from
> > doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task
> > alone: to candidly say
> > publicly what you have candidly said to me
> > privately.
> >
> > I regret to simply restate what I said in my
> > penultimate (I love that word!)
> > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored
> > it:
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Frostman
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:42:23 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

This is an ethical question for you to ponder on your own time.  You have
wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not set the record straight
in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.  You know what is right,
and you know that you have not done what is right.  It's really that simple.

You have already agreed with me that the Davies quote was taken out of
context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not talking about Davies'
intended meaning."  The most important part of any quoting is to be faithful
to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that simple.

Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First,
> > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
> > publically, check out your thread on AE (ironically,
> > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
> > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I bet
> > you won't protest that).
> >
> > Second, in that thread , I have *already* explained
> > what happened with numerous posts indicating what had
> > occured. However, the fact remains that your
> > accusation of out of context quotation was
> > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thats
> > it.
> >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:55:46 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Now you're just being stupid. What difference does it
make where I do it.

I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
context, I said your position that it was taken out of
context was irrational.

I've wasted enough time with you.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
> > your own time.  You have
> > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not
> > set the record straight
> > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.
> > You know what is right,
> > and you know that you have not done what is right.
> > It's really that simple.
> >
> > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
> > quote was taken out of
> > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not
> > talking about Davies'
> > intended meaning."  The most important part of any
> > quoting is to be faithful
> > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that
> > simple.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
> > First,
>> > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>> > > publically, check out your thread on AE
> > (ironically,
>> > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
>> > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I
> > bet
>> > > you won't protest that).
>> > >
>> > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
> > explained
>> > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what
> > had
>> > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>> > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>> > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
> > Thats
>> > > it.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:33:07 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

It makes a difference because the persons you inform of the wrongdoing
should be the same persons who witnessed the wrongdoing.  TT readers should
be informed, not AE readers.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation
in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that
obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 5:55 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Now you're just being stupid. What difference does it
> > make where I do it.
> >
> > I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
> > context, I said your position that it was taken out of
> > context was irrational.
> >
> > I've wasted enough time with you.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
>> > > your own time.  You have
>> > > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not
>> > > set the record straight
>> > > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.
>> > > You know what is right,
>> > > and you know that you have not done what is right.
>> > > It's really that simple.
>> > >
>> > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
>> > > quote was taken out of
>> > > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not
>> > > talking about Davies'
>> > > intended meaning."  The most important part of any
>> > > quoting is to be faithful
>> > > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that
>> > > simple.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
>> > > First,
>>> > > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>>> > > > publically, check out your thread on AE
>> > > (ironically,
>>> > > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
>>> > > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I
>> > > bet
>>> > > > you won't protest that).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
>> > > explained
>>> > > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what
>> > > had
>>> > > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>>> > > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>>> > > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
>> > > Thats
>>> > > > it.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:36:24 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

TT readers were already informed by my multiple posts
in the thread in question. Any moderate lurkers
reading the AE forum now have a clear indication of
what truly occured. All is well.


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It makes a difference because the persons you inform
> > of the wrongdoing
> > should be the same persons who witnessed the
> > wrongdoing.  TT readers should
> > be informed, not AE readers.
> >
> > Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to
> > the ethical obligation
> > in front of you.  You require nothing from me in
> > order to fulfill that
> > obligation.
> >
> > You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you
> > will not do it.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 5:55 PM, Guts
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Now you're just being stupid. What difference does
> > it
>> > > make where I do it.
>> > >
>> > > I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
>> > > context, I said your position that it was taken
> > out of
>> > > context was irrational.
>> > >
>> > > I've wasted enough time with you.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
>>> > > > your own time.  You have
>>> > > > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will
> > not
>>> > > > set the record straight
>>> > > > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing
> > occurred.
>>> > > > You know what is right,
>>> > > > and you know that you have not done what is
> > right.
>>> > > > It's really that simple.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
>>> > > > quote was taken out of
>>> > > > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was
> > not
>>> > > > talking about Davies'
>>> > > > intended meaning."  The most important part of
> > any
>>> > > > quoting is to be faithful
>>> > > > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really
> > that
>>> > > > simple.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
>>> > > > First,
>>>> > > > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>>>> > > > > publically, check out your thread on AE
>>> > > > (ironically,
>>>> > > > > although there were many insults flung at TT,
> > they
>>>> > > > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but
> > I
>>> > > > bet
>>>> > > > > you won't protest that).
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
>>> > > > explained
>>>> > > > > what happened with numerous posts indicating
> > what
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>>>> > > > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>>>> > > > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
>>> > > > Thats
>>>> > > > > it.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
< http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:15:53 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred.  Some TT readers
may also read AE, but many do not.  The honest course of action is to tell
them.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation
in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that
obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Sincerely,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 6:36 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > TT readers were already informed by my multiple posts
> > in the thread in question. Any moderate lurkers
> > reading the AE forum now have a clear indication of
> > what truly occured. All is well.
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:49:34 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com, nucacids@wowway.com

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=86519 >

Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
Frostman




Subject:
Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:52:15 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Hi Mike,

I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding my
banishment from TT.

Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
however.

A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90 >


My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told
me.

At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a particular
quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of context.  This
view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for my banning.

Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of a
free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not support
such a free exchange.

Kind Regards,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:21:31 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Hello Mike,

Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic Thoughts
can only be damaging to the blog's reputation.

With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free and
open exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts?  As I have outlined
previously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT.

Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I am
prepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you may
read in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me.  This will
provide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter.

That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quite
significant.

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=120 >

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Dec 17, 2007 6:52 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding
> > my banishment from TT.
> >
> > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
> > comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
> > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
> > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
> > profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
> > however.
> >
> > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:
> >
> > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90 >
> >
> >
> > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told
> > me.
> >
> > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a
> > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of
> > context.  This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for
> > my banning.
> >
> > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of
> > a free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not
> > support such a free exchange.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 04:39:51 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Still no comment?  Curious  :)

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry92466 >

On Jan 6, 2008 3:21 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hello Mike,
> >
> > Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic
> > Thoughts can only be damaging to the blog's reputation.
> >
> > With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free and
> > open exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts?  As I have outlined
> > previously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT.
> >
> > Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I
> > am prepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you
> > may read in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me.  This
> > will provide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter.
> >
> > That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quite
> > significant.
> >
> > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=120 >
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2007 6:52 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hi Mike,
>> > >
>> > > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions
>> > > surrounding my banishment from TT.
>> > >
>> > > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
>> > > comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
>> > > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
>> > > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
>> > > profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
>> > > however.
>> > >
>> > > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90 >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has
>> > > told me.
>> > >
>> > > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a
>> > > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of
>> > > context.  This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for
>> > > my banning.
>> > >
>> > > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit
>> > > of a free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not
>> > > support such a free exchange.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:16:42 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Perhaps it will be easier if I simply ask you a direct question:

Guts offered to lift my ban if, in exchange, I would renounce my position
that a certain quote which appeared on TT was taken out of context.

Do you believe Guts' behavior here is ethical?

And do you want Telic Thoughts to be the sort of place where particular
rational positions are not allowed to be expressed?

As I have mentioned, I am prepared to give you this email account so that
you may view the correspondence with Guts yourself.

You have a clear ethical problem in front of you.

Kind Regards,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 8 Jan 2008 03:57:39 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com

Checkmate.

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry92466 >

Regards,
Frostman
Posted by: stevestory on July 05 2008,15:48

Quote (keiths @ July 05 2008,03:57)
Joy is a veritable fountain of what I call 'blowtard'.  Designed to impress the rubes as deep erudition, it elicits hysterical laughter from people who actually understand the subjects that Joy pretends to discuss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The thing I noticed about Joy is her tendency to proclaim victory. In her imaginary world, materialism is over, ID was a success, etc. Really twisted, the way she lies to herself.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 05 2008,16:12

I think I've been in online discussions with Nelson Alonso since about 1997, and met him in person in 2002 at the AMNH IDC debate event. I'm not surprised.
Posted by: stevestory on July 05 2008,17:04

Holy crap:

< http://www.amazon.com/Design-....&sr=1-1 >

The Design Matrix, by Mike Gene:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
# Paperback: 316 pages
# Publisher: Arbor Vitae Press; 1st edition (November 30, 2007)

# Amazon.com Sales Rank: #322,907 in Books
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nobody is reading Mike Gene's book. It makes The Edge of Evolution look like a best seller.

My faith in humanity just went up a notch.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 05 2008,17:35

Very interesting. < Guts blogged >  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official < Tiktaalik > website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

< >

(Neil Shubin is in front.)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 05 2008,17:39

What's up with Allen MacNeill?  Or is this old news?  From the < "apology thread" > at TT  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  Allen_MacNeill Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am

If I may chime in, I learned long ago (from my mentor, Will Provine) that one has two responsibilities when considering the kinds of questions posed here: never to attack the person making assertions with which one disagrees, and always to attack their assertions, with all the evidence and vigor at one's disposal. This, to me, is the primary ethic of the academy: we cherish those with whom we disagree, for in our disagreement we both come to clarity about our own attitudes, beliefs, positions, and understanding.

This is precisely why Will and I always invite people with whom we disagree to make presentations and stand for questions in our evolution courses at Cornell. In many cases our students become even more confirmed in their opposition to the ideas presented by such presenters, as a result of formulating their own telling questions and following up on the answers. And, of course, sometimes the presenters surprise us all, and our own positions must be modified as a result.

Hence, my deep regard for the folks here (and my general disdain for the average commentators at both Uncommon Descent and Panda's Thumb). May a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend, eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 05 2008,17:50

I disagree with MacNeill that one should hand moderation control of a course forum over to an unaffiliated student not taking the course. I noticed that MacNeill wasn't terribly "cherishing" of the commenter on PT that pointed that out.
Posted by: stevestory on July 05 2008,18:10

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. < Guts blogged >  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official < Tiktaalik > website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

< >

(Neil Shubin is in front.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.
Posted by: stevestory on July 05 2008,18:13

If he's mad that someone on PT pointed out that handing over moderation to Hannah Maxson was a boneheaded move, well, tough. It was.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 05 2008,19:38

Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,18:10)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. < Guts blogged >  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official < Tiktaalik > website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

< >

(Neil Shubin is in front.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whaddaya know. Guts says I wasn't banned. I was "< barred >".
Posted by: Art on July 05 2008,20:04

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,17:35)
Very interesting. < Guts blogged >  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official < Tiktaalik > website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

< >

(Neil Shubin is in front.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Why am I not surprised? >  (That's my last comment on TT - the crew there are so on edge that they cannot stand any probing questions.)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 05 2008,20:29

I've never read much at TT in the past, but after reading this < comment by Joy > (is she FtK's sister? DT's mom?), I think I'll stop now. A commenter named Mesk wrote  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   During genome reconstruction you hit all sorts of crazy artefacts, mainly due to rearrangements caused by the bacteria used to grow up the chunks of chromosome for sequencing. There's no way researchers could tell the difference between a true CNV and a random artefact - so given that everything we knew about chromosomes and human health suggested that CNVs were rare, and the genome reconstruction algorithms were designed to filter out artefacts that looked exactly like CNVs, it's no wonder these things were missed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy replied

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying that the bacteria have human genes? What kind of bacteria is this, anyway? Regardless, it's nice that they've finally taken a step out of the stone age technologically. There are several human projects - medicine primary among them - that would greatly benefit from real knowledge. As opposed to slash-and-burn kill-em-all. I predicted that too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Classic! Complete ignorance of molecular biology methods, coupled with the hubris to brag about some biological science prediction from your past.

Zach, it might be a good thing that you have been barred from some of those threads. That's fairly stunning stuff.
Posted by: olegt on July 05 2008,22:49

Joy is unique among the TT denizens.  She combines ignorance with arrogance that results in comments like < this one >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just an aside to let the groupies (as opposed to practicing scientists) know that in addition to the fact that no model of organic evolution that ignores physical theoretics can ever explain 'reality' as we perceive and experience it, I'd just like to add the scientific FACT that…

…if there are more than 3+1 dimensions in reality, we can't rule out the existence of intelligent life in any or all of them, or circumscribe the capabilities of such conscious existence according to the provisional [ignoring anomalies] 'rules' here in 3+1. Really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keep in mind that she is (or was at the time) herself a groupie of one < Matti Pitkänen >, a crackpot mathematical physicist.
Posted by: keiths on July 05 2008,23:06

Oleg,

You'll love < this one > if you haven't seen it already.

You're right. It's the combination of ignorance and arrogance (with a dollop of pure batshit insanity) that makes Joy so special.

Top-heavy ego-to-ability ratios, like hers and DaveScot's, have a special zest that is lacking in ordinary tard.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 05 2008,23:43

Dave *really* doesn't understand probability:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-291993 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
24

DaveScot

07/05/2008

10:59 pm
Frost

So every event that has happened is indeed 1/1 retrospectively

No. Probabilities don’t change just because an outcome fell one way or another in the past. If a given flip of a fair coin turned up heads it doesn’t change the fact that the odds were 50/50 and will forever remain 50/50 for that fair coin.

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



So, Dave what are the odds of tossing 5 heads in a row, given that you've already tossed 5 heads?


ETA: crap, wrong thread.
Posted by: JAM on July 06 2008,00:58

Quote (Frostman @ July 05 2008,14:42)
It has come to my attention that Mike Gene and Bradford have recently been engaging in historical revisionism with respect to their dishonest behavior surrounding the banning of myself and keiths.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Buddy, their penchant for historical revisionism should have been obvious from reading virtually anything either of them has written.

In addition to both of them being dishonest and hypocritical, Bradford is a first-class moron.

Relax. Just let the tard wash over you...
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,01:47

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,19:38)
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,18:10)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. < Guts blogged >  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official < Tiktaalik > website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:

< >

(Neil Shubin is in front.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whaddaya know. Guts says I wasn't banned. I was "< barred >".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You weren't banned, you were barred from a specific thread. You can post freely in any thread you wish. You just can't continue to derail mine
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,01:48

Art writes:


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

That's my last comment on TT - the crew there are so on edge that they cannot stand any probing questions

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



I  don't get it. How is posting a redundant link a "probing question"?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,02:02

Frostman writes:


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

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

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



This is quite false. In fact anon9/frostman posted this on TT:



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

Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts

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



A clear attempt at disguising himself.



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

In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.

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



In fact, I received no such "coded message". I did receive an e-mail from Frostman posing as JackT, who was using proxies to try to prove that he was not anon9/frostman, but still begged me to lift the ban.

This willingness to be deceptive speaks volumes. It shows the one who lacks ethics is frostman, not me.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,02:04

Hey Guts. Sorry if you're disoriented: we're a science blog, so there's no arbitrary censorship here. You'll get used to it. How's the ID journal coming? < Oh, sorry. >
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,02:10

How would you know this is a science blog? You're obviously scientifically illiterate.
Posted by: Bob O'H on July 06 2008,02:18

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 05 2008,20:29)
Joy replied  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying that the bacteria have human genes? What kind of bacteria is this, anyway? ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


It's E. coli.  Ask Prof. Lenski to send you some.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,02:23

I'll post another example of deception, this time from steve:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >

He claims that we moderated his comment, and yet here it is on the live site:

< http://telicthoughts.com/aiguys-computer/#comment-193776 >
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,02:27

It'll be fun excersize for the comming weeks to continue to point out just how deceptive the denizens of AE can be, perhaps even occasionally cross post it to AE. See you guys later.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,02:28

oops i meant "exercise"  and cross post it to TT. You guys should get out of the dark ages, these board functions suck.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,03:40

I don't look at TT having had my fill of Mike Gene years ago on the ARN BB. From the last two pages of this tread, I have not missed anything.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,04:18

yeah but Dr. GH  you're nothing but an alcoholic, so you're not in any way credible.
Posted by: Zarquon on July 06 2008,04:27

Creationists are even less credible.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,04:29

Yeah you creationists are unreliable , you are all no different from creationists.What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,04:58

Dam even my blog has more complex functions then this piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,04:59

"than this" stupid board
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,05:00

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,10:29)
Yeah you creationists are unreliable , you are all no different from creationists.What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then again, there's this pesky little thing called "evidence" that creationists, regardless of what cheap tuxedo they may favor, just seem to lack. Or disregard rather.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:03

I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,05:08

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:03)
I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great! It's getting published any day now I take it?
Well, you know where to find this thread when it's time to gloat after you've revolutionized the world of science.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:09

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:03)
I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts,

You sound like an angry 13 year old boy.

Then again, I've read your blog.

Guts, here's a challenge. Have a debate about an issue here, where you can't censor opposing views.

How about it?

Or does the thought of being shown to be a scientific ignoramus in a venue you don't control a frighting one?

And you'd better let the Pope know about the "evidence" for your position. They've been looking for some proof now for a while. *Any* proof.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:10

I'll debate any of you any time any day, I've been doing it for years. Notice how steve stays clear away from any of my technical blogs. It's because he's scientifically illiterate.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:15

Doesn't that bother you guys? That even your own moderator can't debate the important issues? If I was a part of this board, it would bother me.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:10)
I'll debate any of you any time any day, I've been doing it for years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:20

Right here. Come at me, I dare you.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:21

Please state:

A) The essence of your position

B) The single best piece of physical evidence for your position

C) A prediction that can be checked experientially that will
provide support for your position that will result in a different answer from the "standard" position.

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

A) The diversity of biological life we see around us did not require any "telic" or supernatural intervention to come into being and can can be explained either by known processes or unknown, but not supernatural, processes. In addition, there was no "front loading".

B) I really like the sequence of horse fossils, but pick anything from < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html > it's all the same.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm >

C) Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:23

You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:26

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:23)
You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, what's pathetic is that you think a debate can happen without the proponents setting out their position at the start.

Oddly people like you have been known to change their positions when counter-evidence comes up.

It's simply a matter of trust. I don't. Trust you. Therefore, at the start all the cards are on the table.

It's perhaps not surprising that you've gone from "Debate me anywhere, any time" to "oh, you've said something I don't like so I'm taking my ball and going home".

My conclusion? You are incapable of defending your position rationally. You sir, are a blowhard.

And it only took 3 posts to get there!

How embarrassing! Do you have an edit button to go back and clean up your mess?
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,05:28

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:23)
You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's wrong with making sure your position is not misrepresented? Shouldn't take long.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:28

It seems to me that you are completely ignorant. You automatically assumed from the start that my position was wrong. But what position was that? The one you made up in your head? You don't even know my position? This thread is longer than most in this forum, it's pathetic to think you don't even know my position. What a waste of brain cells you are.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:29

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,05:28)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:23)
You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's wrong with making sure your position is not misrepresented? Shouldn't take long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you guys are the masters of misrepresentation. I've written many blogs , why not come at me from that stand point, unless you're afraid.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,05:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:30

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you're post is pathetic.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:32

"your" damn this board sucks.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,05:33

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:30)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you're post is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you going to do any actual debating (the points brought forth by oldman seem like a good starting point) or are you going to do the internet tough guy routine in perpetuity?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:34

Edited the post upstream by accident, here it is
Please state:


A) The essence of your position

B) The single best piece of physical evidence for your position

C) A prediction that can be checked experientially that will
provide support for your position that will result in a different answer from the "standard" position.

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

A) The diversity of biological life we see around us did not require any "telic" or supernatural intervention to come into being and can can be explained either by known processes or unknown, but not supernatural, processes. In addition, there was no "front loading".

B) I really like the sequence of horse fossils, but pick anything from < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html > it's all the same.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm >

C) Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:35

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,05:33)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:30)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't know my position? That's pathetic,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your position is pathetic?

Nevertheless, we would like to see you take on oldman. I am curious to discover what the well-dressed emperor is wearing this summer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you're post is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you going to do any actual debating (the points brought forth by oldman seem like a good starting point) or are you going to do the internet tough guy routine in perpetuity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate. And make no mistake, you are weak.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:37



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

Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?

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



I could even make the case that elephants are complex. You still won't be anywhere close to my position.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:37

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:32)
"your" damn this board sucks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still, must be quiet round your other blogs for you to be bothering here then?

What, once everybody has back-slapped each other "yeah, we all agree, we are all right" there's not much left to say or do right?

We understand. For us this is entertainment. For you, well you actually think you are achieving something don't you?

As you've backed out of even stating your position clearly for the record it's obvious you are intractable in your head-in-the-sand position.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:39

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:37)


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

Obviously this is the key here Guts, can you make such a prediction? Or is "DNA is complex" it?

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



I could even make the case that elephants are complex. You still won't be anywhere close to my position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You could, but you prefer to act like a 15 year old. Carry on.

Just cut and paste something from one of your "technical blogs" then if the idea of telling people who might not be familiar with your position (and trust me, that'll be 99.9% of people here) is so offensive.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:41



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

As you've backed out of even stating your position clearly for the record it's obvious you are intractable in your head-in-the-sand position.

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



Thanks for once again admitting that you are completely ignorant of my position. It's awfully strange though that the very existence of this thread doesn't bother you given your admitted ignorance. Seems more like you're brainwashed.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:42



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

Just cut and paste something from one of your "technical blogs" then if the idea of telling people who might not be familiar with your position (and trust me, that'll be 99.9% of people here) is so offensive.

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



Or better yet, try refuing any of my technical blogs. You can't.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,05:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:43

refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:44

OR would you like to have a debate about something else?

Perhaps

The explanatory filter cannot be used and is in fact useless.

?

That's my position. To nullify this position all you have to do is to give us an example of the Explanatory Filter in use, with the mathematical details given, on a selection of objects.

To make it fair, you pick one object and we'll pick an object. You do the calculations, as nobody else can.

As problems stated mathematically are usually more amenable to unambiguous results there should be little debate if the EF can be shown to work. It either does, or it does not.

Can you prove, as your position seems to be, that the EF in fact works?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:44

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no, no seperate thread, come at me here.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:45

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:43)
refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't get edit till you have shown you can be trusted not to go back and delete your own comments when they become an embarrassment to you.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,05:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks for once again admitting that you are completely ignorant of my position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He's not the only one that is completely ignorant of your position. I freely admit it. What is your position? If you don't want to restate it, perhaps you have a link that says more than ... is competely ignorant and ...sucks.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:45

The EF? lol again, you are completely ignorant of my position. The EF is as much of a joke as the assertion that steve can argue scientific topics.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,05:46

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:43)
refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Editing rights have to be earned.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:47

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:44)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:42)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no, no seperate thread, come at me here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean?

On the one hand you are saying "I don't debate people who don't know my position" and on the other you are saying "you are too intellectually challenged to debate me"

Both cannot be true.

Still, in your world, perhaps they can both be true and that's how you and people like you make your way in the world.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:47

So I wonder what the point of this thread is then if no one knows my position. Perhaps that will become clear in the comming weeks.
Posted by: Frostman on July 06 2008,05:48

Hello Nelson Alonso aka Guts,

You are digging yourself in deeper.  After being exposed for the scumbag that you are, out of desperation you come here to throw out random accusations and nonsense in sad attempt to distract from the recent stinging proof of your scumbaggery.


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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In fact, I received no such "coded message". I did receive an e-mail from Frostman posing as JackT, who was using proxies to try to prove that he was not anon9/frostman, but still begged me to lift the ban.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is awesome.  Quote-mining from the quote-mining advocate.  Well at least it is consistent: after your steadfast defense of Bradford's out-of-context quoting, you engage in it yourself.  Here is the full quote, fool.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.  anon9 said that Nelson Alonso was unethical, not Guts.  My posts here do not mention Nelson.  Only Frostman would know that Nelson Alonso is Guts, as revealed in the following correspondence where he changes his name in mid-stream.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The coded message was that I called you Nelson Alonso, not Guts.  I assumed you would notice the use of your own name and immediately realize it was Frostman.  Alas, I forgot to apply the common knowledge that you are very, very stupid.

Please continue digging yourself further into this hole of yours, Nelson.  Each comment you make here gets you deeper.  It is quite gratifying to watch.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:48

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:45)
The EF? lol again, you are completely ignorant of my position. The EF is as much of a joke as the assertion that steve can argue scientific topics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No doubt that's why you said

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Guts: Thats not a false positive wrt Dembski’s method, a false positive refers to using Dembski’s methodology to determine whether something is designed, and finding out it actually evolved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/telic-thoughts.html >
Changed your mind in the fact of evidence have you? I guess there's hope yet.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,05:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't get edit till you have shown you can be trusted not to go back and delete your own comments when they become an embarrassment to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Joseph Heller would have been proud :D
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:48

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,05:47)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:44)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,05:42)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going to show you that you are weak in terms of intellectual debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Would a separate thread be appropriate, (assuming there are going to be more than a couple of comments)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no, no seperate thread, come at me here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean?

On the one hand you are saying "I don't debate people who don't know my position" and on the other you are saying "you are too intellectually challenged to debate me"

Both cannot be true.

Still, in your world, perhaps they can both be true and that's how you and people like you make your way in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never said "I don't debate people who don't know my position" Why are you lying? I just said it was interesting, given the existence of this thread, that people don't know my position.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:52

Frostman,

Isn't it batshit insane, to refer to yourself in the third person. I truly think that you need psychological help, and if you e-mail me again, I can refer you to some experts that can help you.

I can post the relevant comment you left if you "blacked out" because of your "problem" and can't remember.

It's also interesting that you said you "sent me" a coded message, I received no such message. Why are you lying? The reason is obvious.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,05:52

Guts:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No it doesn't, it just makes the EF fallible, and not perfect, like most sciences. If the EF detects an object as designed, and but we find out it actually evolved, then you can say that it's not reliable. But that hasn't happened yet. Pointing to the possibility that it might happen doesn't render it useless at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< hahah >
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,05:57

Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,06:01

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:02

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:03

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,06:01)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How in the world could you know I changed my position if you don't even know it? Bizarre.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:03

So, Guts, about the EF.

Currently laughable to you, but you obviously believed in it at some point (circa 2005).

What lead you to the truth of the matter?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:04

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:02)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would you say that? You don't even know my position, so it's not even possible that you could even debate me. It shows your lack of intellect really. Multiple pages of this thread, and you don't even know my position? How is that not hilarious.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:05

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:03)
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,06:01)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How in the world could you know I changed my position if you don't even know it? Bizarre.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've just shown how you've changed your position on the EF. Why is it so unbelievable you might have changed your other positions in the fact of factual evidence shown why those positions were wrong?

We don't know exactly where you've got to in your struggle to discard all the debris of a damaged mind, so if you can state your current position we can hold your hand while you inch towards the reality based community.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:07

Please, please, please, Guts,

State your position.

Thanks in advance.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:08

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:04)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:02)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would you say that? You don't even know my position, so it's not even possible that you could even debate me. It shows your lack of intellect really. Multiple pages of this thread, and you don't even know my position? How is that not hilarious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts, have I said I don't know what your position is?

OK, what do you want to debate about?

Shall we try that?

How about "how the explanatory filter is a worthless construct that is only used to fool the less mathematical into believing that design detection has a foundation in reality when in fact it's just the math icing on a cake of nothing"
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:08

How do you know I changed my position on the EF? I actually did defend it at one point, not because I agreed with it but because it was being misrepresented but that doesn't mean I espouse it, that is a completely different issue.
Posted by: Frostman on July 06 2008,06:09

Nelson Alonso aka Guts:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's also interesting that you said you "sent me" a coded message, I received no such message. Why are you lying? The reason is obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought I've seen thick skulls before, but yours has got to be the thickest I have ever seen.  For the third time: the coded message was that I called you Nelson Alonso, not Guts.

To witness your disintegration into a flailing ball of petulant 13-year-old comments here, right now, on this forum, is so awesome, Nelson.  Please, continue, continue.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:10

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:08)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:04)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:02)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so it begins.

I must say Guts, I think this is the fastest ever transition from "challenge to debate" to "ignoring awkward comments" we've ever had.

Grats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would you say that? You don't even know my position, so it's not even possible that you could even debate me. It shows your lack of intellect really. Multiple pages of this thread, and you don't even know my position? How is that not hilarious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts, have I said I don't know what your position is?

OK, what do you want to debate about?

Shall we try that?

How about "how the explanatory filter is a worthless construct that is only used to fool the less mathematical into believing that design detection has a foundation in reality when in fact it's just the math icing on a cake of nothing"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:10

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:08)
How do you know I changed my position on the EF? I actually did defend it at one point, not because I agreed with it but because it was being misrepresented but that doesn't mean I espouse it, that is a completely different issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simple question.

Does the EF, in your option, work or not?

Can it be used to "detect design"?

If "yes" why do you think that?

If "yes" can you give us an example?

If "no" can you say why you think it works without being able to give an example?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:11

Quote (Frostman @ July 06 2008,06:09)
Nelson Alonso aka Guts:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's also interesting that you said you "sent me" a coded message, I received no such message. Why are you lying? The reason is obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought I've seen thick skulls before, but yours has got to be the thickest I have ever seen.  For the third time: the coded message was that I called you Nelson Alonso, not Guts.

To witness your disintegration into a flailing ball of petulant 13-year-old comments here, right now, on this forum, is so awesome, Nelson.  Please, continue, continue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frostman, you still haven't told me why you refer to yourself in the third person. Isn't that utterly insane? Do you think your mother would be proud of something like that?
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,06:12

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:03)
 
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,06:01)
   
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:57)
Yes to people who are psycho that would be funny, don't blame me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, since you seem to have changed your position, I think it would be a good thing if you could define your position as it currently stands, in order to get rid of any misconceptions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How in the world could you know I changed my position if you don't even know it? Bizarre.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Earlier in this thread you stated

 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,11:45)
The EF? lol again, you are completely ignorant of my position. The EF is as much of a joke as the assertion that steve can argue scientific topics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But in a thread on telic thoughts in 2005 you wrote the following.

 
Quote (Guts @ May 06 2005 on TT)

PvM:
 

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

These statements combined with the admission that false positives are possible make the EF useless. For example, assume that ID had presented a clear case of an EF applied to infer design, how would we know that it had not forgotten a particular hypothesis?

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


No it doesn't, it just makes the EF fallible, and not perfect, like most sciences. If the EF detects an object as designed, and but we find out it actually evolved, then you can say that it's not reliable. But that hasn't happened yet. Pointing to the possibility that it might happen doesn't render it useless at all.

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



How is that not changing your position? Now do you understand why there might be some confusion regarding your position?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lets. It simply shows how  desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:15

I don't get it, I defend against falsehood, even the EF, if you're so utterly stupid that you don't get the EF, I will call you out on it. But it doesn't mean I espouse it. So i don't get your point.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:16

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:15)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lets. It simply shows how  desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable fact of life. Ok?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:16)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:15)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lets. It simply shows how  desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable fact of life. Ok?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name calling?

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:19

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:15)
I don't get it, I defend against falsehood, even the EF, if you're so utterly stupid that you don't get the EF, I will call you out on it. But it doesn't mean I espouse it. So i don't get your point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Defend the EF by giving us an example of it being used.

I bet you can't.

And further more I bet the reason you can't won't be "There is no example to give" but "you are a moron".
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:20

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:16)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:15)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:10)
How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lets. It simply shows how  desperate you are to avoid engaging on substantive issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable fact of life. Ok?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, is this you conceding the debate?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:20

No thats me conceding that you're a retard.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:24

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:20)
No thats me conceding that you're a retard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't know you won't be able to go back and edit all this right?

How you got challenged to a debate and responded like a 10 year old?

It's good to know this is the best you've got.

In fact, like FTK, you are the best advertisement for what "telic thoughts" do to your brain.

Carry on the good work Guts, we'd be a lot worse off without your type of unthinking acceptance of such concepts as the EF. It serves to illustrate to the undecided lurkers the paucity of ideas and facts supporting your side of the "debate". Not that they know what your side is as you refuse to tell them. Sound laughable does it when you write it out? Don't blame you for not telling in that case.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:24

Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:27

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:31

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:27)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who's saying that?

The point is that before a debate or even discussion can happen you need to say something substantive that said discussion can be based upon.

Simply pointing to "my position is available on XYZ blogs" means nothing.

It's not a difficult to understand point.

Make some kind of point. People will agree or disagree. Then we can have a discussion, debate, whatever.

As yet, you've said nothing here to base such a discussion on.

Again, it's not a hard concept.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.

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



No need to write a book, surely? Just try a post with an example, starting with something like "my position on (fill in with subject of choice here) is..."
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:34

So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.  That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,06:35

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:34)
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.  That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, tactic #73

Right now I'm too busy to demonstrate why you are all idiots, but *soon* I will, just you wait and see

Sure, why not do it now Guts? What's stopping you?
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,06:36

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:34)
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.  That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why wait?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:38

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:35)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:34)
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.  That requires professional attention from psychiatrists, I will demonstrate this in the comming weeks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, tactic #73

Right now I'm too busy to demonstrate why you are all idiots, but *soon* I will, just you wait and see

Sure, why not do it now Guts? What's stopping you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whats stopping me is that despite the fact that I have written multiple blogs, none of them have been responded to here, I just keep getting the utterly stupid question "what do you think about the EF", how utterly stupid is that? I mean really. You guys don't realize how stupid you are? That seems unlikely to me.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I've made no kind of point, and yet, this thread is more than 10 pages long, and accusations abound.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This thread was started as a commentary on the general doings at TT, as the traffic had slowed at UD, and some people find it interesting to observe what goes on at TT. So it is not about you or your position, although your moderating behaviour has been examined. But noöne is wanting to prevent you from demonstrating your superior intellect. We will welcome your contribution, as soon as we know what it is.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whats stopping me is that despite the fact that I have written multiple blogs, none of them have been responded to here
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, provide a link to your best work.
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,06:47

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:27)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not actually provoking anything, though, except the willingness to let you carry on for as long as you like. It's not so much giving you enough rope as allowing you to pay out as much rope as you like, a la Aristophanes.

Refusing to state your position then throwing turds at people who ask, is certainly a path to enlightenment for anyone who cares to follow the thread. As a reader, I now feel very well informed about your actual position, because it's clearly demonstrated in all your postings. Am I wrong about what's being demonstrated here? It certainly looks like a classic example of a certain sort of behaviour - and not one recognisable as an attempt to debate.

If you want a debate, it's very simple. State your assumptions, state your evidence, state your logic and state your conclusion. A proper understanding of all four is necessary to make progress.

If you don't believe we're smart enough to understand this, why are you still here? Are you not smart enough to educate us?

Instead of throwing turds, why not expend that energy throwing evidence and logic? They're far harder to scrape off, when they hit.

R
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 06 2008,06:48

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:48)
I never said "I don't debate people who don't know my position" Why are you lying? I just said it was interesting, given the existence of this thread, that people don't know my position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, perhaps you overestimate your importance in the world.  But, then again, perhaps I am just an ignint knuckledragger.  So, wow me.  Lay out your position so I can bask in your reflected glory.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:50

Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd. You hit the nail on the head there. You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:52

But the bottom line is that AE is not about rational debate it's about cultivating flamers. I've dealt with this as soon as I banned the first flamer, keiths, and since then this blog has been an undeserved target.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:53

But hey, you guys want to play? I'm game. Lets play.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 06 2008,06:56

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:50)
Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd. You hit the nail on the head there. You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, I thought you wanted to debate here?  Now you are retreating to the safety of TT?    

*turns and speaks to adults*

I hate to say it, but this guy is even worse than JoeG. At least Joe tries to sound sciency and whatnot while he is insulting you.  

*turns back to guts*

HA HA THIS IS YOU


Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,06:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If I do as you say, I get < this > which appears to just tell me your email. It lists thread titles from all contributors, but that is not very helpful. You must know the title of a thread post or two that you are proud of, surely?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,06:59

Go to any blog I wrote and click there, not on the sidebar you twit
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:00

Safety of TT ? I never said any such thing you're a moron
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,07:03

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:00)
Safety of TT ? I never said any such thing you're a moron
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your IQ must be off the scale.

I've rarely seen such a refined wit.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:04

Thanks, but I still think you're a retard. Flattery won't get you anywhere.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:06

Carlson using stars to simulate "emotes" that is so weird, i gotta tell ya.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:16

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,01:59)
Go to any blog I wrote and click there, not on the sidebar you twit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for explaining :)

I have skimmed through the list and, frankly, there is not much substantive content from you, rather than lifting quotes from others. I will lift something from the list if you want, but generally someone such as Zachriel or Nick Matzke seem to have dealt adequately with your position. I can't believe you don't have a favourite thread where your debating skills are particulary well-demonstrated.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:17

"not much substantive content" is just you saying you can't respond because you're stupid. Just admit it.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:19

Alan seriously, just admit you can't respond because you don't have the knowledge necessary to respond, you'll gain more credibility by doing so.
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,07:22

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,06:50)
Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd. You hit the nail on the head there. You can go to Telicthoughts.com and click on my name and read all my blogs, in fact I challenge anyone to do so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.

People here who ask for evidence and logic are told that they're - what? Stupid? Liars? Deceivers? That's far less effective than giving them evidence and logic and then showing that they're stupid, lying or deceptive.

You may not see this as an exercise in avoiding any specificity, but it very much looks like it from here.

Given that you don't want it to look like that - which I assume, but feel free to tell me that assumption is false - why don't you have any interest in changing that perception? And if you do have that interest, why not do what everyone's asking you to do and be specific?

It could be that you're on a Zen jag, and are hitting the novices with sticks while asking paradoxical koans as an aid to enlightenment. There's a fine line between that and being a violent schizophrenic, though: Zen masters normally exhibit the wisdom of context.

R
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:24



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

But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.

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



More lies. In fact no one has asked me for my position, much less have been banned for it. When will the lies stop?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:25

Alan Fox, you still there? You gonna respond to any of my technical blogs?
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:19)
Alan seriously, just admit you can't respond because you don't have the knowledge necessary to respond, you'll gain more credibility by doing so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems to me that if you want to fulfill your challenge, you would be the best person to provide material, as, presumably, you know where to look. I never offered to debate you, and I claim no special knowledge, other than BS biochemistry of many years ago.

So, I claim that I can find no substantive, unrefuted defence of Intelligent design as a worthwhile scientific pursuit anywhere at Telic Thoughts in your own words.

Please demonstrate that I am wrong. (Preferably with cites.)
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,07:28

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:24)


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

But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.

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



More lies. In fact no one has asked me for my position, much less have been banned for it. When will the lies stop?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I unequivocally withdraw that part of my post and apologise unreservedly.

Now, will you answer the rest of that post?

Thanks

R
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:29

lol so I'll take that as a no. Pathetic. Can't even own up to what you consider a "creationist", really? a "creationist" made you look stupid? Wow Alan, just, wow.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact no one has asked me for my position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, several have just done so, here. Again, what is your position?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:31

My position is that you're a moron.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You gonna respond to any of my technical blogs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Is there one that makes some claim supporting Intelligent Design that you could link to?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:38

From what I gather with this thread, it should be possible for you to take any random scientific one, and demostrate that I am mistaken, you can't even do one? How pathetic is that Alan, I mean really, not one of your choosing? How does that not show that your IQ level is that of a rock?
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,07:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:31)
My position is that you're a moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Assuming you're using one of the old medical definitions of a moron, either an adult with a developmental age between 8 and 12 or an IQ of between 51 and 70, then I think that any objective assessment of Alan's cognitive level based on his use of language, logic and social interaction purely evinced by his postings here would disagree sharply with yours.

Purely on the evidence, of course. Perhaps you can show how you reached your conclusions?

R
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:45

Based on the fact that he can't even take a single one of my technical blog posts and rip it apart.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,07:45

Well, it does take a lot of guts to come over here and fill up a couple of pages with insults and egotism, without ever saying anything substantive at all. No brains, but a lot of guts...

Sorry I don't read your contributions to science at your many blogs; I tend to get most of my science from peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps you can give us a citation of your latest contribution to that literature.

And I'm really sorry I haven't heard of you before yesterday. If you can get over that insult to your ego, perhaps you can tell us something you believe in, besides insults.

Oh, and please tell < Joy > that Isaac Asimov was a biochemist, not a geneticist. Not that she would understand the difference, but because there actually IS a difference. Confusion about science seems to be a prime commodity over there on your "technical" blog...
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:47

I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:48

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:38)
From what I gather with this thread, it should be possible for you to take any random scientific one, and demostrate that I am mistaken, you can't even do one? How pathetic is that Alan, I mean really, not one of your choosing? How does that not show that your IQ level is that of a rock?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I further suggest that there is no thread topic on TT written by you that (randomly or otherwise) effectively undermines evolutionary theory, or, indeed, produces any evidence that Intelligent Design is more than a philosophical concept.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,07:49

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:45)
Based on the fact that he can't even take a single one of my technical blog posts and rip it apart.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name one, Nelson, or link to it.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:49

Alan Fox, come on I'm getting sleepy are you seriously this incompetent ?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:53

Ok , thats ok, this is simply a consquence of getting yourself "in over your head" maybe you'll be a little more hesitant next time though.
Posted by: Frostman on July 06 2008,07:53

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I may be so immodest, I would guess that Guts/Nelson's steady stream of ridiculous outbursts are a reaction to his dishonest character being buck-naked exposed by yours truly in the email correspondence I just posted (< Nelson Alonso >).  It's a devastating blow to him personally.  He is embarrassed, and he gropes frantically for some way, any way, to respond.  If it was not already common knowledge that his real name is Nelson Alonso, that would add to the impact.  He is unable to address his own unethical behavior shown in that correspondence, so he seeks some way to distract himself and others.

Or perhaps it is my wishful thinking that I could provoke such a funny response.  In any case, carry on, young fool!  You are the wind beneath my wings.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,07:54

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,08:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact no one has asked me for my position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, several have just done so, here. Again, what is your position?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I found it:



Sorta ass out, with pouty lips. Some side-boob for a reach-around.

OK, back to making a fool out of yourself, Guts.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,07:56

I'm hotter than that actually.

Frostman,

For the third time, tell me what your mom thinks of you talking to yourself in the third person. I'm sure she disapproves. I mean, thats just nuts .
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,08:02

So I'm wrong, Guts?

I thought you weren't attempting to avoid specificity, but you really are?

Calling someone a moron for not addressing arguments, but then not saying what the arguments are - well, that's just calling someone a moron. Is that the reason you're claiming this thread is all about insults, because that's all you're prepared to contribute?

Come on, just one thing that's not a personal insult, that people of good intent can debate.

R
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:03

Wel I offered my writings and even showed where you can find them, but through it all, and you look back through all these pages, all you find is deception on the part of the denizens of AE, not a single one refutes anything I have written on TT. Tell me how does that not show that you are all stupid? I mean come on.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,08:04

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:56)
I'm hotter than that actually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But your position, as articulated here, has no more substance.

I don't follow TT, Guts, have never read your posts nor your blogs, and have no familiarity with your stance in this debate. So I won't comment on any of that.

I can say, as a meta comment based upon the sample of the last few pages: you come across as an asshole.

Why not assert something with substance? Then we're off to the races.
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 06 2008,08:06

Quote (Frostman @ July 06 2008,02:53)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I may be so immodest, I would guess that Guts/Nelson's steady stream of ridiculous outbursts are a reaction to his dishonest character being buck-naked exposed by yours truly in the email correspondence I just posted (< Nelson Alonso >).  It's a devastating blow to him personally.  He is embarrassed, and he gropes frantically for some way, any way, to respond.  If it was not already common knowledge that his real name is Nelson Alonso, that would add to the impact.  He is unable to address his own unethical behavior shown in that correspondence, so he seeks some way to distract himself and others.

Or perhaps it is my wishful thinking that I could provoke such a funny response.  In any case, carry on, young fool!  You are the wind beneath my wings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, the problem is there's a demonstration of Camargais bullfighting (the bull survives, some human participants may not!) in the local town just starting, and i did rather want to see it.

@Guts,

When you decide to enlighten us with an example of your best work, let me know.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:08

So I'm the one that comes across as an asshole, how stupid is that. Pages and pages of false accusations , no one even knows my position, no one can refute any of my technical blogs, and yet I'm still the one that comes across as an asshole. Waves and waves of trolls come to my blog to harrass us not with arguments but with retarded tactics, and yet I'm the one who comes across as an asshole.

I call shenanigans.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,08:09

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,09:08)
So I'm the one that comes across as an asshole, how stupid is that. Pages and pages of false accusations , no one even knows my position, no one can refute any of my technical blogs, and yet I'm still the one that comes across as an asshole. Waves and waves of trolls come to my blog to harrass us not with arguments but with retarded tactics, and yet I'm the one who comes across as an asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:12

Look in the mirror to see the asshole, look in the mirror.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,08:13

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,09:12)
Look in the mirror to see the asshole, look in the mirror.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe so.

But just sayin', Guts.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:14

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:45)
Based on the fact that he can't even take a single one of my technical blog posts and rip it apart.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link to one then.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I'm the one that comes across as an asshole, how stupid is that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've been the best evidence for that.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pages and pages of false accusations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name one.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no one even knows my position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or nobody cares.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no one can refute any of my technical blogs
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"technical blogs"? is that something you made up yourself? Aww, pretending to be a scientist now are you, how sweet! Link to an example please.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and yet I'm still the one that comes across as an asshole
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ting is as ting is.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Waves and waves of trolls come to my blog to harrass us not with arguments but with retarded tactics
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you tell the difference between them and your target audience how exactly?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and yet I'm the one who comes across as an asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ting is as ting is.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I call shenanigans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps that has some meaning where you can edit history but your behaviour and refusal to support any of your points is plain over the last couple of pages.

You are making yourself look foolish far better then anybody else is.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:20

It's very simple, go to TT , click on my name ( not on the sidebar like Alan Faux did, click on my name on a blog i've written) and then refute it. It's very simple, I'm surprised actually that no one has done so yet, it's actually quite laughable.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,08:22

Could somebody PM me if

1) gutless runs out of insults, or

2) gutless provides a link to a peer-reviewed paper it authored, or

3) gutless provides a link to a blog where it authored a substantive argument, or

4) gutless answers oldman's questions, or

5) gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion.

Thanks
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:22



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

Name one

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



My pleasure.

Frostman wrote this:



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

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

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




This is quite false. In fact anon9/frostman posted this on TT:



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

Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts

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



Again this is just a sample of the level of deception here.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:23

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:22)


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

Name one

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



My pleasure.

Frostman wrote this:



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

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

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




This is quite false. In fact anon9/frostman posted this on TT:



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

Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts

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



Again this is just a sample of the level of deception here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations. That's how you do it. Say something then support it with evidence.

Now, there are several other questions, not least your changing position on the EF pending.

Get going.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:23



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

gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion

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



lol, you're in the wrong place. This is a turd throwing fest, if you want meaningful discussion, go elsewhere. AE isn't called "the swamp" by pretty much everyone for nothing.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 06 2008,08:26

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:24)
     

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

But when I was on Telic Thoughts and I asked you for your position, you said "I've stated it many times already, it's all here" and refused to be specific.

People who press you on the point get banned.

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


More lies. In fact no one has asked me for my position, much less have been banned for it. When will the lies stop?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But have they been "barred"? I guess the Memory Hole is inoperative or people could see the dastardly post that led to my being banned barred from the thread.

For the record, I have asked for your position on the < 3….2….1….”Rabbit Thread >. I crosslinked back here—with a warning.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: By the way, I just noticed the discussion on AtBC's Telic Thoughts thread (Warning PG13: juvenile taunts, sexual innuendo, crude language, some partial nudity, and persistent bad taste).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Crude language >: "your" damn this board sucks.

< Juvenile taunts >: My position is that you're a moron.

< Sexual innuendo >: I'm hotter than that actually.

< Some partial nudity >: I found it:

< Persistent bad taste >: No thats me conceding that you're a retard.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:23)


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

gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion

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



lol, you're in the wrong place. This is a turd throwing fest, if you want meaningful discussion, go elsewhere. AE isn't called "the swamp" by pretty much everyone for nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet here you are, and you appear to be throwing the most turds.

I guess you must like throwing turds instead of having a worthwhile discussion.

Your "technical blogs" appear to support that position.

If you want meaningful discussion, please pick a topic. There will be some who will oblige, no doubt, on any topic you choose to pick.

Do it, or are you a coward? All mouth? Any trouser there?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,08:29

Zachriel writes:


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

But have they been "barred"? I guess the Memory Hole is inoperative or people could see the dastardly post that led to my being banned barred from the thread.

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



Zach, your problem is that you can't handle logic and evidence, otherwise you wouldn't write such tripe. In fact, if you would look at the memory hole, you'll see your thread derailing post in all it's glory. How sad :(
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:33

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:29)
your problem is that you can't handle logic and evidence,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've yet to prove otherwise yourself, failing to raise yourself above the level of a angry 10 year old throwing insults about.

Pick a topic.

Have a debate.

Forget for a moment that you are an internet sensation, consider the fact that many people have no idea who you are and their first impression of you is from this thread. I imagine the number of actual real life scientists is considerably higher here then you are used to and if you play your cards right you might even learn something.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,08:36

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:03)
Wel I offered my writings and even showed where you can find them, but through it all, and you look back through all these pages, all you find is deception on the part of the denizens of AE, not a single one refutes anything I have written on TT. Tell me how does that not show that you are all stupid? I mean come on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
all you find is deception on the part of the denizens of AE, not a single one refutes anything I have written on TT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you think that people will believe that solely on the basis of your say-so do you?

Sure, you call it deception, I call it shining a light onto your tactics.

I can see why you might like it to stop and how it's been needling you for a while now until it's got to this point.

Are you drunk Guts? Will you regret this in the morning?

No edit button for you!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,08:42

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:23)


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

gutless otherwise provides evidence that it can carry on a worthwhile discussion

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



lol, you're in the wrong place. This is a turd throwing fest, if you want meaningful discussion, go elsewhere. AE isn't called "the swamp" by pretty much everyone for nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, then you win. You seem to be the owner/producer of the largest pile of turds here. And you haven't even linked to your "many technical blogs" yet!

Next.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 06 2008,09:26

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,08:29)
Zachriel writes:
   

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

But have they been "barred"? I guess the Memory Hole is inoperative or people could see the dastardly post that led to my being banned barred from the thread.

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


Zach, your problem is that you can't handle logic and evidence, otherwise you wouldn't write such tripe. In fact, if you would look at the memory hole, you'll see your thread < derailing post > in all it's glory. How sad :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: I looked for a link on the main page called "< Memory Hole >" and it was empty.

I appreciate that. Now, everyone can determine for themselves that there was nothing in my comment that deserved banning barring, by any reasonable reading.

< Guts >: But this is what you do Zach everytime you are proven wrong, you back peddle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This statement just tickles me. Heaven forbid someone admit error or try to clarify a misstatement.

I'm still smarting from when Hermagoras smacked me down for mixing my Greek and Latin roots.


Posted by: midwifetoad on July 06 2008,09:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Raevmo Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:33 pm Guts:

Why do anti-ID activists here, like Raevmo, feel the need to act like spoiled retarded children? It blows my mind.

Excuse me? I just mentioned that Shubin's claim to fame was his discovery of Tiktaalik. I see you have deleted that post. Why is that?


Comment by Raevmo — July 5, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
Guts Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm I just went through this with Zachriel. I already provided a link to that, the topic is not Shubin's discovery, the topic is well beyond Shubin's discovery.


Comment by Guts — July 5, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
steve Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pm Speaking of Zachriel, why was he covertly banned? That kind of behavior flies at Uncommon Descent, but I thought people here had some ethics.


Comment by steve — July 5, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Guts Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:47 pm he wasn't banned. he was barred from this thread.


Comment by Guts — July 5, 2008 @ 7:47 pm

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


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,09:38

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:23)
I'll post another example of deception, this time from steve:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >

He claims that we moderated his comment, and yet here it is on the live site:

< http://telicthoughts.com/aiguys-computer/#comment-193776 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When one goes to that link here on AtBC, one finds Steve saying that his comment was in a moderation queue, meaning it did not simply appear on the site as and when submitted. It does not claim that the comment was never published, so showing the comment was published is precisely irrelevant to Steve's comment.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 06 2008,10:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: I didnt ban you at all, I simply sent an off topic comment to the memory hole. And prevented you from doing it again. This is regularly done here and needs no explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All my scribbling about handwaving and netiquette and handwaving and respect and chronicling, and more handwaving and how to make an argument and why. Dozens of comments, hours of work (well minutes anyway). All summarized by a master in a handful of poetic words.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: "Shut up," he explained.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< >
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,10:06

I have been back through TT's list of Guts' postings. Quiet Sunday afternoon here.

The fact that he refuses to point to any of his 'technical blogs' for discussion about how they support ID is that none of them do. There's stuff snipped from elsewhere and a "How about that then!", and plenty of "If this supports x, it's interesting". Rarely is any connection explicitly made, rarely is there anything that can be argued about without asking for more information.

When he does dare to actually make a statement, for example that snake venom evolution is clearly < "not standard" >, and then backs it up with "Huh? Do you have any questions? feel free to ask.", he gets Nick Matzke asking "How is venom evolution far from 'standard'?". Guts' answer: "Read the links."

The thread's still there for anyone who wants to see how it develops, although -- spoiler -- it won't take a path unfamiliar to anyone who's read this far on this one.

Elsewhere, hrun comes a cropper when he asks why convergent evolution is better evidence for front-loading than it is for standard evolutionary biology. Guts having refused to answer the question three times except by saying "It's all answered elsewhere", (hrun gallantly tries to ascertain where and how, thus using up the rest of his lives), he finally deals with the question < thusly: >"I explained it , twice, in the misconceptions thread, in my first post and linked to an essay about it. You ignored all three attempts. All you're doing is repeating yourself. It doesn't seem like you're actually asking questions, it seems like you're trolling."

To be fair, guts isn't the only one who likes to argue through unexplained co-option where inference is unclear and implications arguable. His use of multiple layers of indirection and wooly definitions, treating those who attempt to clarify his position as idiots and trolls, is also familiar. Although I do think he has a useful innovation in his 'three strikes and you're out' policy; it's rather like the early moves in Minesweeper, but on a board entirely populated by single-mine squares.

Entire academic careers have built on such things (I'm looking at you, po-mo). They never amount to much. They're cancerous growths whose principle purpose is to consume resources, resist attack and grow without care for good or harm done to the rest of the organism. While science has a rather iffy immune system in the short term and on the small scale, it operates very effectively over periods of generations and in the larger context.

Unless it's made illegal.

R
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,10:25

< >

You'll need those Guts, you've been served.
Posted by: Frostman on July 06 2008,10:25

Nelson Alonso aka Guts:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again this is just a sample of the level of deception here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see nothing unethical about James Randi sending in posers to expose huckster faith healers like Peter Popoff and his ilk.  Popoff might claim, "But they deceived me, it is they who are unethical!"  I'll let you decide that one: do you support the public's right to be informed of fraud, or do you support Popoff's right to not be deceived?  Considering that he takes millions from the poor, the elderly, and the sick, the answer should be clear.

Likewise I support individuals misrepresenting themselves to a self-proclaimed psychic in order to expose the psychic as a fraud.  The public's right to be informed trumps the con artist's right to not be conned.

Nelson Alonso, I have plainly documented your unethical behavior at Telic Thoughts on this forum, notably < here > and in lengthy detail here: < Nelson Alonso >.  Your conduct shown therein is indefensible, and indeed you have not defended it.  My last post to Telic Thoughts was not mere random turd-throwing, as you are want to do here.  It had a purpose: to expose you.  In it I gave links to my posts here.  The public has a right to be informed of the unethical conduct flourishing at Telic Thoughts.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,10:51

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:10)
I'll debate any of you any time any day, I've been doing it for years. Notice how steve stays clear away from any of my technical blogs. It's because he's scientifically illiterate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I look for in a moderator is an ability to deal with people socially using the written word.

Steve has that.

And, having interacted with for years and having met Steve in person, I can testify that the claim of "scientific illiteracy" is a bogus canard, too.

"Doing it for years"... I had a look back at the archives, and found < this terminal post in an exchange of ours > from 2000.

As for scientific acumen, one should not confuse scientific knowledge with an inability to take a point and copious amounts of spare time to endlessly reply repeating the initial confusion.

 

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

Argumentum ad Assertion Repetitio ad Nauseam
   (np) 1. Argument premised on the basis that any assertion repeated often enough is, perforce, true. This rhetorical mode is a frequent companion of Argumentum ad CAPSLOCK, or denigrations of correspondents. There exists great variability in the frequency and timing of the repetitions.

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



Discussions should have beginnings, middles, and ends. Someone who declares victory simply because they do not tire of repeating themselves isn't proving anything except the possibility of a perseverative disorder.

 

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

Continuous perseveration (inappropriate prolonged continuation and repetition of a current behaviour)

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



Nelson might ask why I am not a participant at his "technical blogs". I'll take the complementary position to that Nelson laid out back in 2000 about me:

 

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

When you have responded to the same criticism over and over again, and when they refuse to respond to other IDers , but just respond to Dembski, then you kinda get the feeling that there is something more going on. Let Wesley and Rich publish their material in the forums Dembski provided, then they will be taken seriously. Otherwise, their motivation is obvious.

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



Since then, I have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Biology and Philosophy and have two book chapters to my credit on IDC. A further paper should be out in another journal within the year. Since Nelson claimed I was ignorable until published, I'll treat him to a helping of the same standard.
Posted by: keiths on July 06 2008,12:00

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,06:04)
I don't follow TT, Guts, have never read your posts nor your blogs, and have no familiarity with your stance in this debate. So I won't comment on any of that.

I can say, as a meta comment based upon the sample of the last few pages: you come across as an asshole.

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


As someone who has followed TT for a couple of years, I can say that RB's impression of Guts is quite accurate.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,12:11

What's Telic Tards stance on 'moderation'?
Easier to post than here or less?
How many biologists do they have in their line up?
How does 'arbitrarily rank in 4 dimensions, aggregate and discuss' count as science?

edited.
Posted by: lcd on July 06 2008,12:25

Howdy all,


Wow.  How many pages of throwing accusations and general sniping is on this thread?  All for what?

What I don't understand is how come people want to get Guts to come out to this board when he has what he posted on his own board?  What's the fear in that?  As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak?  I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here.  All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.

Is that what the evolutionist, er sorry Lou, Evil Nazi Evilutionist agenda is all about?  Shout someone down and have them stop even trying?

One last thing and this is to Guts.  I have registered on the TT board and I even tried to post something this morning.  It was never posted it concerns the posts between Zach, olegt and yourself.  When I posted it, I got a message saying that it was, "Under Moderator Review".  How long does it take to see a posting up on the board?


Thanks


PS, I hope everyone's 4th was better than mine.  All it did was rain.  Yeah, having 3 kids of your own and a bunch of relatives kids out by the beach in a single wide trailer (no, it's not our home thank you) is no fun.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,12:28

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:47)
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nelson, your mom told you to get your ass out of her basement and get a job. You're an embarrassment.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,12:29

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,12:25)
Wow.  How many pages of throwing accusations and general sniping is on this thread?  All for what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The amazing thing is everyone can see them and discuss their merits. They're not vanished away somewhere. Personally, I wont register at Telic Tards because I doubt any of my posts would get through.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,12:33

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,10:25)
Howdy all,


Wow.  How many pages of throwing accusations and general sniping is on this thread?  All for what?

What I don't understand is how come people want to get Guts to come out to this board when he has what he posted on his own board?  What's the fear in that?  As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak?  I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here.  All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.

Is that what the evolutionist, er sorry Lou, Evil Nazi Evilutionist agenda is all about?  Shout someone down and have them stop even trying?

One last thing and this is to Guts.  I have registered on the TT board and I even tried to post something this morning.  It was never posted it concerns the posts between Zach, olegt and yourself.  When I posted it, I got a message saying that it was, "Under Moderator Review".  How long does it take to see a posting up on the board?


Thanks


PS, I hope everyone's 4th was better than mine.  All it did was rain.  Yeah, having 3 kids of your own and a bunch of relatives kids out by the beach in a single wide trailer (no, it's not our home thank you) is no fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LCD, I assume this is your coy way of admitting you're never going to answer the backed up questions on the other thread?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,12:36

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:28)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:47)
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nelson, your mom told you to get your ass out of her basement and get a job. You're an embarrassment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Faggotry? Oh hark, the bigot.

Guts, you're a shoitehawk. simple as.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,12:36

Who is this "guts" person? Are they on drugs?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,12:40

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,10:36)
Who is this "guts" person? Are they on drugs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, he's just intoxicated with his own stupidity.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,13:04

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,12:25)
As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak?  I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here.  All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lcd

Perhaps you could read this thread again, starting with Guts' first postings... When did the name-calling start? Frankly, given the grade-school level of his comments here, I think an objective observer would say that most of the regulars exhibited remarkable restraint.

But let's not just take my word for it. Let's go to the evidence.

===

Guts first reply on this thread, after posting three without a response: "You're obviously scientifically illiterate."

second reply: "I'll post another example of deception" (later shown by Wes to not be an example of deception after all).

third reply: "It'll be fun excersize (sic) for the comming (sic) weeks to continue to point out just how deceptive the denizens of AE can be"

fourth reply: "You guys should get out of the dark ages, these board functions suck"

After a non-abusive reply from Dr.GH, a fifth reply: "you're nothing but an alcoholic, so you're not in any way credible."

sixth and seventh reply, all with no intervening comments by anyone else: "What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic." "piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses"

after a non-abusive comment by dnmlthr, this response: "I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please"

Choice insults from some of his other 90 posts

"You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic."

"What a waste of brain cells you are."

"you are weak in terms of intellectual debate."
(note the intellectual content of his comments to this point...)

"How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate."

"Do you think your mother would be proud of something like that?"

"You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable (sic) fact of life."

"No thats (sic) me conceding that you're a retard."

"No i'm (sic) trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it."

"Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd."


Etc.
===

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?
Posted by: lcd on July 06 2008,13:09

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:33)
LCD, I assume this is your coy way of admitting you're never going to answer the backed up questions on the other thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, that would be incorrect.


The stuff is not easy.  It is and I'm reluctant to admit it harder than I thought.  I haven't been working on it this weekend because I thought I'd be in the surf and having some fun.

One thing though.  I can't help but note what I'd call a double standard here.  First, Newton came up with "Classical Physics".  Now science took that as truth for what, 300 years?  Then we had Relativity.  Now it's Quantum Physics.  So what about GUT?  I keep reading where they say it exists but nobody can find it.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,13:10

Albatrossity: Actually, I think he had 20-30 or so posts under his belt prior to his latest visit, bringing his latest spree to 60-70 or so.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,13:22

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,19:09)

One thing though.  I can't help but note what I'd call a double standard here.  First, Newton came up with "Classical Physics".  Now science took that as truth for what, 300 years?  Then we had Relativity.  Now it's Quantum Physics.  So what about GUT?  I keep reading where they say it exists but nobody can find it.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lcd: Classical physics is still usable, more than anything else it's a matter of scale. Neither relativity nor QM have replaced newtonian physics for day-to-day* stuff that goes on on the surface of the planet. As for grand unified theories, work is being done, but who knows where it will lead?

The EF, on the other hand, has yet to produce any testable predictions at all.

Edit:
Contrast that with the theory that they're not trying to augment (see examples above) but completely supplant, which is in use every single day all across the globe.
End of edit.

* I'm sure someone around here uses both on a daily basis, but you get my point.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,13:25

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,13:09)
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Strawman. Who said it had to be perfect?  It just has to work as advertised, and lead to predictive hypotheses that can lead to experiments that can generate more support for the notion.

That's where ID fails. The EF has not been demonstrated to work on any biological system, it leads to no predictive hypotheses or experiments, and thus there has been no experimental support.

Furthermore, when you say that "mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right" you are ignoring the fact that science is always provisional. Old theories get replaced by new ones IF the evidence supports the new theory, and IF the new theory has greater explanatory power. In many cases the old theory still has some value as well (your example of classical physics is a good one in that regard).


If you think that ID has greater explanatory power, it is your responsibility to show us the evidence for that. If you do so, it will be a first, since Dembski, Behe, Wells and their ilk have demonstrated nothing of the sort.

If you want to call this response a "flame", then go ahead. But it seems pretty civil to me.

ps - thanks, dnmlthr, for the correction. I hadn't run across his posts before, and it sure seemed like he ran up 90 posts last night!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,13:31

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 06 2008,14:04)
 
Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,12:25)
As for the name calling, why do so many on this board come on out to insult instead of keeping quiet and letting a person speak?  I know I had issues when I was trying to discuss things around here.  All you want to do is hitting back at those who are being incredibly disrespectful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lcd

Perhaps you could read this thread again, starting with Guts' first postings... When did the name-calling start? Frankly, given the grade-school level of his comments here, I think an objective observer would say that most of the regulars exhibited remarkable restraint.

But let's not just take my word for it. Let's go to the evidence.

===

Guts first reply on this thread, after posting three without a response: "You're obviously scientifically illiterate."

second reply: "I'll post another example of deception" (later shown by Wes to not be an example of deception after all).

third reply: "It'll be fun excersize (sic) for the comming (sic) weeks to continue to point out just how deceptive the denizens of AE can be"

fourth reply: "You guys should get out of the dark ages, these board functions suck"

After a non-abusive reply from Dr.GH, a fifth reply: "you're nothing but an alcoholic, so you're not in any way credible."

sixth and seventh reply, all with no intervening comments by anyone else: "What with your ultra darwinist beliefs, its pathetic." "piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses"

after a non-abusive comment by dnmlthr, this response: "I have more evidence for my position than you have for the existence of your own brain. Please"

Choice insults from some of his other 90 posts

"You don't know my position? That's pathetic, you're completely ignorant and yet you let this thread continue, pathetic."

"What a waste of brain cells you are."

"you are weak in terms of intellectual debate."
(note the intellectual content of his comments to this point...)

"How about we debate your complete and utter Incompetence ? That seems like a good debate."

"Do you think your mother would be proud of something like that?"

"You're a moron and you should realize this undisputable (sic) fact of life."

"No thats (sic) me conceding that you're a retard."

"No i'm (sic) trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it."

"Because this thread is obviously not about evidence or logic, it's about who can throw the best turd."


Etc.
===

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Guts.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,13:32

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,06:45)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:43)
refuting, dam you dumbasses can't even implement a simple edit function. How dumb is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't get edit till you have shown you can be trusted not to go back and delete your own comments when they become an embarrassment to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and given what I've seen to that point in this thread, I wouldn't suggest anyone hold their breath on that edit button.

Looks like y'all are having some fun.  I can't believe none of you biatches dropped me an email...

:p

Edited because I can.


Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,13:37

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:27)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

(Edited for spelling)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No i'm trying to provoke actual thought, which is absent here. No one knows my position? Are you friggin kidding me? This thread is pages and pages long, and accusations abound, but no one knows my position? How batshit insane is that. I could write a book on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd suggest you start a little closer to home, Nellie.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,13:55

Well, the handful of pages that went up between last night and this morning were more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

ETA: okmaybenot


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,14:17

Quote (lcd @ July 06 2008,11:09)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:33)
LCD, I assume this is your coy way of admitting you're never going to answer the backed up questions on the other thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, that would be incorrect.


The stuff is not easy.  It is and I'm reluctant to admit it harder than I thought.  I haven't been working on it this weekend because I thought I'd be in the surf and having some fun.

One thing though.  I can't help but note what I'd call a double standard here.  First, Newton came up with "Classical Physics".  Now science took that as truth for what, 300 years?  Then we had Relativity.  Now it's Quantum Physics.  So what about GUT?  I keep reading where they say it exists but nobody can find it.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but Dembski's EF seems to be a great start, the "Classical Theory" also known as the first step.  Why must ID be perfect the first time when mainstream science still hasn't gotten it right?

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


We'll take that as a 'no, I won't' to my original question.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 06 2008,14:22

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,07:06)
Carlson using stars to simulate "emotes" that is so weird, i gotta tell ya.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's it?  I spend two and a half hours crammed like a sardine in a 757, then scurry like mad between terminals to catch my puddle-jumper home, all in anticipation of some witty riposte from you, and that is the best you come up with?

You are so gay.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:23

No using stars to do emotes is gay.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:26



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

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?

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



Yeah welcome to troll city. This is what ID proponents have to deal with on a daily basis.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,14:26

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,12:23)
No using stars to do emotes is gay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You seem quite obsessed with homosexuality. What's that about?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,14:26

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:23)
No using stars to do emotes is gay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




pleased i didn't fall into Teh_gay_trap. This is fulla stars.

edit: yes.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:27

You're the one that mentioned gay first, not me.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 06 2008,14:27

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,12:40)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,10:36)
Who is this "guts" person? Are they on drugs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, he's just intoxicated with his own stupidity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reminds me of this classic exchange from < The Matchmaker >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Marcy Tizard: Is being an idiot like being high all the time?

Sean Kelly: No, it's like being constantly right.

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


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,14:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:26)


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

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?

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



Yeah welcome to troll city. This is what ID proponents have to deal with on a daily basis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well it's better than putting up with "research", "experiments" and "science", eh?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:29

That doesn't make sense, those are things you do at a lab, but then sometimes you want to come home and relax in front of the computer. Thats when you have to deal with trolls.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 06 2008,14:30

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:23)
No using stars to do emotes is gay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I crumble in the face of your rapier-like wit.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,14:30

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,12:27)
You're the one that mentioned gay first, not me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whoops:

   
Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,05:47)
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Try again.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,14:32

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:26)
 

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

In 90 comments he merely bloviated, despite several polite requests to state a position and have a real intellectual debate. He hurled insults from the very beginning. What part of that makes you proud to be associated with his side?

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



Yeah welcome to troll city. This is what ID proponents have to deal with on a daily basis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And there might even be a good reason for that. Why don't you knock the dust-bunnies off the ol' Nixplanatory Filter and see if you can figure it out?

Or maybe this will be quicker - ID proponents invite abuse by

1) never answering a question the first (or second, or third or nth) time.

2) never giving any evidence for their claims

and 3) trying to hide 1 and 2 by hurling insults or concentrating on personalities rather than facts.

There might be more items in this list, but I suspect that we have gone past your grade-school attention span with three.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:33

Your dipping outside our conversation pool there.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:34

What are you talking about, I answer questions on a daily basis whenever I make a blog. I always answer questions.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:39

Frostman writes:


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

see nothing unethical about James Randi sending in posers to expose huckster faith healers like Peter Popoff and his ilk.  Popoff might claim, "But they deceived me, it is they who are unethical!"  

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



lol Frostman essentially admits that he is a liar.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,14:40

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:34)
What are you talking about, I answer questions on a daily basis whenever I make a blog. I always answer questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great. Here's a question while you're here.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID and cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory?

Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:46

You coyly qualify that with "accommodated by evolutionary theory", anything except creationism can be accommodated by evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Frostman on July 06 2008,14:48

This is one of my favorites:
     
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,04:58)
Dam even my blog has more complex functions then this piece of shit board. you guys must be dumbasses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Functions from to ? You got the Gamma function and the Reimann-Zeta function?





You got those?  Do ya?  Huh?  Well, do ya?  We got 'em right there.  Read 'em and weep.  Yeah, that's right.  I be guessin' yo blog ain't so hot now, punk.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,14:49

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,12:46)
You coyly qualify that with "accommodated by evolutionary theory", anything except creationism can be accommodated by evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cute nonanswer. It's clear why your blog is such a powerhouse of science.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:51

Thanks Arden, but flatter will get you ... everywhere.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:51

flattery godddamnit.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:51

When will I be cool enough to get an edit button.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,14:52

Please keep the blog going though. It's very amusing to watch you guys pretend to be scientific revolutionaries. Or even scientifically relevant.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:54

how would you know that steve? Again, it is quite clear that you are scientifically illiterate. You wouldn't know a scientific revolution if it punched in the face.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,14:55

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:51)
When will I be cool enough to get an edit button.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How's 'never' sound?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,14:55

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:46)
You coyly qualify that with "accommodated by evolutionary theory", anything except creationism can be accommodated by evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing coy about it. If ID is to replace evolutionary theory, it will have to explain things that evolutionary theory cannot explain. That's how science works.If ID can't perform in this regard, it's not ready for serious consideration.

And there are LOTS of possible experimental outcomes which could not be accommodated by evolutionary theory. Let's not get bogged down in those, however. Let's try to focus on the original question, which you not-so-coyly avoided answering.

Care to try again?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,14:56

Unless you're not proposing a replacement theory, that is a fundamental flaw in your logic.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,14:58

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:34)
What are you talking about, I answer questions on a daily basis whenever I make a blog. I always answer questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect you imaine you make art every time you make a turd.  I had a dog like that, he seemed to take great pride in his turds, especially when he shat in another dog's yard. He would run around and come back to give them a good sniff. He seemed indignant when I cleaned them up.

Alot like you in fact.

Of course, you make blogs too, and boogers. Your delusions of adequacy must be crippling. Same ol' same ol'.

Edited to change "buggers" to "boogers." Neatness counts.

Edited again to not correct a spelling error, but merely to show that I could have edited to correct a spelling error if I felt like correcting a spelling error when I wanted to correct it.

Edited yet again to point out that I don't want to correct the spelling error. But, I could have by using the editing function available to be becasue I can.

Edited to correct one spelling error, but not the rest in cluding these and the other ones.


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,14:59

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:54)
how would you know that steve? Again, it is quite clear that you are scientifically illiterate. You wouldn't know a scientific revolution if it punched in the face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Steve, you should be arbitrarily ranking things form 1-5 and there should be 4 categories. Then add the scores and then waffle on about it for a while. THAT is how science is done.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:00



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

I suspect you imaine you make art every time you make a turd.

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



No I meant what I said, the accusation was that I don't answer questions, in fact I answer many questions.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:00

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,12:54)
how would you know that steve? Again, it is quite clear that you are scientifically illiterate. You wouldn't know a scientific revolution if it punched in the face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obsession with homosexuality -- check.

Constantly resorting to violent fantasies against opponents -- check.

"I know you are but what am I?" insults -- check.

See, Nelson, this is why people say you come across like a petulant 15-year-old.

Anyway, are you going to answer Albatrossity's questions? Show us all how scientifically literate YOU are.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless you're not proposing a replacement theory, that is a fundamental flaw in your logic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're dodging the question again, Nelson.

If you're feeling backed into a corner, you can accuse us of 'faggotry' again. Won't impress anyone, but I assume you'll feel better.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:02

I'm not dodging anything, that is a direct answer.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,15:02

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,15:55)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,12:51)
When will I be cool enough to get an edit button.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How's 'never' sound?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As Guts is no doubt aware, IDers like to rewrite the past. They tried to do that here a few times, and so we had to take edit buttons away from new users.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:03

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:02)
I'm not dodging anything, that is a direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you refuse to answer Albatrossity's questions?
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,15:03

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:00)
 

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

I suspect you imaine you make art every time you make a turd.

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



No I meant what I said, the accusation was that I don't answer questions, in fact I answer many questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then one more can't be much of a hassle, can it? You've got several earlier in the thread to choose from.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:03

You're projecting Steve.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:04



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

So you refuse to answer Albatrossity's questions?

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



What part of "direct answer" don't you understand?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,15:05

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:54)
how would you know that steve? Again, it is quite clear that you are scientifically illiterate. You wouldn't know a scientific revolution if it punched in the face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sadly, your < revolution isn't going to be punching anyone in the face. >
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:06

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:03)
You're projecting Steve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG OMG OMG: < YOU'RE PROJECT STEVE >

*squints*

Oh. "I know you are but what am I?"

Done many ID experiments, Guts?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:06

lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,15:07

Is "guts" Nelson?

The dawn appears.

Edited to add (because I can): I was wondering if "guts" was DaveTard on speed.


Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,15:08

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,15:05)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:54)
how would you know that steve? Again, it is quite clear that you are scientifically illiterate. You wouldn't know a scientific revolution if it punched in the face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sadly, your < revolution isn't going to be punching anyone in the face. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a < new revolution > in the works, Steve.  That'll show us!
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,15:09

PCID was never an ID journal? That's so dumb I suspect you aren't Telic Thoughts's Guts, but rather someone trying to make him look bad.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:10

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:56)
Unless you're not proposing a replacement theory, that is a fundamental flaw in your logic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Was this addressed to me?

If so, where's the flaw? Does classical mechanics still explain a lot of stuff?  Yes. Does quantum mechanics explain stuff that classical mechanics can't explain? Yes. Did quantum mechanics completely "replace" classical mechanics? No. Should a new paradigm explain things that the older paradigm can't explain? Yes. Does it have to replace it? No.

Do some IDists want to replace evolutionary theory with ID? < Yes. >

Will Nelson answer the question?  All signs point to no. But here it is again, in case the stench from all of your red herrings made you forget about it.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID and cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:10

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Real scientists rules out ID?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:11

Why do you think they invited Kaufmann and other self-organization theorists. You are quite ignorant.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:11

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,13:07)
Is "guts" Nelson?

The dawn appears.

Edited to add (because I can): I was wondering if "guts" was DaveTard on speed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, 'Guts' is Nelson's Internet-Tough-Guy name.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:13

Albatrossity2,

You cannot possibly take those examples from physics and make a general "law" out of it. Sometimes you will propose an extension to the theory that completes it, especially when you're talking about historical sciences, it just sheds things in a better light. You cannot possibly be serious with those examples from physics.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:13

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,13:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So all those articles that HAVEN'T appeared in PCID are all by 'complexity theorists'. I see.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:14

nelson?


Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:14

Steve,

Now it's quite clear that you are both scientifically illiterate and ignorant of basic facts.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:13)
Albatrossity2,

You cannot possibly take those examples from physics and make a general "law" out of it. Sometimes you will propose an extension to the theory that completes it, especially when you're talking about historical sciences, it just sheds things in a better light. You cannot possibly be serious with those examples from physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another nonanswer, Nelson.

Call us faggots. That'll show us.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:13)
Albatrossity2,

You cannot possibly take those examples from physics and make a general "law" out of it. Sometimes you will propose an extension to the theory that completes it, especially when you're talking about historical sciences, it just sheds things in a better light. You cannot possibly be serious with those examples from physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a "law", strawboy.

It's an example.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID and cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory?

[chirp chirp]
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:15

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,15:13)
Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,13:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So all those articles that HAVEN'T appeared in PCID are all by 'complexity theorists'. I see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The journal never took off. I am not an insider so I don't know what happened and don't care.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:16

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:14)
Steve,

Now it's quite clear that you are both scientifically illiterate and ignorant of basic facts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you're about to start talking about science any second now, right Nelson?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:17

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:15)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,15:13)
Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,13:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So all those articles that HAVEN'T appeared in PCID are all by 'complexity theorists'. I see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The journal never took off. I am not an insider so I don't know what happened and don't care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't care why a 'major' ID journal hasn't done anything in 2+ years?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,15:17

something's gay, Frost is a liar, this is a 'piece of shit board', I'm scientifically illiterate....I would advise everyone to have some skepticism. This might not be the real 'guts'.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:17



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

It's not a "law", strawboy.

It's an example.

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



Then why did you even mention them? Thats rather retarded.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,15:17

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) is a quarterly, cross-disciplinary, online journal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Articles accepted to the journal  must first be submitted to the ISCID archive. To be accepted into the archive, articles need to meet basic scholarly standards and be relevant to the study of complex systems. Once on the archive, articles passed on by at least one ISCID fellow will be accepted for publication. The  journal  will be published in electronic form only (there will be no print version).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The editorial advisory board peer-reviews articles submitted to the society's journal and comprises the society fellows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ISCID is pleased to announce the latest issue of PCID, Volume 3.1 November 2004. The journal features papers from Royal Truman, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson and others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bold for Guts benefit. All from < http://www.iscid.org/ > and < http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php >

I can understand if you don't go there much Guts. Easy mistake to make. They seem to think it's a journal however.

EDIT: The link and logo even says "< the journal >"

Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,15:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:15)
The journal never took off. I am not an insider so I don't know what happened and don't care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No research papers to publish.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:19

Quote (Nelson @ July 06 2008,13:17)
 

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

It's not a "law", strawboy.

It's an example.

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



Then why did you even mention them? Thats rather retarded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another nonanswer, tough guy.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:19

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:17)


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

It's not a "law", strawboy.

It's an example.

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



Then why did you even mention them? Thats rather retarded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because you seem to need examples. That's also why I answered my own questions in a previous comment, to show you how it works. Let's see you try to answer one.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID and cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory?

[chirp chirp snooooooze]
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:20



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

I can understand if you don't go there much Guts. Easy mistake to make. They seem to think it's a journal however

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



Maybe you should take some basic reading comprehension classes. I never said it wasn't a journal, I said it wasn't specifically an ID journal. Dumbass.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:20

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,15:18)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:15)
The journal never took off. I am not an insider so I don't know what happened and don't care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No research papers to publish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least "bible code" tried...
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:21



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

Because you seem to need examples. That's also why I answered my own questions in a previous comment, to show you how it works. Let's see you try to answer one.

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



So do you or do you not believe that your examples from physics apply generally?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,15:22

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,15:09)
PCID was never an ID journal? That's so dumb I suspect you aren't Telic Thoughts's Guts, but rather someone trying to make him look bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Put a link up on TT "Guts" to prove you are who you say you are.

:p
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:23

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:20)


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

I can understand if you don't go there much Guts. Easy mistake to make. They seem to think it's a journal however

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



Maybe you should take some basic reading comprehension classes. I never said it wasn't a journal, I said it wasn't specifically an ID journal. Dumbass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't you put the content through the EF, Guts, and tell us what you think they're banging on about?

ETA a "t"
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:24

Is that english?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:20)
 

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

I can understand if you don't go there much Guts. Easy mistake to make. They seem to think it's a journal however

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



Maybe you should take some basic reading comprehension classes. I never said it wasn't a journal, I said it wasn't specifically an ID journal. Dumbass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That your final answer, tough guy?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) is a quarterly, cross-disciplinary, online journal that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism. PCID focuses especially on the theoretical development, empirical application, and philosophical implications of information- and design-theoretic concepts for complex systems. PCID welcomes survey articles, research articles, technical communications, tutorials, commentaries, book and software reviews, educational overviews, and controversial theories. The aim of PCID is to advance the science of complexity by assessing the degree to which teleology is relevant (or irrelevant) to the origin, development, and operation of complex systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



BTW, if it's not ID, why is Dembski on their editorial board?

 

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

So do you or do you not believe that your examples from physics apply generally?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Nelson, why do you refuse to answer Albatrossity's questions?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:24)
Is that english?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must...change...subject.....




ETA: No, it isn't. It has a big "E'.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:28

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:21)
So do you or do you not believe that your examples from physics apply generally?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We can discuss that when/if you ever answer my question, which is, I think, a lot more pertinent to the topic of ID and science in general.

By my count you have posted 20 comments since you claimed that you answer questions. None of them has been an answer to this simple question.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID and cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:30



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

BTW, if it's not ID, why is Dembski on their editorial board?

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



Once again your reading comprehension is atrocious. I didn't say it wasn't ID either.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:30

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:30)


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

BTW, if it's not ID, why is Dembski on their editorial board?

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



Once again your reading comprehension is atrocious. I didn't say it wasn't ID either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:31

Albatross, by your refusal to answer my simple question, I figured you conceded that this qualifier "cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory" is unnecessary, but now we're back to square one.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,15:31

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:30)


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

BTW, if it's not ID, why is Dembski on their editorial board?

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



Once again your reading comprehension is atrocious. I didn't say it wasn't ID either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, not the real thing. Edit something on TT "Guts" and show us.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:32



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

So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal

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



Nope, they wanted it to be more general than just ID.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 06 2008,15:33

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:32)


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

So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal

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



Nope, they wanted it to be more general than just ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A second ago you knew nothing about it!

I call troll pretending to be Guts.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:33

Where did I say I knew nothing about it?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,15:34

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:33)
Where did I say I knew nothing about it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"The journal never took off. I am not an insider so I don't know what happened and don't care."

Make up your mind, cupcake!
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:35

lol that says I don't know what happened that they stopped publishing and the journal never talk off. Thats not the same as saying I know nothing about it.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:40

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:31)
Albatross, by your refusal to answer my simple question, I figured you conceded that this qualifier "cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory" is unnecessary, but now we're back to square one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I addressed that bit of weaseling < here >, and again < here >. So it is at least square three.

I'm concluding that you can't answer the question. So here's an easier, but related, question. Note that it omits the problematic clause. I'm betting you still won't answer it.

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

[chirp chirp]
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:31)
Albatross, by your refusal to answer my simple question, I figured you conceded that this qualifier "cannot be accommodated by evolutionary theory" is unnecessary, but now we're back to square one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why won't you answer Alb's question, Nelson?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:44

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:32)


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

So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal

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



Nope, they wanted it to be more general than just ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a journal exploring 'design' and 'teleology' and Dembski's the first editor, but it's not an ID journal. Gotcha.

Edited 'cuz I can: I suppose the fact that they can't get their shit together to, like, *publish* gives them some deniability, eh, Nelson?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:45

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,15:33)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:32)
 

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

So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal

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



Nope, they wanted it to be more general than just ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A second ago you knew nothing about it!

I call troll pretending to be Guts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently this troll is indeed the real Gutless.

< link >
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:46



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

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

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



There are still problematic qualifiers here. Not all predictions lead to actual experiments, there are problems with funding, or something else fundamental. Even post dictions are valid, in which case the experiment or discovery was already made.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:48

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:46)


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

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

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



There are still problematic qualifiers here. Not all predictions lead to actual experiments, there are problems with funding, or something else fundamental. Even post dictions are valid, in which case the experiment or discovery was already made.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonanswer. Try again.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:49

I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,15:50

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,15:51

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh leave him alone, guys.  He can't give any answers.  Not qualified.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:53

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,15:54

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:46)


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

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

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



There are still problematic qualifiers here. Not all predictions lead to actual experiments, there are problems with funding, or something else fundamental. Even post dictions are valid, in which case the experiment or discovery was already made.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed they are problematic, but only because ID is problematic.

There is no shortage of examples in lots of scientific arenas  where iconoclastic ideas were proposed, scoffed at, and then vindicated at the Nobel Prize level a decade or so later. Here are a few from Biology. Prions. Chemiosmosis. Viruses that cause cancer. Reverse transcriptase.

How did that happen? Predictive hypotheses, experiments, replication by other scientists. You know, just science at work, per usual.

You can't provide a single example of a single predictive hypothesis and successful experiment made on the basis of ID principles, more than a decade after the notion was first proposed. Not one. But you sure can dance.

Bye
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,15:55

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:53)
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If that really was the case you could have shut us all up a long time ago. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,15:56

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:46)


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

What predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

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



There are still problematic qualifiers here. Not all predictions lead to actual experiments, there are problems with funding, or something else fundamental. Even post dictions are valid, in which case the experiment or discovery was already made.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some predictions do lead to actual experiments.

ID has certainly had funding for other activities.

Postdiction can be interesting. But prediction is more powerful.

So, what predictions have been made, on the basis of ID principles, that allowed experimental testing, and for which the results of those experiments supported ID?

That's a valid question, Guts.
Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,15:56

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 06 2008,15:45)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2008,15:33)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:32)
 

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

So it's ID, and a Journal, but not an ID Journal

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



Nope, they wanted it to be more general than just ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A second ago you knew nothing about it!

I call troll pretending to be Guts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently this troll is indeed the real Gutless.

< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts' admission of trolling has just disappeared from TT.  Classy guy!
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,15:57



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

You can't provide a single example of a single predictive hypothesis and successful experiment made on the basis of ID principles, more than a decade after the notion was first proposed. Not one. But you sure can dance.

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



Im trying to tease our your fundmental misunderstanding of science. After admitting your problem, comes healing.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,15:59

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, and there's nothing ID can explain that evolution can't. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"
Posted by: Quack on July 06 2008,15:59

Interesting thread. Seems it has a purpose - and that is not about ID.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:01



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

Shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, and there's nothing ID can explain that evolution can't. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



It's a lot more complex than that. Bayes Theorem seems to imply that there is no difference between prediction and accommodation, because the conditional probabilities used in Bayes Theorem are temporally neutral.  There have been attempts to build such a distinction into a Bayesian epistemology, but the more common move among Bayesians is to deny the importance of the distinction.  For example, Einstein's Relativity Theory got support from the fact that it correctly implied the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, though that information was known long before Einstein formulated the theory.  I myself am sympathetic to the view that accurate prediction provides more confirmational support than accommodation, but most Bayesians would not agree.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:02

For the record, here's how it looked:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  steve Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Just a heads-up–over at After the Bar Closes, on the Telic Thoughts thread, someone pretending to be 'Guts' is making an ass of himself. So far he's said that we're 'gay', 'projecting', 'ignorant', 'scientifically illiterate', our board is a 'piece of shit'. etc etc etc.

If the real Guts is being unfairly maligned by an impersonator, he can contact Wesley Elsberry to put a stop to it.

Comment by steve — July 6, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  Bradford Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

steve:


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

   Just a heads-up–over at After the Bar Closes, on the Telic Thoughts thread, someone pretending to be 'Guts' is making an ass of himself. So far he's said that we're 'gay', 'projecting', 'ignorant', 'scientifically illiterate', our board is a 'piece of shit'. etc etc etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Steve, insulting people is the norm at that site. Many times the objects of hate are people not even posting at AtBC. So 'Guts' is following the maxim "when in Rome do as the Romans do."

Comment by Bradford — July 6, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

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




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  Guts Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

I'm just having fun trolling your board, much like you guys come here to troll us.

Comment by Guts — July 6, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

#  steve Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

I actually thought you were being impersonated. Mibad. Over and out.
Click to Edit

Comment by steve — July 6, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But Guts has now disappeared his comment.

Hey, Guts, know how you wanted an edit button? Remember what I told you about why you don't get one?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:03

Because you forgot how to configure it because you're stupid?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:03

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:01)


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

Shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, and there's nothing ID can explain that evolution can't. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



It's a lot more complex than that. Bayes Theorem seems to imply that there is no difference between prediction and accommodation, because the conditional probabilities used in Bayes Theorem are temporally neutral.  There have been attempts to build such a distinction into a Bayesian epistemology, but the more common move among Bayesians is to deny the importance of the distinction.  For example, Einstein's Relativity Theory got support from the fact that it correctly implied the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, though that information was known long before Einstein formulated the theory.  I myself am sympathetic to the view that accurate prediction provides more confirmational support than accommodation, but most Bayesians would not agree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Revised shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, but I'm cool with that."
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:04

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:03)
Because you forgot how to configure it because you're stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Many of us have edit buttons, Nelson. You've just demonstrated why newcomers don't get them automatically.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:05



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

Shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, but I'm cool with that."

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



Thats not what I said at all.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:06

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:05)


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

Shorter Nelson: "ID can't predict shit, but I'm cool with that."

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



Thats not what I said at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, because that would have entailed more honesty than you're willing to display here.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,16:06

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:53)
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what are the first 10?

[strikeout]Pussy[/strikeout] (cuz I am tired of Nelson's faggot talk).

Edited so not to abuse the edit function by eliminating a potentially embarassing comment or correct errors.


Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:08



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

No, because that would have entailed more honesty than you're willing to display here.

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



No it would directly contradict what i believe.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:08

Don't descend to Guts's level.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:09

lol Steve, maybe you should re-read the beginning pages of these threads where there is insult after insult all directed at TT bloggers. It's a little too late to tell people to take the high ground.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:13

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:08)
 

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

No, because that would have entailed more honesty than you're willing to display here.

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



No it would directly contradict what i believe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, Nelson. You can't name any ID predictions and yet you seem fine with this. This seems not to bother you at all.

Yet you said this:

 

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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Name the dozens. Show us how science is done. Put up or shut up, since you're supposedly the only scientifically literate one here. Quit dodging the questions.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ol Steve, maybe you should re-read the beginning pages of these threads where there is insult after insult all directed at TT bloggers. It's a little too late to tell people to take the high ground.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really?

 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:47)
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,16:14

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,16:08)
Don't descend to Guts's level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No problem.

I don't think any of us can get that low...


Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,16:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:53)
 
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, what are the first ten?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:15

Oh, yeah, we definitely insult you guys when you act ridiculous. But we don't have to act as cretinous as you. I've never gone to TT and called it a 'piece of shit', for instance.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:16



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

Name the dozens. Show us how science is done. Put up or shut up, since you're supposedly the only scientifically literate one here. Quit dodging the questions.

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



You didn't even understand what I wrote, thats why you can't respond.

By the way, I only use insults because thats the language that you all speak here. It's the norm. You guys drew first blood.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:17

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,16:15)
Oh, yeah, we definitely insult you guys when you act ridiculous. But we don't have to act as cretinous as you. I've never gone to TT and called it a 'piece of shit', for instance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course not, because it's not a piece of shit. I never called AE a piece of shit, I called it's board functions. But now I see that many of the more complex functions are hidden from new users, so now I'll AE an asshole for not giving me all the functions.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:16)


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

Name the dozens. Show us how science is done. Put up or shut up, since you're supposedly the only scientifically literate one here. Quit dodging the questions.

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



You didn't even understand what I wrote, thats why you can't respond.

By the way, I only use insults because thats the language that you all speak here. It's the norm. You guys drew first blood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop whining and show us the predictions that you spoke of earlier.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:18

"so now I'll call"
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:18

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,14:15)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:53)
   
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
   
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, what are the first ten?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, here's where I think Nelson is now:

"I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,16:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,13:53)
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 06 2008,15:50)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:49)
I couldn't possibly have given a more direct answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then I take it you cannot name a single ID prediction that has passed any form of test, which in itself is an answer as good as any I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, what are the first ten?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:20

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:16)


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

Name the dozens. Show us how science is done. Put up or shut up, since you're supposedly the only scientifically literate one here. Quit dodging the questions.

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



You didn't even understand what I wrote, thats why you can't respond.

By the way, I only use insults because thats the language that you all speak here. It's the norm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will repeat.

Name the dozens. Name ten. Show us how it's done.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You guys drew first blood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Poor widdle baby. You're up to more than a hundred posts now, the 'faggotry' can't be bothering you all that much.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:21



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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



Where did I say leave me alone?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:23

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:21)
 

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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



Where did I say leave me alone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah. Very well then:

New revised Nelson:

"I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. But trust me, I have dozens! Dumbass!"
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:23

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:21)


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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



Where did I say leave me alone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again with the dodging.



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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.

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



What predictions were you speaking of?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:24



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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



In fact, this whole sentence is wrong, it's not that it's not important, it's that it raises many issues. Let me just say that when P(B/A) = P(A/B) = P(A/A), then the data A maximally confirm B. because they raise its probability from whatever its prior probability was to one.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:25

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:24)


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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



In fact, this whole sentence is wrong, it's not that it's not important, it's that it raises many issues. Let me just say that when P(B/A) = P(A/B) = P(A/A), then the data A maximally confirm B. because they raise its probability from whatever its prior probability was to one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't name ten?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 06 2008,16:25

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:21)
Where did I say leave me alone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly. Like all trolls, Nelson is only seeking attention. If you read his comments, or ignore them, you will get exactly the same amount of information. Zero.

I'd vote to ignore him. Save your electrons.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:25

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:24)


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

I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But it's not important, so I won't name any. Now leave me alone, dumbass!"

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



In fact, this whole sentence is wrong, it's not that it's not important, it's that it raises many issues. Let me just say that when P(B/A) = P(A/B) = P(A/A), then the data A maximally confirm B. because they raise its probability from whatever its prior probability was to one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again with the dodging.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What predictions were you speaking of?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:26

I sure can name 10. But like I said it raises many issues.Such as, you can never derive data points from probabilistic theories, but only probabilities of data points
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:26)
I sure can name 10. But like I said it raises many issues.Such as, you can never derive data points from probabilistic theories, but only probabilities of data points
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quit stalling.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What predictions were you speaking of?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:26)
I sure can name 10. But like I said it raises many issues.Such as, you can never derive data points from probabilistic theories, but only probabilities of data points
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't believe you can name *any*, much less ten.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:29



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

I don't believe you can name *any*, much less ten.

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



I can name dozens . But I think what you are looking for is a criterion by which to distinguish a theoretical explanation of the data from a mere redescription of it.  Call your criterion the "parameter counting criterion".  I don't believe this is a very good criterion for distinguishing theories from non-theories.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:30

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:29)


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

I don't believe you can name *any*, much less ten.

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



I can name dozens .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet you refuse to name *any*. Imagine that.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:31

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:29)


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

I don't believe you can name *any*, much less ten.

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



I can name dozens . But I think what you are looking for is a criterion by which to distinguish a theoretical explanation of the data from a mere redescription of it.  Call your criterion the "parameter counting criterion".  I don't believe this is a very good criterion for distinguishing theories from non-theories.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What predictions were you talking about? I'm getting tired of posting this quote time and time again.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,16:32

Seriously Nelson, I recall you from ARN as an irritant, but not a total jerk. And what is with the nickname "guts?" Guts are long slimy tubes full of shit. Are you really into that much self disclosure?

Oh, what are ten successful predictions made by ID?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:33



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

And yet you refuse to name *any*. Imagine that.

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



It's not that I refuse to name any, it's that is the prior probabilities to which the theorem is applied that determine whether simpler theories are selectively confirmed over more complex theories or whether more complex theories are selectively favored over simpler ones.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:34

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:33)


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

And yet you refuse to name *any*. Imagine that.

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



It's not that I refuse to name any, it's that is the prior probabilities to which the theorem is applied that determine whether simpler theories are selectively confirmed over more complex theories or whether more complex theories are selectively favored over simpler ones.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you're refusing to name any. That's painfully obvious.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:34



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

Oh, what are ten successful predictions made by ID?

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



Actually there are dozens of successful predictions made by ID.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:35

There is a great, but nauseating, short story by Chuck Palahniuk called "Guts", from his book "Haunted".

Anyway, how about those dozens of predictions?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:36

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:34)


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

Oh, what are ten successful predictions made by ID?

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



Actually there are dozens of successful predictions made by ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But they're secret.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:37



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

Anyway, how about those dozens of predictions?

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



I already listed them fully, but it was deleted by steve.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:39

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:37)


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

Anyway, how about those dozens of predictions?

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



I already listed them fully, but it was deleted by steve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then it should be no problem for you to list them again, no?

Oh, I forgot. They're secret. And they're not important anyway.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:39



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

But they're secret

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



I keep trying to explain this to you. but you're not understanding. It's not that it's secret.
Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,16:40

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:37)


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

Anyway, how about those dozens of predictions?

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



I already listed them fully, but it was deleted by steve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's even better than Dog ate my homework!
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:40

That post before last was a joke by the way.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:41

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:40)
That post before last was a joke by the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you can name them, and they're not secret, then what's the problem?
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,16:42

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:34)


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

Oh, what are ten successful predictions made by ID?

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



Actually there are dozens of successful predictions made by ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You cannot even list 10.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:39)


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

But they're secret

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



I keep trying to explain this to you. but you're not understanding. It's not that it's secret.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know, Nelson. You have dozens and dozens, but you refuse to list any, because it's not important. But really, you have dozens.

And so on, and so on, and so on.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:45

Guts @ July 06 2008,12:51
When will I be cool enough to get an edit button.

Stevestory @ Posted: July 06 2008,16:02    
As Guts is no doubt aware, IDers like to rewrite the past. They tried to do that here a few times, and so we had to take edit buttons away from new users.

Guts Posted: July 06 2008,16:03    
You're projecting Steve.

~16:55 - Guts deletes his own comment from Telic Thoughts.

And they wonder why people point and laugh at them.
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 06 2008,16:45

Well, I'm leaving this in the hands of you less timezone-impaired folks.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I could name dozens of ID predictions that have passed tests. But there seems to be a fundamental misundersatnding of science and how it is done in this forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Will I wake up to a world where science has been revolutionized? Only time will tell. G'night.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:48

Several of us are checking out. Guts is just tap dancing. He's got nothing to say.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:48



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

You cannot even list 10.

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



I can list dozens, I am just trying to explain basic issues first. But no one understands.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:49

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,16:48)
Several of us are checking out. Guts is just tap dancing. He's got nothing to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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

Several of us are checking out. Guts is just tap dancing. He's got nothing to say.

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



I'm just bored at the moment. I'll likely get into some more serious AE errors and deceit in the comming days.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,16:51

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,14:48)
 

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

You cannot even list 10.

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



I can list dozens, I am just trying to explain basic issues first. But no one understands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I'm just trying to explain what's really important. But I just can't get through to you guys! But really, I have dozens!"

[wipes tear]

Nelson, you're a fraud, and we've seen it all before. Toodles.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:53

No I'm not a fraud. Actually i really did explain some fundamental issues lol. Thats the ironic thing.
Posted by: Reed on July 06 2008,16:54

Wow ... Guts, page 6:
   

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

I would be more than happy to debate anywhere you'd like, even on non-neutral venues.

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


... 17 pages of spewing insults and failure to engage in any substantiative discussion ...

Do you think you are fooling anyone ? Heck, just linking to a post that outlines your position would be sufficient to get things rolling, if you were interested in honest discourse.

Even as trolling, it's pretty third rate. Too much repetition, not enough content to draw people in.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,16:58



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

17 pages of spewing insults and failure to engage in any substantiative discussion

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



That pretty much describes this entire thread.



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

Heck, just linking to a post that outlines your position would be sufficient to get things rolling, if you were interested in honest discourse.

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



I'm not here to defend my position I'm here to point out the lying that is going on here. For example, Frostman has already admitted to lying as a result, so it appears I am effective.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,16:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No I'm not a fraud. Actually i really did explain some fundamental issues lol. Thats the ironic thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, that we're faggots. Really brilliant work. Enjoy your stay. Somebody explain to Guts that 157,000 blog posts and zero papers is not a scientific revolution. I'm out.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,17:01

steve, we've already been through this, you understand anything about science, so you wouldn't know.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,17:02

don't*
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,17:06

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:48)
     

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

You cannot even list 10.

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



I can list dozens, I am just trying to explain basic issues first. But no one understands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about one?

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.

[edits for clarity]
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,17:14

Here is an example, Nelson.

Land animals evolved from fish. Land animals are common by about 300 million years ago.

Prediction: Between 400 and 300 million years ago, there are fossils of fish with anatomy in between fish and tetapods.

Result: Ahlberg, P. E., Luksevics, E. & Lebedev, O. 1994. The first tetrapod finds from the Devonian (Upper Famennian) of Latvia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 343, 303-328.

Per E. Ahlberg, Jennifer A. Clack, Ervins Lukshevechk, Henning Blom, Ivars Zupinsh
2008 "Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology" Nature  453, 1199 - 1204 (26 Jun 2008).

Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, Farish A. Jenkins
"A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan" Nature  440, 757 - 763 (06 Apr 2006), doi: 10.1038/nature04639

See how easy that is?

Now you do one.



Edited to undo the last edit.


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,17:30

Thanks for the list of ID predictions. That was awesome.


SHOITEHAWK.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,17:38

It's my pleasure
Posted by: RupertG on July 06 2008,17:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:38)
It's my pleasure
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But why? Why are you here? You don't want to talk about science or ID, you don't have any response beyond yelling insults or a fourth-form retort (for American readers, that's, um, around 14 years old.).

What are you enjoying so much? Don't you worry that it's making you, your friends and everything you claim to find important look, well... stupid?

R
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,17:52

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,16:39)


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

But they're secret

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



I keep trying to explain this to you. but you're not understanding. It's not that it's secret.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this related to a list of Commie sympathizers in the State department?
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,17:57

Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, Farish A. Jenkins
"A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan" Nature  440, 757 - 763 (06 Apr 2006), doi: 10.1038/nature04639

The famous Tikaalik fossil is particularly interesting for the current discussion because the researchers went to the field location because it matched predicted age and environmental conditions that were predicted to yield this sort of predicted intermeadiate.  

See?  Prediction from theory followed by experiment/obsevation will yield important results, IF there is a theory that is not just a pile of crap.

So, Nelson? Your turn to present one of the dozens (heheh) of ID successes.

Edited to add: Come on Nelson, get with it!


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,17:57

Well, that was fun. I hope Joytard comes next time!
Posted by: Art on July 06 2008,17:59

Geepers, Guts.  Try as you might, you cannot be stupider than joy.  She's had decades of practice, and I suspect you're still in the rookie leagues.

Heck, you haven't yet approached Bradford's pathetic level of argumentation.  You'll need to continue this vacuous evasion for a few years to catch up to him.

And as melt-downs go, yours cannot touch the quality of MikeGene's screen-smokers.

Bottom line - you're still peon fourth class in MikeGene's coterie.  Try to accept your lot in life and get on with things.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,18:01

So that was about 100 people who read Nelson's being spanked.

I hope he enjoyed it.


Posted by: Nerull on July 06 2008,18:57

Oh, wow. Busy programming all weekend and look what I miss.

It's like the kid who knows everything - just ask him. Except when you do he doesn't have an answer to anything. If you stump him, all he can do is spit and bluster and throw insults.

Really, I thought most people progressed from that form of argument by high school. Apparently not.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:02



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

But why? Why are you here?

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



I thought I already made it crystal clear why I am here. I exposed two instances of deceit both from steve and Frostman, and I will continue to do so, even with the science. I'm not here to explain and defend my position, I go to TT and blog for that.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 06 2008,19:02

I'm wondering if Guts is the HIV denier who shows up on other forums.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:06



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

So that was about 100 people who read Nelson's being spanked

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



How was I spanked? I documented two instances of lies about my blog, and one of the liars admitted it. I'd say i'm doing pretty good.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:11

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:02)


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

But why? Why are you here?

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



I thought I already made it crystal clear why I am here. I exposed two instances of deceit both from steve and Frostman, and I will continue to do so, even with the science. I'm not here to explain and defend my position, I go to TT and blog for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are yes... I'll only discuss at my fortress of creobottery where reality based comments get disappeared.

Nice one Guts!
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:13



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

Are yes... I'll only discuss at my fortress of creobottery where reality based comments get disappeared.

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



Which ones? If you really feel that way, feel free to take any one of my blogs and critique it here, and I'll respond.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:13)


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

Are yes... I'll only discuss at my fortress of creobottery where reality based comments get disappeared.

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



Which ones? If you really feel that way, feel free to take any one of my blogs and critique it here, and I'll respond.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No Guts, if You feel that way, discuss here, where the ability to edit the history wont be given to you. You're already been found wanting in that regard in the short time you've been here.

ID predictions?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:18

Like I said, I'm not here to explain to a bunch of trolls my position, it's a complete waste of time. I'm only here to expose the lies and deceit that crop up here. It's very simple concept to understand.

You = troll

Me  = troll smasher, not patient teacher
Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,19:20

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:18)
Like I said, I'm not here to explain to a bunch of trolls my position, it's a complete waste of time. I'm only here to expose the lies and deceit that crop up here. It's very simple concept to understand.

You = troll

Me  = troll smasher, not patient teacher
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This from a guy who a few hours ago admitted he came here to troll.  LOL
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:21

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:18)
Like I said, I'm not here to explain to a bunch of trolls my position, it's a complete waste of time. I'm only here to expose the lies and deceit that crop up here. It's very simple concept to understand.

You = troll

Me  = troll smasher, not patient teacher
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a great assertion: Here I am trolling at a blog where I've nearly posted 5000 times. I haven't posted at Telic Tards at all.

You and reality aren't very close, eh?


Why not post here, Guts? At least we have a decent readership and lots of scientists on hand..
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:21

Yes I came here to troll, but in the process , I have a purpose here, which I already accomplished in part.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,19:22

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2008,20:15)
ID predictions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:48)
       

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

You cannot even list 10.

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



I can list dozens, I am just trying to explain basic issues first. But no one understands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about one?

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:22

lol , he calls me a "Telic Tard" and then says he's not trolling. You're ridiculous.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:23

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:21)
Yes I came here to troll, but in the process , I have a purpose here, which I already accomplished in part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a nugget. I'm sorry Guts, being you is more sad than I can imagine.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:23



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

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

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



How do you feel about the fact that your moderator is liar?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:25

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:22)
lol , he calls me a "Telic Tard" and then says he's not trolling. You're ridiculous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Argument Regarding Design is a an accepted acronym, according to sources preferred by Telic Tards.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:27

And yet you can't refute a single part of any of my blogs right here in your own board. How retarded is that?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,19:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:23)
 

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

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

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



How do you feel about the fact that your moderator is liar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your question is non-responsive to my request. Plus it isn't clear what you are referring to, as SteveStory no longer moderates here, and, in any event, < Wesley's > observation regarding Steve's remark is exactly accurate.

That said, Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.

(ETA link.)
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:31



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

Your question is non-responsive to my request. Plus it isn't clear what you are referring to, as SteveStory no longer moderates here, and, in any event, Wesley's observation regarding Steve's remark is exactly accurate.

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



I thought you guys were supposed believe things based on evidence. Ok , I also showed that Frostman lied multiple times in this thread, how do you feel about the fact that you have an obsessive liar here in your ranks and you are doing nothing about it?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I thought you guys were supposed believe things based on evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can list dozens, I am just trying to explain basic issues first. But no one understands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:37

Actually I did explain some foundational issues that are extremely relevant.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,19:38

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:31)
   

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

Your question is non-responsive to my request. Plus it isn't clear what you are referring to, as SteveStory no longer moderates here, and, in any event, Wesley's observation regarding Steve's remark is exactly accurate.

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



I thought you guys were supposed believe things based on evidence. Ok , I also showed that Frostman lied multiple times in this thread, how do you feel about the fact that you have an obsessive liar here in your ranks and you are doing nothing about it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no feelings about Frostman whatsoever.

That said, describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:39

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:37)
Actually I did explain some foundational issues that are extremely relevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's nice guts. Now, if you've finish obsfucating, ID predictions? Or even a scientific theory would be a good start.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:39



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

I have no feelings about Frostman whatsoever.

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



Like I said before, they don't call this the swamp for nothing.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:41



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

That's nice guts. Now, if you've finish obsfucating, ID predictions? Or even a scientific theory would be a good start.

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



Read my blogs. Let me know if you have any questions.
Posted by: olegt on July 06 2008,19:42

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:41)


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

That's nice guts. Now, if you've finish obsfucating, ID predictions? Or even a scientific theory would be a good start.

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



Read my blogs. Let me know if you have any questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be sure to link to them, buddy.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:42

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:39)


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

I have no feelings about Frostman whatsoever.

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



Like I said before, they don't call this the swamp for nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They being...?

You, "Mike Gene" Bradford and Joy? Ooooooooh. Endorsement by idiots - not something we want. Last time I looked, your lot where perceived as the religion pushing, tinfoil hat wearing group by the scientific community.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:41)


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

That's nice guts. Now, if you've finish obsfucating, ID predictions? Or even a scientific theory would be a good start.

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



Read my blogs. Let me know if you have any questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wah wah must have moderation to protect from reality.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:44



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

Wah wah must have moderation to protect from reality.

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



lol why don't you critique my blogs then if thats what you believe? Your free from my moderation here, why are you so afraid?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:45

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:44)


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

Wah wah must have moderation to protect from reality.

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



lol why don't you critique my blogs then if thats what you believe? Your free from my moderation here, why are you so afraid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can be arsed to write commentary that wont get through, Guts. All can post here.. something that evidently scares the shit out of you.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:46



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

I can be arsed to write commentary that wont get through, Guts. All can post here.. something that evidently scares the shit out of you.

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



No no, post it here and I'll respond to you. Post your critique here.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:49

You know I really don't mind the rudeness. I couldn't care less about it. It's the dishonesty I mind.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:52

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:49)
You know I really don't mind the rudeness. I couldn't care less about it. It's the dishonesty I mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID predictions? thought not.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,19:53

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:39)
   

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

I have no feelings about Frostman whatsoever.

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



Like I said before, they don't call this the swamp for nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would I have feelings about a poster with whom I have no familiarity? You both must be a bit narcissistic if you believe the blogosphere is waiting with bated breath for a resolution of your conflict.

And why would I accept your characterization of that conflict were I interested? As I stated in my original post in this thread, you've come across here as quite an asshole, which doesn't exactly enhance credibility.
  
BTW, were you to dig a bit deeper here you would observe that I have several time objected to the term "liar" as used here, as I feel that it is often misapplied.

That said, describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,19:57



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

Why would I have feelings about a poster with whom I have no familiarity? You both must be a bit narcissistic if you believe the blogosphere is waiting with bated breath for a resolution of your conflict.

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



I don't get it. I'm asking you for your honest opinion about a regular poster here who has quite obviously continously posted lies about my blog. I am not asking you to resolve my conflict. You telling me that you feel nothing about a person spreading falsehoods about my blog speaks volumes. Another reason why I'd rather drill a hole in my head than chit chat about biology.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,19:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd rather drill a hole in my head than chit chat about biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For someone with Sig-space..
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye on July 06 2008,20:01

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2007,11:50)
One problem that you run into with following IDers is that most of them are just ignorant and arrogant. While this makes for < some good laughs >, it's not very challenging. We've been trying to recruit some smarter creationist to debate here. It's not very easy. It seems for every educated creationist familiar with science, there are about a million AFDaves and FtKs. Since we haven't yet managed to recruit such an educated creationist, perhaps we should make do by discussing the best of the bunch, < Telic Thoughts. > It's slightly better than the others. If Uncommonly Dense is like a clown car, Telic Thoughts is more like an AMC Pacer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think its time to revise the fundamental premise of this thread and downgrade "Telic Thoughts" to clown car status.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:01

Hows that critique comming Rich? lol
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on July 06 2008,20:01

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:57)
Another reason why I'd rather drill a yet another hole in my head than chit chat about biology address any substantive issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I fixed that for you.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:04

Jim you should correct the spelling errors in your sig or at least at a sic or something. That is pretty hilarious actually.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,20:05

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:57)


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

Why would I have feelings about a poster with whom I have no familiarity? You both must be a bit narcissistic if you believe the blogosphere is waiting with bated breath for a resolution of your conflict.

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



I don't get it. I'm asking you for your honest opinion about a regular poster here who has quite obviously continously posted lies about my blog. I am not asking you to resolve my conflict. You telling me that you feel nothing about a person spreading falsehoods about my blog speaks volumes. Another reason why I'd rather drill a hole in my head than chit chat about biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frostman has 16 posts since joining AtBC in 11/07, many of which concern your inability to reveal publicly what you conceded to him privately, a topic in which I have no investment.

My conclusion is that you are unable to provide the example I've requested.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:07



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

My conclusion is that you are unable to provide the example I've requested.

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



Then your conclusion is mistaken.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,20:07

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:01)
Hows that critique comming Rich? lol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Post something here about ID, Guts and you'll get a critique. This forum, where posts don't go missing.

Do you think ID is science? Have you used the EF? Which shows ID, redundancy, IC or both? Front loading, why all the extinctions, and why did 'they' front-load Richard Lenski's E-Coli?

You are an assclown of brobdignanian proportions.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:09



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

Front loading, why all the extinctions, and why did 'they' front-load Richard Lenski's E-Coli?

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



Huh? How did they front-load "Richard Lenski's E-Coli"?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,20:11

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:07)
 

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

My conclusion is that you are unable to provide the example I've requested.

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



Then your conclusion is mistaken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK. Like you said, we're about evidence. Show me that I am wrong.

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

Then use that work to amplify the basic issues you raised above.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,20:12

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:09)


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

Front loading, why all the extinctions, and why did 'they' front-load Richard Lenski's E-Coli?

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



Huh? How did they front-load "Richard Lenski's E-Coli"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice to see telic Tards is the vanguard of dynamic ID research.  ???
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:13

Richard thats very cute but please answer my question.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,20:14

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:13)
Richard thats very cute but please answer my question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's rich! Hahahaha!!
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,20:15

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:13)
Richard thats very cute but please answer my question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


do you mean this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Huh? How did they front-load "Richard Lenski's E-Coli"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If so could you be a bit more specific?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:20

Ok Bill I'll give the one I remember off the top of my head.

hypothesis: the starting conditions of life were designed and influenced evolution

prediction: evolution relied heavily on it's ancient past, we should find key components, such as genes borrowed from that ancient past.

Indeed, it has been found that the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians had an expanded complement of wnt genes already.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:21

You said:



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

Front loading, why all the extinctions, and why did 'they' front-load Richard Lenski's E-Coli?

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



why did who front-load Lenski's E-Coli? How did they front-load it?
Posted by: Zarquon on July 06 2008,20:22

Tard outreach. Just what the world needed.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,20:24

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:02)
 

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

But why? Why are you here?

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



I thought I already made it crystal clear why I am here. I exposed two instances of deceit both from steve and Frostman, and I will continue to do so, even with the science. I'm not here to explain and defend my position, I go to TT and blog for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If what you are recalling about Steve is your incomprehension of what "moderation queue" means, that has already been < exposed > as not establishing what you think it does.


Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:28

Wesley,

Please link to the post where Steve retracts his statement that we purposely put him in the moderation queue, if thats what he meant.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,20:29

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:21)
Yes I came here to troll, but in the process , I have a purpose here, which I already accomplished in part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, if your purpose was to bite the heads off chickens for 12 hours, mission accomplished.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,20:30

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:44)


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

Wah wah must have moderation to protect from reality.

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



lol why don't you critique my blogs then if thats what you believe? Your free from my moderation here, why are you so afraid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of afraid, you never did give a single one of your 'dozens' of reasons.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:31

yes I did.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,20:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd rather drill a hole in my head than chit chat about biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yup, Nelson knows he has to avoid discussing biology at all costs. In this he is completely typical of the IDC movement.

But Nelson couldn't match our pathetic level of detail if he wanted to, so none of us should be surprised.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
yes I did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah. Not only are your predictions of ID secret, they're now invisible.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:36

Arden can't you read? I gave one already.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:37



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

But Nelson couldn't match our pathetic level if he wanted to, so none of us should be surprised.

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



I'm trying as hard as I can but you guys are pretty pathetic.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,20:37

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:21)
You said:



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

Front loading, why all the extinctions, and why did 'they' front-load Richard Lenski's E-Coli?

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



why did who front-load Lenski's E-Coli? How did they front-load it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know who... I R not design detective like you! I don't know how, either. But someone front loaded that after 33,127 generations, it would be able to feed on citrate. Get on it, design detective!


< http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,20:38

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:49)
You know I really don't mind the rudeness. I couldn't care less about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A good thing.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not the one that came here and started a mindless thread to attack my website, if you have something substantive to say against anything write, say it. So far, I only see faggotry, which is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So I guess the 'faggotry' does bother you.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,20:39

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:20)
Ok Bill I'll give the one I remember off the top of my head.

hypothesis: the starting conditions of life were designed and influenced evolution

prediction: evolution relied heavily on it's ancient past, we should find key components, such as genes borrowed from that ancient past.

Indeed, it has been found that the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians had an expanded complement of wnt genes already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're citing an armchair reinterpretation of genuine scientific work pursued by actual professional scientists operating from within the framework of contemporary evo-devo biology.

What I have have requested is a SINGLE example of empirical research conducted within the theoretical framework of ID, yielding predictions that are unique to ID and were tested in such a way that a null result would meaningfully falsify a component of ID. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

I see none of those components in the armchair example you cite.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:42

I started demonstrating against scientology and they are ruthless when it comes to obtaining identity.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,20:43

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:18)
Like I said, I'm not here to explain to a bunch of trolls my position, it's a complete waste of time. I'm only here to expose the lies and deceit that crop up here. It's very simple concept to understand.

You = troll

Me  = troll smasher, not patient teacher
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, big troll snatcher guy

Crush me with you totally irrefutable example of a positive demonstration of a successful IDC prediction.  I gave you an example to follow for format.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:43



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

You're citing an armchair reinterpretation

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



It's not a reinterpretation at all.



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

of genuine scientific work pursued by actual professional scientists operating from within the framework of contemporary evo-devo biology.

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



So what? It doesn't matter who did the experiment, what matters is that the data conforms to the prediction.

You see, as trolls, it's a waste of time giving you actual examples because your minds are already made up.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,20:45

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:43)


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

You're citing an armchair reinterpretation

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



It's not a reinterpretation at all.



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

of genuine scientific work pursued by actual professional scientists operating from within the framework of contemporary evo-devo biology.

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



So what? It doesn't matter who did the experiment, what matters is that the data conforms to the prediction.

You see, as trolls, it's a waste of time giving you actual examples because your minds are already made up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I'm intrigued. Please give me another example from your twelve so I can address my atheist / materialistic worldview.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,20:47

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,17:41)


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

That's nice guts. Now, if you've finish obsfucating, ID predictions? Or even a scientific theory would be a good start.

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



Read my blogs. Let me know if you have any questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, that is where you give all the detailed, dozens of ID predictions?

Got a link?

Got a Clue?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,20:49

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,18:36)
Arden can't you read? I gave one already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean this?

 

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

prediction: evolution relied heavily on it's ancient past, we should find key components, such as genes borrowed from that ancient past.

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



You're saying nothing more than "if ID is right, we'd expect frontloading. Hey! And we do find frontloading!" It's equivalent to "If ID is right, we'd expect cases of obvious design. And we do!"

If this is the best of your 'dozens' of predictions, my expectations aren't high.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:51

One thing in general that ID in general predicts is conceptual similarties among biological systems and that these conceptual similarities are there because of good engineering principles, like robustness in bacterial chemotaxis.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,20:52



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

You're saying nothing more than "if ID is right, we'd expect frontloading. Hey! And we do find frontloading!"

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



No, it's possible that in fact the wnt suite evolved via gene duplication in these lineages or that jellyfish is really as simple as it looks.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,20:53

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:43)
It's not a reinterpretation at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you give us a quick link or cite back to passages in the original papers in which the authors interpreted their data as supporting the hypothesis of front loading of genetic information by an intelligent designer?

I gather you can't provide an example of the sort I describe - the sort of work done day in, day out within real sciences.

This would do it: A SINGLE example of empirical research conducted within the theoretical framework of ID, yielding predictions that are unique to ID and were tested in such a way that a null result would meaningfully falsify a component of ID. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,20:53

BTW, I have "debated" Guts on Mike Gene ID, which is about the original subject she knows jack shit about.  It devolved into classic "I-know-what-the-Designer-did", which you can read < here >.  Even when I presented her all the fucking reading material for the "debate," she read none of the literature.  All she did was invent definitions, shift goal posts and pose as an expert.  In other words, she lied.  It's useless to debate Internet poseurs.
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,20:57

I have also dealt with this Mike-Gene-ism "good engineering principles" in the past.  Problem is, there isn't a fucking "good engineering principle" that is demonstrably "good" except in an artificially defined context.

Go ahead, list some good engineering principles, Guts.  Show us what engineering principles your Designer used.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:01

Principia you should catch up with the scientific literature. The term "conceptual similarity" is used for this very subject of shared principles with biology and engineering.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,21:03

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,18:20)
Ok Bill I'll give the one I remember off the top of my head.

hypothesis: the starting conditions of life were designed and influenced evolution

prediction: evolution relied heavily on it's ancient past, we should find key components, such as genes borrowed from that ancient past.

Indeed, it has been found that the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians had an expanded complement of wnt genes already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is an example of a successful IDC prediction?

Have you people learned nothing in all these years?

hypothesis: the starting conditions of life were designed

The "starting" conditions? Just what were these "starting conditions" you speak of, stranger? I would know more of this new science.

And, these strange conditions you say were "designed?" And how might you distiguish between a designed "starting condition" and one "undesigned?"

... and influenced evolution

Well, as Darwin and many generations of biologists agree, physical conditions do indeed "influence evolution."  Why, we even call it "Natural Selection."   How do you creationists tell natural selection apart from "influenced evolution." Why do you think that "evolution" happens if it is really all from "design?"

How do you find your ass in the morning?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,21:04

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:01)
Principia you should catch up with the scientific literature. The term "conceptual similarity" is used for this very subject of shared principles with biology and engineering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd rather drill a hole in my head than chit chat about biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



uh-huh...
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:04

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,20:57)
I have also dealt with this Mike-Gene-ism "good engineering principles" in the past.  Problem is, there isn't a fucking "good engineering principle" that is demonstrably "good" except in an artificially defined context.

Go ahead, list some good engineering principles, Guts.  Show us what engineering principles your Designer used.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your quite wrong, here is a quote from An Introduction to Systems Biology by Uri Alon:



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

A third level of simplicty is th econceptual similarity  of seemingly unrelated systems, a similarity expressed in terms of unifying design principles. ONe such design principle is robustness to component fluctuations: A biological system must work under all possible insults and interferences that come with the inherent properties of the components and the environment.

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


Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,21:07

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:04)
Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,20:57)
I have also dealt with this Mike-Gene-ism "good engineering principles" in the past.  Problem is, there isn't a fucking "good engineering principle" that is demonstrably "good" except in an artificially defined context.

Go ahead, list some good engineering principles, Guts.  Show us what engineering principles your Designer used.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your quite wrong, here is a quote from An Introduction to Systems Biology by Uri Alon:



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

A third level of simplicty is th econceptual similarity  of seemingly unrelated systems, a similarity expressed in terms of unifying design principles. ONe such design principle is robustness to component fluctuations: A biological system must work under all possible insults and interferences that come with the inherent properties of the components and the environment.

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


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


Hmmm.. natural selection wouldn't select for that, would it?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:16

"Intro level text" bwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha. Come on Principia you could do better than that.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:16

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:08)
Dr GH:

 

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

That is an example of a successful IDC prediction?

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



Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it doesn't exemplify empirical research conducted within the theoretical framework of ID, yielding predictions that are unique to ID and were tested in such a way that a null result would meaningfully falsify a component of ID. Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,21:18

Let's explore why Uri's "robustness as design principle" is "good".  Tell us, if a biological system works "under all possible insults and interferences" how then how does one remove this system when it becomes useless and detrimental to the organism?  Bacteria are pretty fucking robust organisms.  Yet they kill us by the millions.  And we do the same.  Not very robust.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:19

Inappropriate comments are being moved to the Bathroom Wall Thread.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:20



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

But it doesn't exemplify empirical research conducted within the theoretical framework of ID,

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



It doesn't matter. Data is data, if it is good data it'll be found by workers within any theoretical framework.



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

yielding predictions that are unique to ID and were tested in such a way that a null result would meaningfully falsify a component of ID.

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



In fact, these results were quite unexpected within the Darwinian evolutinoary framework.



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

Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

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



It looks to me like you're just flailing at this point.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:20

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:19)
Inappropriate comments are being moved to the Bathroom Wall Thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whats that matter steve? You don't like dissent?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:21

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,21:20)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:16)
"Intro level text" bwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha. Come on Principia you could do better than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Principia is doing pretty fucking awesome at Mike-Gene-beat downs as far as your shit standards are concerned.  Answer my question if you actually know what you're talking about instead of dragging shit out of your ass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You didn't ask any questions you're just obsessed with spigots or something.
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,21:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, these results were quite unexpected within the Darwinian evolutinoary framework.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why do unexpected results count against a scientific theory?  Newton didn't expect quantum principles or general relativity.  Is Newton's theory of gravitation wrong?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:26

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,21:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, these results were quite unexpected within the Darwinian evolutinoary framework.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why do unexpected results count against a scientific theory?  Newton didn't expect quantum principles or general relativity.  Is Newton's theory of gravitation wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say it counts against a scientific theory you twit.
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,21:27

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,21:26)
Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,21:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, these results were quite unexpected within the Darwinian evolutinoary framework.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why do unexpected results count against a scientific theory?  Newton didn't expect quantum principles or general relativity.  Is Newton's theory of gravitation wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say it counts against a scientific theory you twit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Woo, I'm scared, you called me a twit,  LOL, pussy.

So, you just make general remarks that are completely inconsequential.  Gotcha.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:28

They are far from inconsquential in that they serve to bring about a framework that would better account for data. Sort of like when neo-darwinism came about, it served to improve the theory, it didn't count against it.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:30

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

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



It looks to me like you're just flailing at this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We both know that no exemplar is coming, because none exist.

Also, don't forget those evo-devo links/cites back to passages to original papers in which the authors interpreted their data as supporting the hypothesis of front loading of genetic information by an intelligent designer.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:30

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:30)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

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



It looks to me like you're just flailing at this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We both know that no exemplar is coming, because none exist.

Also, don't forget those evo-devo links/cites back to passages to original papers in which the authors interpreted their data as supporting the hypothesis of front loading of genetic information by an intelligent designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already gave one.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:32

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:19)
Inappropriate comments are being moved to the Bathroom Wall Thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whats that matter steve? You don't like dissent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you don't seem very familiar with us. If we went to your blog and said the things you've said today, we would be banned. Here we don't ban. We do move most personal attacks to the Bathroom Wall thread. This isn't an ID blog. There's very little banning and no deleting of comments.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,21:36

Look Nelson, can the bull shit for a minute.  No trolling now. No baiting.  Do you really, honestly believe that your example is a successful IDC prediction?

Be honest.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:36

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:30)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:30)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

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



It looks to me like you're just flailing at this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We both know that no exemplar is coming, because none exist.

Also, don't forget those evo-devo links/cites back to passages to original papers in which the authors interpreted their data as supporting the hypothesis of front loading of genetic information by an intelligent designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already gave one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One what? I see no citation of ID motivated research of the sort that I describe - research in which the design specifies in advance a null empirical finding that would place one's theoretical position in jeopardy.

I also see no citation to original authors interpreting their data in light of front-loaded genetic information or any other designed initial conditions.

[edit for clarity]
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:41

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,21:36)
Look Nelson, can the bull shit for a minute.  No trolling now. No baiting.  Do you really, honestly believe that your example is a successful IDC prediction?

Be honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:42

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:36)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:30)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:30)
   
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Give us an example of same. Just one. Tell us the results of that research, and the implications of those findings for future empirical work.

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



It looks to me like you're just flailing at this point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We both know that no exemplar is coming, because none exist.

Also, don't forget those evo-devo links/cites back to passages to original papers in which the authors interpreted their data as supporting the hypothesis of front loading of genetic information by an intelligent designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already gave one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One what? I see no citation of ID motivated research of the sort that I describe - research in which the design specifies in advance a null empirical finding that would place one's theoretical position in jeopardy.

I also see no citation to original authors interpreting their data in light of front-loaded genetic information or any other designed initial conditions.

[edit for clarity]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gave you an example of a prediction. You're just closing your eyes and saying "no no no no no".
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,21:42

Quote (Guts (aka Nelson Alonso) @ July 06 2008,20:28)
Wesley,

Please link to the post where Steve retracts his statement that we purposely put him in the moderation queue, if thats what he meant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Steve said, with added emphasis:

 

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

It appears I've been put in the moderation queue at TT. I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity.

my moderated comment is preserved here:

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



So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

But that brings up an interesting point. Is the moderation queue at TT not an example of "intelligent design", and programmed itself? Good to know that the next time an IDC advocate claims that there are no computer programs that are free of the taint of an intelligent agent.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:43

Actually I gave two examples.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:45

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:23)


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

Describe a SINGLE instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.

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



How do you feel about the fact that your moderator is liar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LouFCD is a liar?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:46

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:32)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:20)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:19)
Inappropriate comments are being moved to the Bathroom Wall Thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whats that matter steve? You don't like dissent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you don't seem very familiar with us. If we went to your blog and said the things you've said today, we would be banned. Here we don't ban. We do move most personal attacks to the Bathroom Wall thread. This isn't an ID blog. There's very little banning and no deleting of comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve, you are obviously unfamiliar with TT. We rarely ban as well. We do  throw comments to a similar "memory hole" and occasionally make use of the new moderation tool to barr people from threads.

You admit here that you have at one point found the need to ban people. Do you feel you have done so unjustly? Probably not.

But the problem is that every time we ban someone, it doesn't matter that we do it rarely, everytime we ban someone we are accused of censoring when in fact there absolutely nothing to censor. Which is ridiculous and dishonest.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:48

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:42)
I gave you an example of a prediction. You're just closing your eyes and saying "no no no no no".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I asked for includes a prediction, but I also requested the basic research infrastructure that confers upon the prediction scientific usefulness.

I'm closing my eyes and saying provide an instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:49

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,22:42)
Quote (Guts (aka Nelson Alonso) @ July 06 2008,20:28)
Wesley,

Please link to the post where Steve retracts his statement that we purposely put him in the moderation queue, if thats what he meant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Steve said, with added emphasis:

   

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

It appears I've been put in the moderation queue at TT. I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity.

my moderated comment is preserved here:

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



So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

But that brings up an interesting point. Is the moderation queue at TT not an example of "intelligent design", and programmed itself? Good to know that the next time an IDC advocate claims that there are no computer programs that are free of the taint of an intelligent agent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh, yeah, I remember that. I was in some kind of moderation for a few posts. After I commented there was a little message, I believe at the top (?) of my comment, saying it was awaiting moderation or held in moderation or awaiting approval or something. Only happened for 2 or 3 comments. What happened there Guts? Why'd my comment get into a moderation queue?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:49



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

So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

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



Everyone at TT knows that occasionally comments get caught in the moderation queue automatically if akismet is not installed, in fact that this is true of many wordpress blog. And in fact, many who post for there for a long period of time realize that this:



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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:52

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:49)


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

So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

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



Everyone at TT knows that occasionally comments get caught in the moderation queue automatically if akismet is not installed, in fact that this is true of many wordpress blog. And in fact, many who post for there for a long period of time realize that this:



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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But quite different from lying. Are you now retracting your assertion that Steve was lying, and is a liar?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:52

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:48)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:42)
I gave you an example of a prediction. You're just closing your eyes and saying "no no no no no".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I asked for includes a prediction, but I also requested the basic research infrastructure that confers upon the prediction scientific usefulness.

I'm closing my eyes and saying provide an instance of hypothesis testing uniquely driven by ID theory. A quick description of the experimental prediction (and the theoretical basis thereof), why those predictions differ from those derived from orthodox evolutionary theory, in what sense the null result would disconfirm a tenet of ID, the actual results, and the implications for future empirical work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill it doens't matter that you don't like my answer. You have to give me a valid reason, the one you're giving me is completely arbitrary, it's like saying I don't like your prediction because your hair is black, it has no bearing on whether data was expected or unexpected because of the hypothesis.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:53

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:52)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:49)


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

So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

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



Everyone at TT knows that occasionally comments get caught in the moderation queue automatically if akismet is not installed, in fact that this is true of many wordpress blog. And in fact, many who post for there for a long period of time realize that this:

 

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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But quite different from lying. Are you now retracting your assertion that Steve was lying, and is a liar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When he retracts his statement I will.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:54

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:46)
Steve, you are obviously unfamiliar with TT. We rarely ban as well. We do  throw comments to a similar "memory hole"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh, i know about your memory hole. And if I went over to TT today and left 100 comments like "This board is a piece of shit and Joy is gay and Bradford is scientifically illiterate and Guts is a liar..." etc etc etc I would not end up in the memory hole. I'd be banned. Be honest.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,21:55

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:53)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,21:52)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:49)
 

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

So, no, that doesn't appear to be what Steve meant. Straw-grasping by Nelson noted. If Nelson wants to continue down that line, maybe a link to where anybody at TT objected about implicit intentionality in Steve's comment before today would be a good thing.

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



Everyone at TT knows that occasionally comments get caught in the moderation queue automatically if akismet is not installed, in fact that this is true of many wordpress blog. And in fact, many who post for there for a long period of time realize that this:

 

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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But quite different from lying. Are you now retracting your assertion that Steve was lying, and is a liar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When he retracts his statement I will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which brings you full circle - exactly the sort of contingency you employed to avoid doing the right thing vis Frostman.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,21:56

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:49)


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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You aren't calling TT a creationist site, are you Guts?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:56

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:54)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:46)
Steve, you are obviously unfamiliar with TT. We rarely ban as well. We do  throw comments to a similar "memory hole"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh, i know about your memory hole. And if I went over to TT today and left 100 comments like "This board is a piece of shit and Joy is gay and Bradford is scientifically illiterate and Guts is a liar..." etc etc etc I would not end up in the memory hole. I'd be banned. Be honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well of course, we try to foster discussion that won't turn people's stomachs, unlike here.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,21:56

Actually, occasional false positives are expected if Akismet is installed.

Imagine how much misunderstanding and bad feeling might have been shortcut if someone had popped up with that information at the time of the incident.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:57

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,21:56)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:49)


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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



Is complete and utter bullshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You aren't calling TT a creationist site, are you Guts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol you call us creationists all the time. So you're not going to retract your statement? If not you're still lying.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,21:59

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,21:56)
Actually, occasional false positives are expected if Akismet is installed.

Imagine how much misunderstanding and bad feeling might have been shortcut if someone had popped up with that information at the time of the incident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the moderation queue catches spam words if Akismet is not installed, after I installed Akismet, comments stopped getting caught in the moderation queue and was now being caught by Akismet, although rarely something gets caught by the moderation queue.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:00

I said I ended up in a moderation que. You basically said yeah, it was a software glitch, we know it happens on TT. So you said I'm right. What's to retract.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,22:01

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
Bill it doens't matter that you don't like my answer. You have to give me a valid reason, the one you're giving me is completely arbitrary, it's like saying I don't like your prediction because your hair is black, it has no bearing on whether data was expected or unexpected because of the hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Valid reason:

What I have requested describes the bare essence of scientific research. Your failure to provide an example of same from within the context of ID speaks for itself.

With that, I'm off to bed.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:02

This:



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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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


Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:03

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,22:01)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
Bill it doens't matter that you don't like my answer. You have to give me a valid reason, the one you're giving me is completely arbitrary, it's like saying I don't like your prediction because your hair is black, it has no bearing on whether data was expected or unexpected because of the hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Valid reason:

What I have requested describes the bare essence of scientific research. Your failure to provide an example of same from within the context of ID speaks for itself.

With that, I'm off to bed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't run away now? You've been asking me all day for a valid prediction and you give me bunk as a response and now you're running away?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:04

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:02)
This:



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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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


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


Which part are you calling a 'lie'?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:04

That we purposely put you in the moderation queue. Thats not true, when we found your comment in the queue, we passed it through.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,22:05

So both the "moderation queue" and Akismet can hold up the appearance of a comment. A commenter without administrative access to the blog is supposed to distinguish between those two in what way?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:06

where did i say that you 'purposely' put me in a moderation queue?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:07

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:04)
That we purposely put you in the moderation queue. Thats not true, when we found your comment in the queue, we passed it through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so you admit TT put me in a moderation queue? That's a funny way to demand a retraction.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:07

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,22:05)
So both the "moderation queue" and Akismet can hold up the appearance of a comment. A commenter without administrative access to the blog is supposed to distinguish between those two in what way?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Everyone else does. when a comment is caught, they usually ask for moderator assistance. Furthermore, instead of immediately comming here and crying censorship, he could have simply asked what was happening.

The knee jerk reaction just supports mindset of anti-ID activists, they know that censorship makes a blog look bad , so they are desperate to see it, even when it's not there.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 06 2008,22:07

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:03)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,22:01)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
Bill it doens't matter that you don't like my answer. You have to give me a valid reason, the one you're giving me is completely arbitrary, it's like saying I don't like your prediction because your hair is black, it has no bearing on whether data was expected or unexpected because of the hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Valid reason:

What I have requested describes the bare essence of scientific research. Your failure to provide an example of same from within the context of ID speaks for itself.

With that, I'm off to bed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't run away now? You've been asking me all day for a valid prediction and you give me bunk as a response and now you're running away?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have professional obligations, first thing in the morning, through which I put food on my family. Got to take care of myself.

I'll look for your example of ID research meeting my extremely basic description of the logic of scientific research mid-morning tomorrow.

Over and out.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,22:08

Nelson linked to < this comment > earlier as what he is so het up about.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:08

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:06)
where did i say that you 'purposely' put me in a moderation queue?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve come on:



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

I'm so glad I don't moderate a creationist site. Who's got the time and energy to specifically pore over every possible critical comment and judge it? Anyway that just reeks of insecurity

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



You were accusing us of specifically holding and judging your comment in the queue.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:09

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,22:07)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:03)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2008,22:01)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
Bill it doens't matter that you don't like my answer. You have to give me a valid reason, the one you're giving me is completely arbitrary, it's like saying I don't like your prediction because your hair is black, it has no bearing on whether data was expected or unexpected because of the hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Valid reason:

What I have requested describes the bare essence of scientific research. Your failure to provide an example of same from within the context of ID speaks for itself.

With that, I'm off to bed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't run away now? You've been asking me all day for a valid prediction and you give me bunk as a response and now you're running away?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have professional obligations, first thing in the morning, through which I put food on my family. Got to take care of myself.

I'll look for your example of ID research meeting my extremely basic description of the logic of scientific research mid-morning tomorrow.

Over and out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Extremely basic? Your request contain unnecessary qualifiers, it's too complex!
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:10

can you point me to a comment where i said you purposely put me in a moderation queue or not?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:11

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:10)
can you point me to a comment where i said you purposely put me in a moderation queue or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just did, and Wesley linked to it. I take it you're not going to retract?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:14

Looks like all I said specifically about Telic Thoughts is that it appeared I was put into a moderation queue. You basically admitted as much. So go demand a retraction from some other piece of shit board with lots of faggotry, in your words.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:15

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:14)
Looks like all I said specifically about Telic Thoughts is that it appeared I was put into a moderation queue. You basically admitted as much. So go demand a retraction from some other piece of shit board with lots of faggotry, in your words.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So in other words, you're still a liar.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:18

Alright, as much fun as watching guts make himself and his creationist buddies look as bad as humanly possible is, I'm going to step in here.

Guts, you have specifically called Steve a liar on several occasions.

As super light as the moderation here is, we do have a rule (check the bottom of the page for the link) about assertions and evidence which is taken pretty seriously.

Support your claim that Steve is a liar, with evidence, or retract it immediately.

And for the record, I am the moderator here, Steve is semi-retired.  Moderator Emeritus, if you will.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,22:18

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:41)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,21:36)
Look Nelson, can the bull shit for a minute.  No trolling now. No baiting.  Do you really, honestly believe that your example is a successful IDC prediction?

Be honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then you are too fucking stupid, or too dishonest to be bothered with any more.
Posted by: JAM on July 06 2008,22:20

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,20:20)
Ok Bill I'll give the one I remember off the top of my head.

hypothesis: the starting conditions of life were designed and influenced evolution

prediction: evolution relied heavily on it's ancient past, we should find key components, such as genes borrowed from that ancient past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nelson, you're scientifically illiterate. Your "prediction" is fraudulent, as it is merely a restatement of your hypothesis. A real prediction is about what we will directly observe, not how we will interpret it.

The point is to do all the interpretation before we gather the data. Of course, pseudoscientific frauds like you neither gather data nor make any real predictions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Indeed, it has been found that the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians had an expanded complement of wnt genes already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So when during evolution did this hypothetical frontloading of Wnt (it's [=it is] capitalized for a reason) genes occur? That's a testable hypothesis, and one that my hypothesis (you are a fraud and at some level you know it) predicts you'll run away from.

BTW, you're not only scientifically illiterate, but you appear to be fundamentally illiterate. Can't you distinguish between the possessive pronoun "its" (no apostrophe) and the contraction (it's)?
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:20

Anytime you want to show where I said TT purposely put me in a moderation queue, you're welcome to do so. Since it seems you can't, I'm out of the discussion.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:21

If anyone wants to go to Telic Thoughts and rewrite Guts's comments to refer to them instead of us, let us know how long you last.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:21

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:18)
Alright, as much fun as watching guts make himself and his creationist buddies look as bad as humanly possible is, I'm going to step in here.

Guts, you have specifically called Steve a liar on several occasions.

As super light as the moderation here is, we do have a rule (check the bottom of the page for the link) about assertions and evidence which is taken pretty seriously.

Support your claim that Steve is a liar, with evidence, or retract it immediately.

And for the record, I am the moderator here, Steve is semi-retired.  Moderator Emeritus, if you will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve is in fact a liar. Here is the comment that he won't retract:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >

Instead of doing the right thing and admitting that he made a mistake, he is now playing games pretending not to understand his own post.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:22

...before they purposely put you in the moderation queue.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:22

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:21)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:18)
Alright, as much fun as watching guts make himself and his creationist buddies look as bad as humanly possible is, I'm going to step in here.

Guts, you have specifically called Steve a liar on several occasions.

As super light as the moderation here is, we do have a rule (check the bottom of the page for the link) about assertions and evidence which is taken pretty seriously.

Support your claim that Steve is a liar, with evidence, or retract it immediately.

And for the record, I am the moderator here, Steve is semi-retired.  Moderator Emeritus, if you will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve is in fact a liar. Here is the comment that he won't retract:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >

Instead of doing the right thing and admitting that he made a mistake, he is now playing games pretending not to understand his own post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I saw the comment, and see no evidence that he is a liar.

Support or retract.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:25

Honorable Lou: I agree that Guts is violating the preexisting rules against making completely false accusations, but I ask that that the rule be temporarily suspended, on account of how bad he's making himself look here. He's doing our work for us.

(Guts, in case you're wondering, when you said 'the moderator is a liar', you were accusing Lou FCD of lying. He's the moderator here. I used to be.)
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:25

Quote (JAM @ July 06 2008,22:20)

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


JAM:


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

Nelson, you're scientifically illiterate. Your "prediction" is fraudulent, as it is merely a restatement of your hypothesis. A real prediction is about what we will directly observe, not how we will interpret it.

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



No it doesn't.
 


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

So when during evolution did this hypothetical frontloading of Wnt (it's [=it is] capitalized for a reason) genes occur? That's a testable hypothesis, and one that my hypothesis (you are a fraud and at some level you know it) predicts you'll run away from.

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



The hypothesis expected the ancient suite of wnt genes would be present already, further research would have to be done to know exactly which ones can be traced further back but that key genes would be able to be traced back.



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

BTW, you're not only scientifically illiterate, but you appear to be fundamentally illiterate. Can't you distinguish between the possessive pronoun "its" (no apostrophe) and the contraction (it's)?

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



And you are incredibly pedantic, which is why no one with any sense takes you seriously.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:27

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:25)
Honorable Lou: I agree that Guts is violating the preexisting rules against making completely false accusations, but I ask that that the rule be temporarily suspended, on account of how bad he's making himself look here. He's doing our work for us.

(Guts, in case you're wondering, when you said 'the moderator is a liar', you were accusing Lou FCD of lying. He's the moderator here. I used to be.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve looks like they're close to banning me and quite unjustly , as you know that the statement in your post is not true. See what I mean? The only reason they won't ban me is because you know if they do, it proves my point, so you're telling them not to. How delicious.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:28

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:22)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:21)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:18)
Alright, as much fun as watching guts make himself and his creationist buddies look as bad as humanly possible is, I'm going to step in here.

Guts, you have specifically called Steve a liar on several occasions.

As super light as the moderation here is, we do have a rule (check the bottom of the page for the link) about assertions and evidence which is taken pretty seriously.

Support your claim that Steve is a liar, with evidence, or retract it immediately.

And for the record, I am the moderator here, Steve is semi-retired.  Moderator Emeritus, if you will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve is in fact a liar. Here is the comment that he won't retract:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >

Instead of doing the right thing and admitting that he made a mistake, he is now playing games pretending not to understand his own post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I saw the comment, and see no evidence that he is a liar.

Support or retract.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No I will not retract, the post contains a falsehood and steve won't retract, so he is in fact a liar.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:29

Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:30

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you just know that if they ban me, it proves my point. Because the fact of the matter is, you are still a liar, and the post does in fact contain a falsehood.

You would be essentially banning me unjustly.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:32

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,23:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In deference to my esteemed predecessor, I'll withdraw the demand for the moment, as you are the one who stands falsely accused.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,22:33

What I'd be interested in knowing is what that first accusation of "deception" Nelson had was on about if he was concerned about the "purposely" thing. What would the current presence of a comment on TT have to do with that?

It just looks to me that Nelson is determined that "deception" must be established, and his first try having gone nowhere conveniently invented a new issue to be upset over.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:34

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:30)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you just know that if they ban me, it proves my point. Because the fact of the matter is, you are still a liar, and the post does in fact contain a falsehood.

You would be essentially banning me unjustly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The mind boggles at the utter disconnect from reality of the average creationist.

You, guts, are beyond the pale.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:37

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:30)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you just know that if they ban me, it proves my point. Because the fact of the matter is, you are still a liar, and the post does in fact contain a falsehood.

You would be essentially banning me unjustly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Further, I wouldn't ban you.  I have other tools at my disposal.

You should ask Ftk about them.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:37

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,22:33)
What I'd be interested in knowing is what that first accusation of "deception" Nelson had was on about if he was concerned about the "purposely" thing. What would the current presence of a comment on TT have to do with that?

It just looks to me that Nelson is determined that "deception" must be established, and his first try having gone nowhere conveniently invented a new issue to be upset over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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

What I'd be interested in knowing is what that first accusation of "deception" Nelson had was on about if he was concerned about the "purposely" thing.

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



I thought he was saying we deleted his comment. If you look at the post directly after he also wants us to "grow a pair". That post doesn't make sense if Steve was not accusing us of holding every comment for judgement.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:38

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:37)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:30)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you just know that if they ban me, it proves my point. Because the fact of the matter is, you are still a liar, and the post does in fact contain a falsehood.

You would be essentially banning me unjustly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Further, I wouldn't ban you.  I have other tools at my disposal.

You should ask Ftk about them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have tools at my blog as well that doesn't require bannishment, and yet I still get accussed of censorship for using them. So it would only prove my point as well.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:38

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:37)
I thought he was saying we deleted his comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He said no such thing.  If that's what you thought, you should take up a reading comprehension course.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:38

Nelson, go read the board rules. You'll see this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you don't just go around calling people liars when you have no evidence. I appealed for temporary special treatment for you because your behavior today is astonishingly bad, and I think we want people to see that.

(That's actually why I went to TT today to alert you about this 'impersonation'. I didn't think you were being impersonated, I wanted some of your TT buddies to come over here and watch you act like this. Why Mike Gene associates himself with the likes of you and Bradford I have no idea)
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:39

see if they put my TT account into moderation---purposeful--moderation now.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:39

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:37)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:30)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:29)
Oh it would be quite just. If Lou follows the rules posted on the board you'll be toast because you're telling obvious lies about me. But they're so obvious, I want you to keep telling them. You're like DaveScot on steroids today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you just know that if they ban me, it proves my point. Because the fact of the matter is, you are still a liar, and the post does in fact contain a falsehood.

You would be essentially banning me unjustly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Further, I wouldn't ban you.  I have other tools at my disposal.

You should ask Ftk about them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have tools at my blog as well that doesn't require bannishment, and yet I still get accussed of censorship for using them. So it would only prove my point as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that anything like "efficient adaptation proves design and so does inefficient adaptation"?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:40

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:38)
Nelson, go read the board rules. You'll see this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you don't just go around calling people liars when you have no evidence. I appealed for temporary special treatment for you because your behavior today is astonishingly bad, and I think we want people to see that.

(That's actually why I went to TT today to alert you about this 'impersonation'. I didn't think you were being impersonated, I wanted some of your TT buddies to come over here and watch you act like this. Why Mike Gene associates himself with the likes of you and Bradford I have no idea)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence. You said that we show insecurity because we hold comments in moderation for judgement. That you won't retract this silly statement makes you a liar.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:41

Alright, I'm off to the UD thread. Have a good one. Guts, stop lying about people or it'll catch up with you.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:45

See you later liar.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:45

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 06 2008,22:46

I suspect "Mike Gene / Julie Thomas" doesn't have a large pool of candidates. For instance, I don't think David Heddle would jump on the TT bandwagon, at least not now. Three years ago, he might have, had he been offered the chance.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,22:47

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:45)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess: Nelson has the evidence -- dozens of pieces of evidence -- but he refuses to tell us, plus it's not important anyway.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:48

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,23:47)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:45)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess: Nelson has the evidence -- dozens of pieces of evidence -- but he refuses to tell us, plus it's not important anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that and it's invisible.
Posted by: stevestory on July 06 2008,22:49

Gene is really not doing so well. The Amazon sales figures show that his book is moving like a copy a month. Okay okay I'm off to the UD thread. I'm waaaay behind over there.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:50

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:48)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,23:47)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:45)
   
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess: Nelson has the evidence -- dozens of pieces of evidence -- but he refuses to tell us, plus it's not important anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that and it's invisible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence is right here, it's been linked to multiple times:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:51

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:49)
Gene is really not doing so well. The Amazon sales figures show that his book is moving like a copy a month. Okay okay I'm off to the UD thread. I'm waaaay behind over there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow you've been following that? That proves even more that you're obsessed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,22:51

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:45)
See you later liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meeeeeooooooowwwww....
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:52

I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,22:52

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:51)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2008,22:49)
Gene is really not doing so well. The Amazon sales figures show that his book is moving like a copy a month. Okay okay I'm off to the UD thread. I'm waaaay behind over there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow you've been following that? That proves even more that you're obsessed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for coming and by your own admission trolling on our board to tell us we're obsessed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,22:53

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How close were you? we you in heavy moderation? were some posts just not getting through? Did you get 'memory holed'?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,22:53

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:48)
     
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,23:47)
     
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:45)
         
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess: Nelson has the evidence -- dozens of pieces of evidence -- but he refuses to tell us, plus it's not important anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that and it's invisible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, let me see if I can predict his proof here based on his past 'scientific' performance.

Nelson Proves Steve Told a Lie:

1) if Steve told a lie, that makes Steve a liar.

2) Steve told a lie

3) therefore, Steve is a liar!


USA! USA! USA!
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:54

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,23:46)
I suspect "Mike Gene / Julie Thomas" doesn't have a large pool of candidates. For instance, I don't think David Heddle would jump on the TT bandwagon, at least not now. Three years ago, he might have, had he been offered the chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  Heddle's too honest.  Witness his continuing evisceration of Dembski and his ilk for their dishonest practices, shell games, and general ignorance.

I don't want to speak for him, but my impression is that if Nelson here is representative of the whole of TT, Heddle would have none of them.

Just my impression.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:55

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:50)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:48)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2008,23:47)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:45)
   
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:40)
Steve I'm calling you a liar because I have evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be eternally grateful if you'd produce it then.

Sadly, like every other claim and assertion for which you've been asked to produce evidence, you won't, and for the same reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess: Nelson has the evidence -- dozens of pieces of evidence -- but he refuses to tell us, plus it's not important anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that and it's invisible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence is right here, it's been linked to multiple times:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y110698 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And again, what you're linking to does not support your accusation of dishonesty.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2008,22:53)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How close were you? we you in heavy moderation? were some posts just not getting through? Did you get 'memory holed'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So close , steve had to stop them. I think that even might be unprecedented.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,22:57

I doubt that Nelson will be banned, much to his disappointment. Sorry, Nelson you are 1) not significant, and 2) an excellent creato chew toy.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 06 2008,22:57

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:54)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,23:46)
I suspect "Mike Gene / Julie Thomas" doesn't have a large pool of candidates. For instance, I don't think David Heddle would jump on the TT bandwagon, at least not now. Three years ago, he might have, had he been offered the chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  Heddle's too honest.  Witness his continuing evisceration of Dembski and his ilk for their dishonest practices, shell games, and general ignorance.

I don't want to speak for him, but my impression is that if Nelson here is representative of the whole of TT, Heddle would have none of them.

Just my impression.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the 'theory' I was most attached to was primarily championed by the likes of Nelson, Joy, Dave Scot, and William Dembski, I'd find it incredibly demoralizing. I'm sure it's no fun for Heddle.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:58

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2008,22:53)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How close were you? we you in heavy moderation? were some posts just not getting through? Did you get 'memory holed'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So close , steve had to stop them. I think that even might be unprecedented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please learn to understand the words you read.

You were never in danger of being banned.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:58

Naah, all you said was that "I'm not going to respond to you waaaa". So that's a horrible explanation.

Also, I'm quite significant, so significant, that I was about to be banned, the only reason I wasn't was that steve knew it would prove my point.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:58

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,23:57)
I doubt that Nelson will be banned, much to his disappointment. Sorry, Nelson you are 1) not significant, and 2) an excellent creato chew toy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,22:59

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:58)
Naah, all you said was that "I'm not going to respond to you waaaa". So that's a horrible explanation.

Also, I'm quite significant, so significant, that I was about to be banned, the only reason I wasn't was that steve knew it would prove my point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is English not your first language, Nelson?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,22:59

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:58)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2008,22:53)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How close were you? we you in heavy moderation? were some posts just not getting through? Did you get 'memory holed'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So close , steve had to stop them. I think that even might be unprecedented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please learn to understand the words you read.

You were never in danger of being banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said retract or support , you rejected my support, and you said it was in violation of the rules. You only stopped because Steve asked you to suspend them. Are you going to lie now too?
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,23:01

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:59)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,22:58)
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,23:56)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2008,22:53)
 
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:52)
I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How close were you? we you in heavy moderation? were some posts just not getting through? Did you get 'memory holed'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So close , steve had to stop them. I think that even might be unprecedented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please learn to understand the words you read.

You were never in danger of being banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said retract or support , you rejected my support, and you said it was in violation of the rules. You only stopped because Steve asked you to suspend them. Are you going to lie now too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do the words "I have other tools at my disposal" ring any bells in that empty head of yours?
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,23:01

Ftk.  Does the acronym Ftk help?
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,23:02

It doesn't matter when I use other tools, they still call it banning.
Posted by: Guts on July 06 2008,23:04

The lesson learned this weekend is quite clear.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,23:05

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:58)
Naah, all you said was that "I'm not going to respond to you waaaa". So that's a horrible explanation.

Also, I'm quite significant, so significant, that I was about to be banned, the only reason I wasn't was that steve knew it would prove my point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW! GO, TELEPATH/ PRECOG.... USE YOURTARD POWERS FOR GOOD!!! FIND BIN LADEN! CRUSH THE TALIBAN!!! USE YOUR ESP FOR GOOD!!!!!!111111oneoneeleven.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,23:07

Quote (Guts @ July 07 2008,00:02)
It doesn't matter when I use other tools, they still call it banning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because you're a dishonest lying coward who does ban people, Nelson.

You're a small man with a small spine and a small mind.

Pitiable, but not significant.

Laughable, but not a threat to science, for certain.

An ant in a hurricane, full of sound and fury, signifying impotence (with apologies to the Bard).  But yours is not a tale told by an idiot; rather, starring one.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,23:10

O/T the original may be the first literary passage concerning Nihilism.
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,23:11

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2008,00:10)
O/T the original may be the first literary passage concerning Nihilism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?  Thanks, Rich. I did not know that.  Got some link love for me?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,23:20

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,23:11)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2008,00:10)
O/T the original may be the first literary passage concerning Nihilism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?  Thanks, Rich. I did not know that.  Got some link love for me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes... but what's the point?   :D

< http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/nihilism.htm >


or perhaps not:

< http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyschoolssystems/p/nihilism.htm >





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The basic principles which underlie nihilism existed long before there was a term that attempted to describe them as a coherent whole. Most of the basic principles can be found in the development of ancient skepticism among the ancient Greeks. Perhaps the original nihilist was Gorgias (483-378 BCE) who is famous for having said: “Nothing exists. If anything did exist it could not be known. If it was known, the knowledge of it would be incommunicable.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,23:20

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,20:58)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 06 2008,23:57)
I doubt that Nelson will be banned, much to his disappointment. Sorry, Nelson you are 1) not significant, and 2) an excellent creato chew toy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, is this the low level that Mike Gene's crowd has sunk to? I recall just a few years ago that some pro-science people held Mike Gene out as an "exception" among the ID creationist scrum.  Rather like how Kurt Wise was lauded as an "honest YEC" because he admitted that his insistance on a young earth was not supported by any evidence- only his literalist interpretation of Genesis.

In psychiatry we called this delusion,  one of the key symptoms of psychosis.

PS: Nelson, you and Ed Bryton like to call me an alcoholic. I do like to drink beer, wine and single malt scotch. At the moment I am enjoying a particularly pleasant Merlot. Unlike either of you two birds-of-a-feather, I have professional experience in the treatment of alcoholism, and publications in the same. For the record- I am not an alcoholic. I am sufficiently well known on the "intertubenets" that a lawsuit for defamation could not be brought ( I checked). So bullshit all you want, you are still a dickwad. (Is "putz" more delicate? There are also Mayan terms, "Kep iyung" or the Samoan, "O' Kunga Fiki.")
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 06 2008,23:25

Thanks Rich,

I was specifically referring to that being the first literary reference, though.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,23:27

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2008,23:25)
Thanks Rich,

I was specifically referring to that being the first literary reference, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah. I know. I googled hard, but nothing. I guess its there to be falsified!
Posted by: Principia on July 06 2008,23:30

Well Dr. GH, at least I get drinking booze in my spare time.  But bestiary obsessions, with < bunnies >?  That ain't right... =)
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2008,23:33

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,23:30)
Well Dr. GH, at least I get drinking booze in my spare time.  But bestiary obsessions, with < bunnies >?  That ain't right... =)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone else I think..

< http://www.machineguts.com/about.htm >

Phhhwwwwooooooaaarrr!
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 06 2008,23:46

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,21:30)
Well Dr. GH, at least I get drinking booze in my spare time.  But bestiary obsessions, with < bunnies >?  That ain't right... =)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I always hated those marshmallow bunnies.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye on July 06 2008,23:49

Quick replay if I may as an innocent bystander.

Frostman posts a series of revealing email exchanges here that
show that Nelson (AKA Guts) backed up  the deletion of an accusation of quotemining on the TT blog.  

Guts shows up and starts off with the very obvious intention of trying to provoke mistreatment by moderators here by being as obnoxious as possible, no success. Makes wild claims about being able to debate science stuff. Bobs and weaves for some dozens of posts, heckles, insults, etc. etc. No success, doesn't get moderated or banned.

Pinned by repeated requests finally cites a post-diction of general relativity that accurately calculated the precession of the perahelion of mercury as a prediction. Duh. Never mentions the fact that general relativity predicted gravitational abberation of light. A true prediction. Verified, real science.

Pinned again much later finally cites a postdiction relevant to biology that would not even have been possible without all of the biological science that has been done in the past 5 decades and claims this is somehow predicted by ID.

Apparently reads the boards rules and decides to take a tack that can lead to banning by making false accusations. Epic fail.
Troll behavior already acknowledged.

So the actual question here is something like this, Frostman made an accusation on TT that someone quotemined. His accusation was dissapeared and all subsequent comments by him were likewise edited. By Guts. Guts comes here to try to show that this forum is sleazy, therefore his is not.

Epic fail.

All he has shown is that he is a petulant prig.

I would laugh if I did not cry, a mind is a terrible thing to waste on superstition and lies.
Posted by: JAM on July 07 2008,00:04

Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,22:25)
 
Quote (JAM @ July 06 2008,22:20)

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


JAM:
   

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

Nelson, you're scientifically illiterate. Your "prediction" is fraudulent, as it is merely a restatement of your hypothesis. A real prediction is about what we will directly observe, not how we will interpret it.

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


No it doesn't.

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


Is English not your primary language? The word "does" wasn't in my explanation of basic scientific practice.

Presuming you meant, "No it ISn't," it is. Here's an example from evolutionary biology:
< http://tinyurl.com/5n7sw3 >

Here's one from virology:
< http://www.citeulike.org/group/3378/article/2365912 >

Here's one from ecology:
< http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1388440 >

Here's one from economics:
< http://tinyurl.com/5whupl >

This is as basic as it gets, and it's beyond you.
 
   

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

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

So when during evolution did this hypothetical frontloading of Wnt (it's [=it is] capitalized for a reason) genes occur? That's a testable hypothesis, and one that my hypothesis (you are a fraud and at some level you know it) predicts you'll run away from.

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



The hypothesis expected the ancient suite of wnt genes would be present already, further research would have to be done to know exactly which ones can be traced further back but that key genes would be able to be traced back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nelson, you're a coward. No further research is needed to formulate a testable hypothesis, something that you and "Mike Gene" are afraid to do because you know full well that you are pseudoscientific frauds.

Hypothesis: frontloading was performed on a common ancestor of cnidaria and bilateria before the divergence of porifera.

Prediction: porifera will have the expansion of Wnt genes.

It's easy--all it takes is a little bit of intellectual courage.

   

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

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

BTW, you're not only scientifically illiterate, but you appear to be fundamentally illiterate. Can't you distinguish between the possessive pronoun "its" (no apostrophe) and the contraction (it's)?

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



And you are incredibly pedantic, which is why no one with any sense takes you seriously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is pretty funny coming from someone who thought that a sig should include "[sic]" when we all know the point of it.
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 07 2008,00:11

Quote (Principia @ July 06 2008,21:30)
Well Dr. GH, at least I get drinking booze in my spare time.  But bestiary obsessions, with < bunnies >?  That ain't right... =)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, let's see if I can make a gross response, but not really so disgusting that you actually see into some of the nasty human corners I have worked in.

Got it! I have a toenail fungus!

Whoowhoo.

Except that it evolved. And I try to kill it.

I kill things other things too; fish especially, but today a rat. Oh, that is just a selection pressure.

Dang, Nelson.  Evolution is everywhere.  Is that why your head is so deeply buried in the special warm dark place?


Posted by: Bob O'H on July 07 2008,00:33

I'm sure this thread was only on 17 pages when I left it last night.  Is Guts trying to get a record, with more postings than RTH and Steve S. combined?

I'm guessing that Guts still hasn't posted any science.  But I can't be bothered to wade through all of this to check.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye on July 07 2008,00:36

To Dr. GH

I too noticed that bit of character asassination by gutless  early on in this day's thread . It is a classic example of blaming the victim though one could argue whether we are victims or not.  After all, do we not have "free will"? Are we not entitled to poison ourselves if we see fit to do so because it suits our attitude towards the absurdity of life? I have a strong fondness for burboun whiskey. But I can drink scotch whiskey in a pinch.

My mentor in school was a serious drinker and he had problems with it, but he was one of the most brilliant petrologists I have ever known.

Ad hominem at its best.

One is reminded of the sage observations of G.B Shaw -  "Martyrdom, sir, is what these people like: it is the only way in which a man can become famous without ability."

Gutless came here to make himself out as a martyr. Instead he has built for himself a monument of incredible stupidity. He's a buffoon. He probably thinks that there is no toxic dose of di-hydrogen monoxide.. He'll have to google that before he responds.

Cheers mate,
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 07 2008,00:36

Quote (Bob O'H @ July 07 2008,00:33)
I'm sure this thread was only on 17 pages when I left it last night.  Is Guts trying to get a record, with more postings than RTH and Steve S. combined?

I'm guessing that Guts still hasn't posted any science.  But I can't be bothered to wade through all of this to check.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh crap. I broke 5000. I was going to do somfink speshul two. consider yourselves spared.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye on July 07 2008,00:47

Bob 'oh

No science, just bleating.

Dr. G.H.

Something I did not address, bunnies.

There was a time when bunnies were contrived to be very scantilly clad young women acting as servers in "playboy clubs" scattered across the hinterlands of the U.S. of A. So a fixation on same is not necessarily a bad thing assuming that connection.

Just trying to help out.... :-)
Posted by: RupertG on July 07 2008,02:45

(blinks in the Monday morning light. Reads thread.)

Was there any purpose or design to what just happened? Perhaps there's some sort of test we could apply...

R
Posted by: stevestory on July 07 2008,02:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2008,01:36)
Oh crap. I broke 5000. I was going to do somfink speshul two. consider yourselves spared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congrats.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 07 2008,02:56

Oh, it's

a) Possibly the worst ID "prediction" ever squeezed out of Guts (Btw, what with all the DNA sequenced now Guts you should be able to research this all on your own from your armchair - how's that going?)

b) A few more hits on google for people looking to see exactly how they work. There's no hiding from the great indexer!

Guts, gotta try harder for the banniation next time.

Don't worry however Guts, I feel a mutual new friend is getting ready to register at TT to ask you about and link to your predictions here, make sure everybody is aware of your requests.
Posted by: stevestory on July 07 2008,03:17

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2008,01:36)
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 07 2008,00:33)
I'm sure this thread was only on 17 pages when I left it last night.  Is Guts trying to get a record, with more postings than RTH and Steve S. combined?

I'm guessing that Guts still hasn't posted any science.  But I can't be bothered to wade through all of this to check.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh crap. I broke 5000. I was going to do somfink speshul two. consider yourselves spared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The real creationists here, like FtK and AFDave, went for thousands of comments. Despite Guts's 100 or so comments today, I doubt Guts has the stamina to match them. As several people pointed out, he seems to be stressing out that he wasn't banned already. And no, he didn't post any science. Blogging is all IDers can actually do. They can't seem to do any science.
Posted by: stevestory on July 07 2008,03:19

Fewer and fewer people are listening to them, though. Dembski's "Overwhelming Evidence" blog gets about 200 visitors a day. We got that between 3 and 4 am EST this morning.
Posted by: stevestory on July 07 2008,03:23

I remember when I started this thread last year. I'd read a few "Mike Gene" comments and TT seemed therefore to be distinctly better than the usual creationist sites like UD. People warned me. TT is just as dumb, they said, they just do a better job superficially hiding it.

Well, I see now what they were talking about.

Edit: 'now' instead of 'know'. Dur.


Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on July 07 2008,03:55

Quote (stevestory @ July 07 2008,03:19)
Fewer and fewer people are listening to them, though. Dembski's "Overwhelming Evidence" blog gets about 200 visitors a day. We got that between 3 and 4 am EST this morning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me about it. I've been really trying to find new Finnish creationists, but looks like they've been raptured somewhere. Overwhelming Evidence is as busy as my blog. Not very flattering for Dr Dr D and Co.
Posted by: RupertG on July 07 2008,04:06

Quote (stevestory @ July 07 2008,03:23)
I remember when I started this thread last year. I'd read a few "Mike Gene" comments and TT seemed therefore to be distinctly better than the usual creationist sites like UD. People warned me. TT is just as dumb, they said, they just do a better job superficially hiding it.

Well, I see now what they were talking about.

Edit: 'now' instead of 'know'. Dur.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've hung out there a few times under nommes de clavier, but it's not an enlightening experience. As soon as you get close to trying to establish some sort of definition of WTH they're on about, they skip away merrily in a cloud of obfuscation and cries of "You're not smart enough to follow us!". As far as I can tell, what they practice there is mostly a kind of medieval theology loosely covered in rags stolen from the scientific Goodwill store. I suppose it's an improvement on the Bronze Age variety found elsewhere in Creationdom.

R
Posted by: keiths on July 07 2008,04:12

Quote ( Guts @ July 06 2008,20:52)
I find it really interesting how close to being banned I was for giving evidence for my claim. Keiths, eat your heart out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I find it really interesting that I'm the person that comes to mind when you think of someone being banned for making a claim and backing it up with evidence.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Guts.  You have a real talent for that.

(As if the < rest of the story > weren't bad enough...)
Posted by: keiths on July 07 2008,04:46

Speaking of foot-shooting, Guts, do you remember < this episode >?  The one where you said you were "looking right now" at a deleted comment of mine, but then couldn't produce it when I called your bluff?
Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,16:11)
5. Keiths joined in the harrassment by restoring a comment from the memory hole.

6. Frostman and Keiths were banned.

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


Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2008,17:51)
I wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No. Frostman restored a deleted comment that was not in the Memory Hole, and I confirmed that I had seen it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the one thing that you just presented as a reason for banning me turns out to be false.  Good one, Guts.  Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

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


Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,18:04)
Keiths, i'm looking right now at the copy of the comment of yours that I deleted. You can't even get basic facts right.

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


Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2008,19:55)
Then post it here.  I know for a fact that I did not fish any comments out of the Memory Hole.  You've already admitted that the Memory Hole was not working -- how could I have fished out a comment that wasn't there, even if I had wanted to?

The only way that I could have quoted a deleted comment is if you deleted it after I quoted it.  Did that even occur to you?

What's amusing about this is that you've convicted yourself again.  By saying that you're "looking right now" at my comment that you deleted, you've confirmed that you violated TT's policy against deleting comments without placing them in the Memory Hole.  As you put it earlier:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To summarize:  You violated TT policy.  Frostman and I pointed it out.  You acknowledge it.  Yet we got banned for it.

Pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,20:12)

Keiths, if the memory hole still wasn't working at that point (even though I said it was fixed at that point), then why are there comments by Frostman and Joy in the memory hole? ( see here < http://telicthoughts.com/57/#comment-157770) >

Obviously at that point, the memory hole was working, and several of Frostman's comments were sent there. You pathetically tried to fish them out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2008,20:50)
Guts, you wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, i'm looking right now at the copy of the comment of yours that I deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I asked you to post it here.  You're avoiding my request.

Why is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,20:54)
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.

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


Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 06 2008,21:01)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because it's a request, not a demand. A demand would be

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I told you to post it here.  You're avoiding my demand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


not

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I asked you to post it here.  You're avoiding my request.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2008,21:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You were the one who said you were "looking right now" at my comment.  Why won't you post it?  Were you hoping I wouldn't call your bluff?

For those interested in seeing more of Guts' particular brand of tard, observe his reaction when he was shown that the DI had encouraged the teaching of ID in public schools prior to Dover:
< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,21:16)
 
So Keiths, are you denying that you quoted Frostman's post that was in the memory hole, you're ACTUALLY going to deny it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2008,21:18)
So Guts, are you desperately trying to change the subject away from the comment that you're afraid to post?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,21:20)
lol Keiths, you're not very good at this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: lcd on July 07 2008,06:52

Um,


So Guts is the real deal from the TT board?  That is not a good thing.

I am not happy to say that I can't find much help in ID sites about the definition of Information as it applies to genetic sequences.  That part seems to need a lot of work.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 07 2008,07:01

Quote (lcd @ July 07 2008,06:52)
Um,


So Guts is the real deal from the TT board?  That is not a good thing.

I am not happy to say that I can't find much help in ID sites about the definition of Information as it applies to genetic sequences.  That part seems to need a lot of work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet the claims that "mutations can only decrease information" abound as some kind of refutation of "darwinism".

Are you starting to see through the charade now?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 07 2008,07:06

Dang, quite a few more pages since I went to bed!

I don't have time to read all of them, but I did see that Nelson finally bit the bullet and tried to answer my question about predictions of ID. So here's a brief critique.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
hypothesis: the starting conditions of life were designed and influenced evolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you have already drilled holes in your head; you aren't even capable of chit-chat about biology.

It is already known that starting conditions influence evolution; it is contingent. It does not matter if those starting conditions were designed or not. This is NOT a hypothesis derived from ID principles; it's not even a hypothesis at all. Strike one.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One thing in general that ID in general predicts is conceptual similarities among biological systems and that these conceptual similarities are there because of good engineering principles, like robustness in bacterial chemotaxis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting how ID can predict both non-robustness (irreducible complexity) and robustness, and even use the same example of the flagellum. I guess Nelson thinks Behe is not a member of the ID pantheon. It's also interesting how it has that double-talk in common with other supernatural explanations like creationism.

It's also clear that this is NOT a prediction of ID, since it assumes that the designer thinks like an engineer, and ID proponents have been quite emphatic that they know nothing about the characteristics of the designer. Nelson didn't get that memo, I guess. You are made in the image of your god, Nelson. Not the other way around.  Got any predictions where the characteristics of the designer are not an implied part of the prediction?  Strike two.

If you posted another somewhere back there, let me know and I'll look at that one too.

But since there are "dozens" more, I hope that these two whiffs are not the best of the lot.

Any more, Nelson?  Or will you revert to insults rather than discuss biology with a biologist?

Welcome back, lcd. Are you proud to claim Guts, with his non-existent debating skills and inadequate facts obvious to all, as a partner in your side of this discussion?

---eta a word-----
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 07 2008,07:35

I think TT's Guts may be the same person as this Guts:

< http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1861848/posts >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, the article proves that darwinist expectations are wrong again. ID scientists predict frontloading, whereas the Church of Darwin predicts evolution from the simple to the complex. Seeing how sea anemones are thought to precede the Cambrian explosion, this article flies in the face of Darwinist expectations (and to their credit they admit it). Of course, they omit the fact that IDers have predicted frontloading all along, but such behavior is to be expected from nature worshiping darwinists.

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


< http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2032538/posts >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IT'S TIME TO REOPEN THE DUESBERG FILE! Indian media begins to cover the story our own AIDS establishment (and their friends in the MSM) has been spiking for almost two decades.
If you would like to be put on my RETHINKING AIDS list, please FReepmail me--GGG

To learn how the AIDS establishment used phony AIDS alarmism to push an anti-family, anti Judeo-Christian, pro-homosexual, totalitarian agenda, please read the following:

The Hidden Agenda behind HIV

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


Front Loading: check
HIV denial: check
Abusive language: check.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 07 2008,07:35

Note to Guts

It is quite possible to have a reasoned discussion on this board. BFast once proposed a computer simulation concerning evolution. Though it didn't show what he thought it did, and while he abandoned the discussion when it was obvious he was incorrect, and although he never modified his views accordingly, it was a fruitful discussion while it lasted.

<

bFast's Allele Blender: Now with FREE Allelogram! >

So we can see many of the aspects we expect from an evolutionary process. Individualism, descendant families, regional variations, a variety of alleles for each gene persisting in the population, increasing average fitness (even if, as in other examples, mating selects for a non-fit trait, the peacock's tail), weighted distributions of sequence fitness and allele distribution, etc.

All we did was add a dash of random mutation to bFast's original concept.



Posted by: JonF on July 07 2008,08:09

Quote (Guts @ July 07 2008,00:02)
It doesn't matter when I use other tools, they still call it banning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So barring is the same as banning?
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 07 2008,10:01

Quote (Krubozumo Nyankoye @ July 06 2008,22:36)
To Dr. GH

I too noticed that bit of character asassination by gutless  early on in this day's thread . ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Howdy, I had a member of my dissertation committee who was an alcoholic and suffered some fairly significant physical problems as a consequence. However, to watch the man work in the field was amazing.

re: bunnies

And if the Playboy Club hadn't hired Gloria Steinem, feminist history courses might have been several books shorter. (Or, what if the New York Yankees had signed pitcher Fidel Castro to their minor league, and he met Gloria Steinem at the Playboy Club?)   :D
Posted by: Dr.GH on July 07 2008,10:18

Quote (lcd @ July 07 2008,04:52)
Um,


So Guts is the real deal from the TT board?  That is not a good thing.

I am not happy to say that I can't find much help in ID sites about the definition of Information as it applies to genetic sequences.  That part seems to need a lot of work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The most serious attempt was made by Herbert Yockey. He is a great favorite with creationists.  The general reason that I do not put stock in the "DNA is information" is that chemistry, especially biochemistry, is sloppy flexible adaptive stuff. How does a mutation happen?- lots of ways. How do mutations alter gene function? - lots of ways. Does altered gene function propagate through a population? maybe, maybe not. Does it matter if the altered gene function is "positive?" - maybe, but how do you define "positive." Will the accumulations of altered genes result in daughter species? - maybe, maybe not.

So then, an engineer or a physicist comes along and acts as if these are all the same questions as "Will a 10mm wrench turn a 20mm bolt?" And then they get all frustrated and make stupid assertions that "evolution cannot account for the information content of the geneome." Piffle.

Instead, I say, "Information theory cannot account for evolution." It can provide a few tools, that's all.

However, IT does give creationists a lot of quotemine from scientists, and they can use inappropriate probability arguments with math-like looking symbols.


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 07 2008,10:28

Gutless has covered his tracks in that < comment thread at TT. > All of the comments relating to his trollery at AtBC have been deleted.

Apparently he is so proud of his turd-chucking here that he doesn't want any of the TT regulars to get a whiff of it.

More things to think about re your choice of bedfellows, lcd.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 07 2008,10:38

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 07 2008,10:28)
Gutless has covered his tracks in that < comment thread at TT. > All of the comments relating to his trollery at AtBC have been deleted.

Apparently he is so proud of his turd-chucking here that he doesn't want any of the TT regulars to get a whiff of it.

More things to think about re your choice of bedfellows, lcd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think he wants his HIV denial to become widely known either, except to his chosen audience.

If I have misidentified him he is free to correct me. I'll be happy to back away. But I've seen this behavior at other sites. I doubt if I'm wrong.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 07 2008,11:04

Guts apparently has not heard of irony



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do anti-ID activists here, like Raevmo, feel the need to act like spoiled retarded children? It blows my mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Tard >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 07 2008,12:39

Quote (stevestory @ July 07 2008,01:19)
Fewer and fewer people are listening to them, though. Dembski's "Overwhelming Evidence" blog gets about 200 visitors a day. We got that between 3 and 4 am EST this morning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How much of that was Russian Viagra spammers, tho?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 07 2008,12:42

Quote (RupertG @ July 07 2008,02:06)
what they practice there is mostly a kind of medieval theology loosely covered in rags stolen from the scientific Goodwill store.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Splendid turn of phrase. Even better than my mental image of IDers as  little kids in their attic, getting into the steamer trunk and trying on their parents' oversized clothes, pretending to be grownups.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 07 2008,12:47

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 07 2008,05:35)
I think TT's Guts may be the same person as this Guts:

< http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1861848/posts >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, the article proves that darwinist expectations are wrong again. ID scientists predict frontloading, whereas the Church of Darwin predicts evolution from the simple to the complex. Seeing how sea anemones are thought to precede the Cambrian explosion, this article flies in the face of Darwinist expectations (and to their credit they admit it). Of course, they omit the fact that IDers have predicted frontloading all along, but such behavior is to be expected from nature worshiping darwinists.

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


< http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2032538/posts >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IT'S TIME TO REOPEN THE DUESBERG FILE! Indian media begins to cover the story our own AIDS establishment (and their friends in the MSM) has been spiking for almost two decades.
If you would like to be put on my RETHINKING AIDS list, please FReepmail me--GGG

To learn how the AIDS establishment used phony AIDS alarmism to push an anti-family, anti Judeo-Christian, pro-homosexual, totalitarian agenda, please read the following:

The Hidden Agenda behind HIV

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


Front Loading: check
HIV denial: check
Abusive language: check.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget homo conspiracies against good Judeo-Christian families. Check.

Oh, also, don't let this classic bit of doublethink go by:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID scientists predict frontloading, whereas the Church of Darwin predicts evolution from the simple to the complex
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Note his contrast of "ID scientists" versus "the Church of Darwin". In other words, IDC is science and evolution is religion.

Somewhere Goebbels is smiling and nodding knowingly.
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 07 2008,12:51

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 07 2008,12:39)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 07 2008,01:19)
Fewer and fewer people are listening to them, though. Dembski's "Overwhelming Evidence" blog gets about 200 visitors a day. We got that between 3 and 4 am EST this morning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How much of that was Russian Viagra spammers, tho?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That just proves that even Russian Viagra spammers know that OE isn't worth their time.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 07 2008,13:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Somewhere Goebbels is smiling and nodding knowingly.

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



I wonder if Telic Thinkers are smiling. We are talking about someone who's HIV stuff offended the tender sensibilities and discerning scientific minds at FR.

There does seem to be an under-the-counter trade in HIV denial amongst IDiots.
Posted by: Henry J on July 07 2008,14:29

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 07 2008,11:39)
Quote (stevestory @ July 07 2008,01:19)
Fewer and fewer people are listening to them, though. Dembski's "Overwhelming Evidence" blog gets about 200 visitors a day. We got that between 3 and 4 am EST this morning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How much of that was Russian Viagra spammers, tho?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heck, how much of it was masochists from this forum? ;)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 07 2008,14:44

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 07 2008,11:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Somewhere Goebbels is smiling and nodding knowingly.

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



I wonder if Telic Thinkers are smiling. We are talking about someone who's HIV stuff offended the tender sensibilities and discerning scientific minds at FR.

There does seem to be an under-the-counter trade in HIV denial amongst IDiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was a discussion here a while ago to the effect that evolution denial is sort of a 'gateway denialism' -- it usually goes hand in hand with other forms of denial, like global warming denialism, HIV denialism, and, in Larry F's case holocaust and slavery denialism.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 07 2008,15:13

I'm familiar with slavery denialism, particularly as it pertains to the many in the Bible that sanction slavery, admonish slaves to obey their masters, or codify just how near to death you can beat a slave.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 07 2008,15:30

OT: what's our total traffic?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 07 2008,15:43

Quote (Bob O'H @ July 06 2008,22:33)
I'm sure this thread was only on 17 pages when I left it last night.  Is Guts trying to get a record, with more postings than RTH and Steve S. combined?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HEY! I HAVE MORE POSTS THEN THAT HOMO RITCHARD!  :angry:


Yeah, I know, it's nothing to brag about. At least I'm still well behind Steve. ;)
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 07 2008,15:57

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 07 2008,15:43)
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 06 2008,22:33)
I'm sure this thread was only on 17 pages when I left it last night.  Is Guts trying to get a record, with more postings than RTH and Steve S. combined?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HEY! I HAVE MORE POSTS THEN THAT HOMO RITCHARD!  :angry:


Yeah, I know, it's nothing to brag about. At least I'm still well behind Steve. ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOUR'S ARE LOW INFORMATIONS CONTENT BASED ON SHARON'S INFORMATION COMPRESSIVE ABILITY, SO THEY ONLY COUNT AT 113 OF REEL POSTS.
Posted by: Frostman on July 07 2008,19:01

The suggestion that Nelson/Guts may be into AIDS denialism reminds me of this post by Mike Gene to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Democratic Party Family Values

1.  Adultery is not bad as long as it is between consenting adults

2.  Wife-beating is okay as long as the wife doesn't care

3.  Women should get jobs benefits if they perform sexually for the boss

4.  If "everyone does it," it is good

5.  Character doesn't matter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is the only post by mikebgene@aol.com archived at Google Groups.  A web search on that address confirms it is the Mike Gene of the intertubes ID debates.

I was reminded of this because, like AIDS denialism, it is one of those things which suggests our friends may be a bit off kilter in ways other than the ID realm.  It's a second data point.  There are of course scientists who happen to be politically conservative, however the kind of stances that Mike Gene has taken above are indicative of something beyond merely being conservative.
Posted by: khan on July 07 2008,19:07

I would like to add as a 57 year old female retired mainframe programmer:  the chauvinistic misogynistic creotards can kiss my grits.
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 07 2008,19:52

Quote (khan @ July 07 2008,19:07)
I would like to add as a 57 year old female retired mainframe programmer:  the chauvinistic misogynistic creotards can kiss my grits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HA HA THIS IS YOU


Posted by: keiths on July 07 2008,21:12

Ah, bad sitcoms of the 70's...
Posted by: Frostman on July 07 2008,23:02

Quote (RupertG @ July 07 2008,02:45)
(blinks in the Monday morning light. Reads thread.)

Was there any purpose or design to what just happened? Perhaps there's some sort of test we could apply...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have also been wondering what happened.  Alan was the first (I think) to suggest that he was trying to provoke a banning,                                
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 06 2008,06:24)
Ah I think Nelson/Guts is attempting the debating tactic of provoking a banning, sometimes referred to as "death by Cop", I believe.

This is all very illuminating, Sir.

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


I had this theory,                                
Quote (Frostman @ July 06 2008,07:53)

If I may be so immodest, I would guess that Guts/Nelson's steady stream of ridiculous outbursts are a reaction to his dishonest character being buck-naked exposed by yours truly in the email correspondence I just posted (< Nelson Alonso >).  It's a devastating blow to him personally.  He is embarrassed, and he gropes frantically for some way, any way, to respond.  If it was not already common knowledge that his real name is Nelson Alonso, that would add to the impact.  He is unable to address his own unethical behavior shown in that correspondence, so he seeks some way to distract himself and others.

Or perhaps it is my wishful thinking that I could provoke such a funny response.  In any case, carry on, young fool!  You are the wind beneath my wings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But now I see an additional explanation.  Notice that in twenty pages of posts, Nelson has not addressed any of his behavior I exposed < here >, < here >, and < here >.  He won't address it because it's indefensible.  I mean, for cryin' out loud, he endorses quote-mining and engages in extortion.

Guts/Nelson is accustomed to deleting disagreeable posts--in fact he just < deleted his own post > at Telic Thoughts (yet another case of him violating his own site's policy).  Not having a delete button on this forum, he tries another tactic: bury the offending posts.  His posting orgy began right after I revealed his devious emails.  It took nine months for this thread to reach 12 pages, and then two days to reach 32.  In the legal world this is called "papering the court."

Again, it may just be wishful thinking that I could take credit for his downfall.  Nelson's recent escapade here has been awesome: the outcome is a straightforward, easily-linkable case against Telic Thoughts.

Nelson has been a Mike Gene sycophant for a while.  In 2001 he ran a fan site dedicated to Julie Thomas (alias of Mike Gene) called < idtheory.net >, where Nelson writes on the front page:
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A few years ago,a scientist who went by the alias of Julie Thomas entered the internet. She contributed a series of posts to various origins forums that will live in the annals of Intelligent Design Theory forever.

This site is dedicated to her and the countless others who sacrifice their precious time to advance the scientific dialogue in this field.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!  Now that Nelson has fallen off the deep end, one has to wonder whether Mike is considering severing ties with him.  But given their long history together, I rather doubt it.
Posted by: bystander on July 07 2008,23:44

Yes Mike would be left with well grounded people like Joy.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 07 2008,23:45

holy shiva in a sausage grinder.

what a thread.  just what i get for going 'sangin and raspberry-in, celebrating FREEDOM and sanctifying the fruit of the 12 oz can, instead of keeping up with all of this tard.

not much to add, except that lcd just wondering if you have changed your mind about these ID tards yet.  stick around, you'll be mocking them mercilessly.  although i must say that this was exceptional tard and it is not often that there is such an orgy of idiocy and faggotry (well, that is what Butts called it anyway, as he typed with one hand).  

good lard.
Posted by: stevestory on July 08 2008,02:13

Quote (bystander @ July 08 2008,00:44)
Yes Mike would be left with well grounded people like Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no conventional onomatopoeia for the noise one makes when confronted with that fact.

But there should be.
Posted by: Principia on July 08 2008,06:50

I agree with Frostman's analysis.  Nelson really went berzerk after he found out he couldn't edit his shit to hide his intellectual deficiencies.  So he did what any IDiot would do, flood the thread with pages and pages of diarrhea so that a reader would not find the original intent.  

I propose that a mod move the last few days of Gut-spilling into another thread and post a link from this one.  Now that the coward has run home to play with Mama Mikey and suck on some tits to recuperate, I would take the time to clean up his crap.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 08 2008,07:02

Quote (Frostman @ July 08 2008,00:02)
Not having a delete button on this forum, he tries another tactic: bury the offending posts.  His posting orgy began right after I revealed his devious emails.  It took nine months for this thread to reach 12 pages, and then two days to reach 32.  In the legal world this is called "papering the court."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Irony: I hadn't particularly been following this thread, I don't follow TT, I had never heard of Guts, and I originally skipped over your correspondence with Guts due to its length.

After Guts got going I wondered "Who is this asshole?" and only then returned to read your correspondence, as well as linked samples of his specialness at TT.

Then followed his bizarre behavior here and a further fulsome sample of his empty maneuvering vis the most basic notions in science - which so typifies ID generally and, I now suppose, TT specifically.

Good plan, Guts!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 08 2008,07:02

Quote (stevestory @ July 08 2008,02:13)
Quote (bystander @ July 08 2008,00:44)
Yes Mike would be left with well grounded people like Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no conventional onomatopoeia for the noise one makes when confronted with that fact.

But there should be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm going with "argle-bargle".
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 08 2008,07:06

Quote (stevestory @ July 08 2008,03:13)
Quote (bystander @ July 08 2008,00:44)
Yes Mike would be left with well grounded people like Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no conventional onomatopoeia for the noise one makes when confronted with that fact.

But there should be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See my self-flushed remark on the < BW >.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 08 2008,08:25

As suggested, the correspondence between Frostman and Nelson Alonso/Guts and following wave of posts now has < its own thread >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 08 2008,14:04


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 08 2008,14:12

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 08 2008,12:04)

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


Please. That's obviously Denyse to the right there.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 08 2008,14:13

You may have a point, chatterbox. Can't be arsed to re-caption.
Posted by: olegt on July 11 2008,23:12

Mike Gene/Julie Thomas < gets her panties in a twist >.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 12 2008,05:01

I don't know... if "Mike" got his panties untwisted at some point, that might be news.
Posted by: Frostman on July 12 2008,10:33

Quote (olegt @ July 11 2008,23:12)
Mike Gene/Julie Thomas < gets her panties in a twist >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


~~shakes head and rolls eyes~~

Mike surgically extracts a portion of the Guts debacle and attempts to play the persecution card with it.  He quotes me:                                        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Likewise I support individuals misrepresenting themselves to a self-proclaimed psychic in order to expose the psychic as a fraud. The public's right to be informed trumps the con artist's right to not be conned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That quote is in reference to the dishonest dealings of Guts which are now thoroughly documented in the < Guts/Nelson Alsono > thread.  Nelson, in short, has gone mad.  If at any point Nelson had publicly taken responsibility for his actions at Telic Thoughts, or if Mike had denounced Nelson's behavior, then the issue would have been resolved.

The site continues to be run by Nelson, whose habits include deleting reasonable posts on a whim, ignoring site policies, extortion, lying, and banning to serve his own interest.  The evidence is all there in the Nelson thread given above.

At the end of the email correspondence shown at the beginning of that thread, you will see that I asked Mike several times to step in.  He never did.  That is really when Telic Thoughts became a dishonorable place: when Mike could not bring himself to criticize Nelson's behavior.

When it appeared that JackT was banned, I felt an obligation to bring attention to this possibility.  Had I signed in as "Frostman2" or whatever, my post would have been deleted immediately.  Telic Thoughts readers should be aware of what happens there and the type of characters running the show, especially if another whimsical banning had just occurred.  I absolutely stand behind the practice of exposing frauds.  If the frauds complain then that is too bad--stop being a fraud, then.

(Incidentally, by calling him Nelson Alonso, I gave Guts a pretty big hint that it was me.  He didn't get the hint, nor did he even get the explanation of the hint after several tries.)

(And also incidentally, with fateful irony JackT was eventually banned, but for reasons even more capricious than those originally suspected.)

So Mike, let us not hear you employ this as a persecution card for your personal ID crusade.  This has nothing to do with ID, but only with simple ethics.  The problems Nelson has caused for Telic Thoughts, and your complicity in them, would apply equally if the site were dedicated to clog dancing.

Good Day.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 13 2008,07:35

Since the < Friday Quote - Thank Bacteria > fiasco, wherein I was banned barred from the  thread setting off the late comment cascade, there has been very little activity on the so-called science threads. Perhaps what they forget is that naysayers actually add much of the content on Intelligent Design blogs.

They carefully avoid making claims, but put forth papers that are purported to support Front-loading {even though the authors are apparently unaware of it}. The tacit argument appears to be that because land tetrapods had legs, they were Front-loaded for hands and for organisms who build spaceships and the series of tubes we know fondly as the Internets. Except, on Telic Thoughts, they do it with molecules.

The latest, < Genes in Waiting >, that MHC regions are preceded by ...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: Several studies now suggest that many important genes for the Adaptive Immune System were "waiting" for recruitment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... proto-MHC regions.

{added}
Posted by: carlsonjok on July 13 2008,10:03

Quote (Zachriel @ July 13 2008,07:35)
They carefully avoid making claims, but put forth papers that are purported to support Front-loading {even though the authors are apparently unaware of it}. The tacit argument appears to be that because land tetrapods had legs, they were Front-loaded for hands and for organisms who build spaceships and the series of tubes we know fondly as the Internets. Except, on Telic Thoughts, they do it with molecules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suppose this isn't an original thought, but having a horse that was just diagnosed with a broken splint bone, I wonder how those guys reconcile the equine leg with that hypothesis? Genetic entropy?  Divine wrath?
Posted by: Zachriel on July 13 2008,15:00

MikeGene blogs a < Farewell > to Telic Thoughts.
Posted by: Frostman on July 13 2008,15:51

Quote (Zachriel @ July 13 2008,15:00)
MikeGene blogs a < Farewell > to Telic Thoughts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here was his previous < farewell > as Julie Thomas.

Until the next pseudonym, Mike/Julie.

P.S. Oh and don't worry about the inmates--they'll be running things quite nicely.
Posted by: stevestory on July 13 2008,18:04

I can understand that he's overworked. He must be spending too much time in the ID labs, doing ID research, and publishing it in ID journals.
Posted by: stevestory on July 13 2008,18:38

Guts/Nelson Alonzo/Whoever goes nuts and makes Telic Thoughts look like a den of fools, and a week later Mike Gene flees the site. That's an interesting coincidence.
Posted by: silverspoon on July 13 2008,21:05

Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2008,18:38)
Guts/Nelson Alonzo/Whoever goes nuts and makes Telic Thoughts look like a den of fools, and a week later Mike Gene flees the site. That's an interesting coincidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well at least he’s leaving to devote more time to his family. It’s usually politicians in a sticky situation that use that line.

Just sayin
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 13 2008,21:25

Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2008,18:38)
Guts/Nelson Alonzo/Whoever goes nuts and makes Telic Thoughts look like a den of fools, and a week later Mike Gene flees the site. That's an interesting coincidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I noticed that also, but there's no reason to suspect that Mike is being honest.
Posted by: bystander on July 13 2008,22:55

Although the family reasons is true, the stuff with Guts could push him over the edge.

Using the Dr Dr D EF filter I make two ID predictions:

1. Mike finds that in real life people down fawn over him and he is back within a month.

2. With Mike gone it reaches the popularity of Overweening Evidence as anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence is banned.

I think that it is like UD. Dembski is the only reason that the denizens put up with the environment.

Michael
Posted by: bystander on July 13 2008,22:56

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 14 2008,09:25)
Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2008,18:38)
Guts/Nelson Alonzo/Whoever goes nuts and makes Telic Thoughts look like a den of fools, and a week later Mike Gene flees the site. That's an interesting coincidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I noticed that also, but there's no reason to suspect that Mike is being honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Freudian Slip?
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 13 2008,23:08

Quote (bystander @ July 13 2008,23:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 14 2008,09:25)
Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2008,18:38)
Guts/Nelson Alonzo/Whoever goes nuts and makes Telic Thoughts look like a den of fools, and a week later Mike Gene flees the site. That's an interesting coincidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I noticed that also, but there's no reason to suspect that Mike is being honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Freudian Slip?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope you know Rich better than that.
Posted by: Principia on July 15 2008,06:17

Those us who have dealt with MG/JT in the past know these "good-bye"s are merely ego-boosting affairs so that his sycophants can tell him how much they love him.  The psychology of someone like MG is such that he cannot escape this medium, as it allows him to be larger, more Messianic, than his real life ego.  Consider, he's been at this since the 80s, through college, grad school, post-doc, and now part-time faculty.  He's "quit" in the past, first from talk.origins, then from the ASA boards, then from ARN...  Now TT.  Each time he returns, on the order of months.  What's changed.  His father's death?  Oh come on.  I especially love the bit about his children being proud of his Internet activities.  "Daddy, why did you have to hide behind a fake name?"  LOL.  Sappy.  Just sappy.
Posted by: ERV on July 15 2008,06:49

Quote (Principia @ July 15 2008,06:17)
Those us who have dealt with MG/JT in the past know these "good-bye"s are merely ego-boosting affairs so that his sycophants can tell him how much they love him.  The psychology of someone like MG is such that he cannot escape this medium, as it allows him to be larger, more Messianic, than his real life ego.  Consider, he's been at this since the 80s, through college, grad school, post-doc, and now part-time faculty.  He's "quit" in the past, first from talk.origins, then from the ASA boards, then from ARN...  Now TT.  Each time he returns, on the order of months.  What's changed.  His father's death?  Oh come on.  I especially love the bit about his children being proud of his Internet activities.  "Daddy, why did you have to hide behind a fake name?"  LOL.  Sappy.  Just sappy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just like SAL 'retired' to 'focus on his studies'.  That worked out well.
Posted by: stevestory on July 17 2008,02:09

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-woodstock-of-evolution/#comment-197710 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Heddle Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am

Denyse,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinists first need to decide what exactly Darwinism is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



#

Why do they need to decide such a thing? Do String Theorists and Quantum Loop Theorists have to sit down and define what quantum gravity is before they forge ahead? Scientists move along different paths, models, theories, etc. We rarely achieve uniformity, especially a uniformity of approach.

The only sacrosanct rule is that you must make contact with experiment, something ID has never done, is not doing, and is not likely to achieve if it continues to tolerate leadership more interested in crying Expelled! and writing popularizations than in doing science.

Scientists simply do not "need" to do what you claim they need to do.

Comment by David Heddle — July 16, 2008 @ 11:31 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There was a line in the Phantom Menace (?) by the announcers for the race, something like "Oooo, I don't care what galaxy you're from, that's gotta hurt."

ETA: thanks CeilingCat for the linky


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 17 2008,22:39

Quote (stevestory @ July 17 2008,00:09)
< http://telicthoughts.com/the-woodstock-of-evolution/#comment-197710 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Heddle Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am

Denyse,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinists first need to decide what exactly Darwinism is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



#

Why do they need to decide such a thing? Do String Theorists and Quantum Loop Theorists have to sit down and define what quantum gravity is before they forge ahead? Scientists move along different paths, models, theories, etc. We rarely achieve uniformity, especially a uniformity of approach.

The only sacrosanct rule is that you must make contact with experiment, something ID has never done, is not doing, and is not likely to achieve if it continues to tolerate leadership more interested in crying Expelled! and writing popularizations than in doing science.

Scientists simply do not "need" to do what you claim they need to do.

Comment by David Heddle — July 16, 2008 @ 11:31 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There was a line in the Phantom Menace (?) by the announcers for the race, something like "Oooo, I don't care what galaxy you're from, that's gotta hurt."

ETA: thanks CeilingCat for the linky
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if Joy, a gentile, can go on TT and declare that Jews don't understand what antisemitism 'really is', then a bunch of nonscientists can certainly go on TT and make declarations about what scientists are supposed to do.

(You know, just like when Joel B goes on UD and talks about sex.)
Posted by: Alan Fox on July 18 2008,09:43

Dr Heddle gets banned/barred from Joy's All-Science thread for telling it like it is:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nice post you have here. Is this the high-road we can expect from a post-Mike TT?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I fear so, David, I fear so.

< link >
Posted by: raguel on July 18 2008,10:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Secret document?" My goodness, David. How "secret" can it be if both you and all the religion-haters know about it? I'm not getting it. Care to explain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Hah. I don't frequent TT, so I thought you guys were being too rough on Joy.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 18 2008,11:10

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 18 2008,09:43)
Dr Heddle gets banned/barred from Joy's All-Science thread for telling it like it is:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nice post you have here. Is this the high-road we can expect from a post-Mike TT?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I fear so, David, I fear so.

< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, if I can read Joy's spittle-laced rantings correctly, I think she barred/banned Raevmo rather than Heddle. She did scold Heddle and tell him that if this thread offended him so much, he didn't have to read it.

Apparently others are feeling a bit queasy about the thread as well.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  Bilbo Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 11:57 am

Joy, please close this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Alan Fox on July 18 2008,11:20

Well, the whole thread's disappeared now, Albatrossity, so I can't cite the evidence and thus will have to retract.

I did toy with the idea of copying it, and then I thought there wasn't much worth saving, so I didn't bother. Sorry.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 18 2008,11:45

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 18 2008,11:20)
Well, the whole thread's disappeared now, Albatrossity, so I can't cite the evidence and thus will have to retract.

I did toy with the idea of copying it, and then I thought there wasn't much worth saving, so I didn't bother. Sorry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that's amusing. I managed to save it from the browser cache. Here are the relevant bits.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
6. Joy Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Raevmo:
Do y'all think it's Ok to send emails with death threats?

No. And I would expect the receiver to alert proper authorities right away, not wait 4 days and then publish the email addresses of someone who said the equivalent "you should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell." I've seen no evidence of actual death threats from PZ. I've seen some serious backpeddling.

btw, you are henceforth banned from this thread because I don't like you since the whole "Poof-Joy" erstwhile 'threat' to kill me in my sleep, and I can. You can complain over at the Swamp if you like, nobody cares. No, I took it no more seriously than PZ should have taken gonorrhea (unless he's messing around) or hell. But you're hardly a nice person, and I don't have to deal with you here. Bye.

Comment by Joy — July 17, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

7. Joy Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Heddle:
Nice post you have here. Is this the high-road we can expect from a post-Mike TT?

Again, give us a break David. It won't work on me. What you see here is me bitching about some crap I've seen over the past week on the internet, which cost an innocent person her livelihood. Wrongly. Do you understand that word?

If you don't wish to read what I have to say, nobody's forcing your nose to the load button on your darned keyboard. You don't have to like me any more than Raevmo does. He's threatened to kill me in my sleep before, right here on THIS forum, and there were at least two lengthy threads exploring how incredibly stupid that was. Did you miss it?

I am me. I am not Mike Gene. I'm not even very fond of rabbits (or ducks). Much prefer birds of prey, big cats and wolves, but that's just me. You don't have to be here, you don't have to berate us, or scold us, or even insult us. At all. Isn't that nice?

Comment by Joy — July 17, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Alan Fox on July 18 2008,11:49

Bugger; you left me without a figleaf.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 18 2008,12:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am me. I am not Mike Gene. I'm not even very fond of rabbits (or ducks). Much prefer birds of prey, big cats and wolves, but that's just me. You don't have to be here, you don't have to berate us, or scold us, or even insult us. At all. Isn't that nice?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And don't even get Joy started on Cajuns...
Posted by: RupertG on July 18 2008,20:10

It's all a bit sad. Just when those of us with serious ID habits had fixated on TT for our mean daily requirement of nourishing silly, MikeGene jumps ship and we get Joy going into megawibble mode about how evolutionary biology should stop calling itself Darwinism.

Which is just miserable. You can't take pleasure from something like that, not without realising somewhere deep within yourself that you're just as twisted, and there are co-dependency issues more pressing than at an Otherkin wedding.

R
Posted by: stevestory on July 18 2008,20:43

< http://telicthoughts.com/he-shou....-197848 >



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

Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design.


Error 404 - Not Found

Please use the links (or search feature) in the sidebar to find your way back to the real content!

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



They deleted the thread, huh. Par for the course at an ID blog.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 18 2008,21:02

I've deleted hundreds of threads here myself.

Of course, if you weren't interested in cheap drugs, porn, enlarging your private parts, or getting those to function correctly when you want them to, you probably didn't notice their absence much. Eventually, I just turned off new topic creation by newly registered members, and that problem mostly went away.

But topical stuff? Why would we want to delete that?
Posted by: olegt on July 18 2008,21:52

< The Joy of reason >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A few years ago I worked as tech support for an internet provider. After being there for a year and a half's worth of steady paychecks, I was suddenly informed by HR that they could no longer write my checks out to the name on my bank account because my SS card had a different name first.

I argued that the middle name on that SS card is the name on my bank account as well as the name on my birth certificate and I can use any of the names I've got if I so choose. They told me I'd have to take time off work - unpaid - to go sit at the SS office all day to get the names switched around to suit their new policy, supposedly imposed by Homeland Security. Being not very tolerant of pointless corporate/governmental stupidity, I told 'em to shove their silly policy on which of my legal names I can choose to have on my paycheck - they didn't pay me enough for that sort of garbage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy's post is really about a recent New York Times column by Olivia Judson  < Let's get rid of Darwinism >, which is worth reading (unlike Joy's post).  I agree with Olivia's thesis: Darwin isn't synonymous with evolutionary biology.  Classical physics isn't Newtonism and quantum physics isn't Planckism.
Posted by: keiths on July 19 2008,01:07

Quote-mining opportunity:

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 18 2008,19:02)
I've deleted hundreds of threads here myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Louis on July 19 2008,03:23

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 19 2008,03:02)
I've deleted hundreds of threads here myself.

Of course, if you weren't interested in cheap drugs, porn, enlarging your private parts, or getting those to function correctly when you want them to, you probably didn't notice their absence much. Eventually, I just turned off new topic creation by newly registered members, and that problem mostly went away.

But topical stuff? Why would we want to delete that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh FFS Wes! Cheap drugs and porn you say? Yeah, NO ONE here is interested in any of THAT kind of thing!

{Points at Chatfield}

:angry:

Louis

P.S. Clearly only kidding. I am not interested in porn or drugs. In pretty much the same way the sun is not interested in hot.

P.P.S. Still clearly only kidding. Damn these jokes, they just keep springing to mind.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 19 2008,04:09

Yahoo cache of deleted thread
< http://72.30.186.56/search....intl=uk >
Posted by: stevestory on July 19 2008,04:25

oldman, you get points for finding that.

The best of the comments on the cached thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Heddle Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PZ's a wedgie, as you say. Should we hit Heddle over the head with it like he hits us?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

#

What does that even mean? I have been bloodied in the trenches at the sciblogs Pharyngula, Dispatches, and evolutionblog more than anyone from TT that I know of. I have argued with atheists on this blog. That doesn't mean I will give carte blanche to ridiculous statements because they come from the "good guys." My recent set of comments started with O'Leary's post. It was, in my opinion, truly asinine, and deserved to be ripped.

Nice post you have here. Is this the high-road we can expect from a post-Mike TT?

Comment by David Heddle — July 17, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on July 19 2008,13:46

Joy's response is batshit, as usual:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, give us a break David. It won't work on me. What you see here is me bitching about some crap I've seen over the past week on the internet, which cost an innocent person her livelihood. Wrongly. Do you understand that word?

If you don't wish to read what I have to say, nobody's forcing your nose to the load button on your darned keyboard. You don't have to like me any more than Raevmo does. He's threatened to kill me in my sleep before, right here on THIS forum, and there were at least two lengthy threads exploring how incredibly stupid that was. Did you miss it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's sometimes hard to tell whether Joy is deliberately lying or just completely deluded.  The 'threat' she's referring to is Raevmo's description of a thought experiment in which Joy is replaced by an atom-by-atom copy of herself.
Posted by: silverspoon on July 19 2008,15:06

Quote (keiths @ July 19 2008,13:46)
It's sometimes hard to tell whether Joy is deliberately lying or just completely deluded.  The 'threat' she's referring to is Raevmo's description of a thought experiment in which Joy is replaced by an atom-by-atom copy of herself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oy vey ! I just skimmed the thread you’re talking about. If she really thinks that was a death threat, she probably thinks I’m part of the nuclear mafia out to get her.
Posted by: keiths on July 19 2008,18:39

This is too funny.  With Mike Gene gone, Thought Provoker is now < angling for a moderator position at TT >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My dear Joy,

...

Mike has had to walk a fine line. I have reason to believe Mike would have offered me a TT moderator position had I but asked. I didn't ask because I knew that wouldn't have been good for the future of Telic Thoughts.

But now, I think it might be a good time to give you a tough choice. If you make me a TT moderator there would be no question of TT becoming just another Uncommon Descent even if I never post a single thread. If you don't, you will have made a conscious choice.

Note, I have given you plenty of outs. This request is arrogant and rude. You also have the good old black ball tactic that you need a consensus to make a new moderator (like Bradford got?).

The ball is in your court.

Comment by Thought Provoker — July 19, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 19 2008,19:25

They could do worse.

Heck, they have done worse.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on July 19 2008,23:58

Keiths, I am all too glad to provide you entertainment.

Thank you Wesley for the back-handed compliment.

We will see what happens.

Hopefully, some of you can see value in maintaining the existence of a semi-neutral blog like Telic Thoughts.

No, TT is not perfect.  Far from it.  But I think it releases some pressure and allows for some reasoned discourse to get through to both sides.

Besides, haven't you been asking for a more worthy opposition coming from the ID camp?
Posted by: stevestory on July 20 2008,00:22

We would like some worthy opposition. Bradford, Joy, and Guts can't provide us that. What we'd really like to see from you guys is some science. We can't get that either.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 20 2008,01:39

Is "computerist" DaveTard?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 20 2008,10:16

Is TP actually < Bradley Monton >?
Posted by: olegt on July 20 2008,10:53

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 20 2008,10:16)
Is TP actually < Bradley Monton >?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What makes you think so, Wes?  TP is an enginner.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 20 2008,10:55

Comes of not paying enough attention, I guess, and using the "concern troll" property too broadly.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on July 20 2008,11:56

I will take it as a compliment that I might be a Bradley Monton sock puppet (or visa-versa).

I'm not Bradly Monton.

I don't mind denying these kinds of accusations because I'm not a sock puppet.  My anonymity is mainly to protect my private life and my business.

Oleg is correct.  I am an engineer.  My blogging activity is a hobby that allows me to expand my knowledge base into areas I wouldn't otherwise explore.

I consider myself to be a good debater and a quick learner.  My main motivation is embodied in my handle. That is to provoke thinking in myself and others.  I also enjoy debating.

The altruistic motivation is that I can act as reasonable middleman.  I have anti-religious leanings yet I do not recoil at the thought that God might exist.  In fact, I think it would be cool if it turned out that our universe was some kind of supernatural science fare project.

I can appreciate that the ID debate has more direct monetary and philosophical importance to others than to me.  However, I do worry about what this conflict might mean to my grandchildren if allowed to continue to escalate.

There are billions of people who want to believe in miracles and history shows us that many times pragmatic intellectuals end up being "dead right".

Maybe a little Socratic exploration isn't such a bad idea.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 20 2008,12:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are billions of people who want to believe in miracles and history shows us that many times pragmatic intellectuals end up being "dead right".

Maybe a little Socratic exploration isn't such a bad idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe if we get another planet or three on the go those pragmatic intellectuals can just be dead gone instead?

Thanks for sharing your vision but



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The altruistic motivation is that I can act as reasonable middleman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



somehow I think not.
Posted by: keiths on July 20 2008,12:03

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 20 2008,08:16)
Is TP actually < Bradley Monton >?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah.  As Oleg says, TP is an engineer.

Besides, Monton writes much better and holds a PhD, while TP is known for being something of a bigot toward what he calls "PhD types."
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 20 2008,12:54



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

I will take it as a compliment that I might be a Bradley Monton sock puppet (or visa-versa).

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



Aspiring to the Monton < level of > < cognition >? That doesn't sound complimentary.
Posted by: slpage on July 20 2008,13:43

Quote (Frostman @ July 13 2008,15:51)
Quote (Zachriel @ July 13 2008,15:00)
MikeGene blogs a < Farewell > to Telic Thoughts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here was his previous < farewell > as Julie Thomas.

Until the next pseudonym, Mike/Julie.

P.S. Oh and don't worry about the inmates--they'll be running things quite nicely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  I read recently that the late homophobic racist Jesse Helms may have been a crossdresser (total hearsay, but not the least bit surprising if true).

Mike Gene/Julie Thomas.

Sally Cordova callking Dembski "Sir William."

Lots of wide-stancers appear to be of the IDcreationist pursuasion...
Posted by: Thought Provoker on July 20 2008,14:04

Keiths, nice recall about my attitude towards "PhD types".

However, "bigot" might convey incorrect connotations if you consider my attitude toward "Engineer types".

I R a Inginear.

We all have our roles to play.  "PhD types" write lengthy papers and use fancy words and use fancy words to analyze things in nuanced detail.  As a result, "PhD types" tend to write well.

"Engineer types", on the other hand, reduce things to sketches and power point slides with as few words as possible.  Whatever it takes to make things work in the least amount of effort.  As a result, the writing of "Engineer types" tend to flow poorly, often with misspellings.

I enjoy interacting with "PhD types".  The feeling isn't always mutual.  Many get frustrated by my oversimplication of their very complex ideas.  However, there are some "PhD types" who enjoy my style and even encourage it.
Posted by: keiths on July 20 2008,16:22

Shorter TP: "Some of my best friends are PhD types."

Spare us the backpedaling, TP.  Here are three examples of your bigotry against "PhD types", all from the same thread (a fourth, of course, is your very use of the phrase "PhD types" itself):

From < here >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm lucky to get the majority of my terms spelled correctly much less use them properly. Arguing about terminology is something PhD types do when I present them with my working prototype of an invention they said would be impossible to build.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And < here >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now you are sounding like PhD types when engineers put them into embarrassing situations. "When I said that it would take years to do what you did in two weeks I hadn't completely developed the algorithm yet."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And < here >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then with a flourish of PhD babble concerning sets he ended up providing his fully developed conclusion on page 31.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on July 20 2008,16:42

Regarding your moderator ambitions at TT, I'm all for it.  Anyone who can write the following with a straight face deserves to be appointed a TT moderator.  You'll fit right in with Bradford, Joy, and Guts.
 
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 22 2007,21:34)
Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.

She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.

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


Quote (Thought Provoker @ June 10 2008, 8:46 pm)
Hi Joy,

Thank you.

I am honored to know you too.

There aren't many people who can surprise and challenge me with their insight.

You have done that and more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 20 2008,16:49

Quote (keiths @ July 20 2008,16:42)
Regarding your moderator ambitions at TT, I'm all for it.  Anyone who can write the following with a straight face deserves to be appointed a TT moderator.  You'll fit right in with Bradford, Joy, and Guts.

 
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 22 2007,21:34)
Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.

She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.

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


 
Quote (Thought Provoker @ June 10 2008, 8:46 pm)
Hi Joy,

Thank you.

I am honored to know you too.

There aren't many people who can surprise and challenge me with their insight.

You have done that and more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Wow. I'd be fearful my nose would get stuck if I did that.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on July 20 2008,16:52

Hi Keiths,

No backpeddling is needed.  I am quite comfortable (almost proud) of the examples you found.

These are from my analysis of Dembski's infamous mathematical explanation of Specified Complexity.

Two of the quotes you found came from the same comment of mine where I was responding to ChuckZ coming to Dembski's defense.  Here it is in full...



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

Hi chunkdz,

Concerning the equation on page 21 You wrote…

"I think that what you find on page 21 is not the completely developed algorithm."

Now you are sounding like PhD types when engineers put them into embarrassing situations. "When I said that it would take years to do what you did in two weeks I hadn't completely developed the algorithm yet."

Dembski's algorithm on page 21 was developed enough for him to use it for his The Da Vinci Code/Swiss Bank example.

It was developed enough for Dembski to use it as his fundamental support to convert this context-sensitive Specified Complexity (page 21) to its final form by switching the context to that of the observable universe, thus simply replacing M*N with 10^120. Then with a flourish of PhD babble concerning sets he ended up providing his fully developed conclusion on page 31.

"Suppose, further, that the specified complexity associated with each of these chance hypotheses, that is, χi = "“log2[ 10^120 · Ď•S(T)·P(T|Hi)], is strictly greater than 1. In that case, we've eliminated all the chance hypotheses that might explain the occurrence of E (where E conforms to the pattern T). The inference to design is now immediate….once specified complexity has rendered all relevant chance alternatives inviable, chance as such is eliminated and design can no longer be denied."

Dembski is boldly claiming that we can discount an entire set of hypotheses because each element is improbable no matter how many potential hypotheses there are.

Dembski protects his design hypothesis from the riggers of his algorithm by making it the default. He does this by presuming the design hypothesis isn't a chance hypothesis.

Only perfect designs are immune from a chance of failure


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



Rockets designed to go to the moon have a chance to blow up on the launch pad.  Dr. Dembski's analysis demonstrates that he presumed a perfect design (and, therefore, a perfect designer).

This "Engineer type" was pointing out what this "PhD type" was saying in "PhD babble" by translating it to simpler Engineering babble, misspellings and all.
Posted by: Frostman on July 20 2008,17:00

Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,14:04)
I enjoy interacting with "PhD types".  The feeling isn't always mutual.  Many get frustrated by my oversimplication of their very complex ideas.  However, there are some "PhD types" who enjoy my style and even encourage it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a coincidence.  I just heard you (or someone like you) today on public radio. Fast-forward to the 31-minute mark in < this podcast >.  < Description: >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Act Three. Sucker MC-Squared.

Bob Berenz had a good job as an electrician. But he wanted to do something bigger. He came up with an idea for an invention. But as he studied physics texts to see if his invention could work, he happened upon the biggest idea of his life: a revelation about physics that would disprove Einstein, and Newton. That is, if Bob's right. Bob's friend, Robert Andrew Powell, reports the story. He's a sports writer and the author of We Own This Game, about youth football. (16-1/2 minutes)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Thought Provoker on July 20 2008,17:01

I suggest Joy has more depth of character than you give her credit.

She does have a temper that gets in the way at times (an understatement).

However, I find her crazy-like-a-fox personna (she calls it being a "Professional Fool") interesting and challenging.

I have found our association rewarding.
Posted by: keiths on July 20 2008,17:54

Except that she isn't crazy like a fox.  She's crazy like a crazy person.

TP, this woman you admire so much believes that the "nuclear mafia" is out to get her, that Raevmo has threatened to kill her in her sleep, and that the government is suppressing superconductivity research so that it can't get into the hands of Al Qaeda.

Doesn't any of this, um, ... give you pause?
Posted by: Nerull on July 20 2008,18:18

Remember, Quantum Woo. Quacks of a feather, etc.

Sure, she's clearly a loon. Batshit crazy, I'd say. But she likely listens to TPs woo, so all that is overlooked, much like the DI crowd who don't seem to mind how crazy or dishonest the people they march out are, so long as they support them.
Posted by: keiths on July 20 2008,18:35

Quote (Nerull @ July 20 2008,16:18)
Remember, Quantum Woo. Quacks of a feather, etc.

Sure, she's clearly a loon. Batshit crazy, I'd say. But she likely listens to TPs woo, so all that is overlooked, much like the DI crowd who don't seem to mind how crazy or dishonest the people they march out are, so long as they support them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, and TP especially wants to avoid offending her now that he sees her as his ticket to a possible TT moderatorship.

Highly amusing.
Posted by: keiths on July 20 2008,18:56

Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,14:52)
No backpeddling is needed.  I am quite comfortable (almost proud) of the examples you found.

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


Really?  I'm surprised, because all three comments are broad-brush smears of PhDs in general, not just of Dembski.  You really seem to have a bigoted view of PhD holders:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm lucky to get the majority of my terms spelled correctly much less use them properly. Arguing about terminology is something PhD types do when I present them with my working prototype of an invention they said would be impossible to build.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now you are sounding like PhD types when engineers put them into embarrassing situations. "When I said that it would take years to do what you did in two weeks I hadn't completely developed the algorithm yet."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then with a flourish of PhD babble concerning sets he ended up providing his fully developed conclusion on page 31.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Thought Provoker on July 20 2008,19:17

You got it backwards.

Joy was the one suggesting Orch OR as a possible ID hypothesis long before I arrived on the scene.

And as Keiths pointed out by quoting me, my interest and respect for her has been consistent for a while.

There was another religious commenter that had a short visit on Telic Thoughts.  His name was DanteDanti.  He was probably certifiably crazy.  He definitely had a unique way of looking at things.  I enjoyed talking with him and seeing things from his unique perspective.  While he and I disagreed on a lot of things, I came to respect his point of view.

There is value in understanding different points of view, especially those that seem crazy and improbable at first glance.

Frankly, I don't understand why people would hang around blogs and/or forums with people who all agree.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on July 20 2008,19:21

Hi Keiths,

Sorry, but you are getting repetitive and boring.

If it makes you happy to call me a PhD bigot, then go and be happy.
Posted by: keiths on July 20 2008,19:36

Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,17:21)
Sorry, but you are getting repetitive and boring.

If it makes you happy to call me a PhD bigot, then go and be happy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words: If you insist on calling me a bigot just because I make bigoted statements, then you go right ahead.  :angry:
Posted by: keiths on July 20 2008,19:46

Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,17:17)
There is value in understanding different points of view, especially those that seem crazy and improbable at first glance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sometimes.  But at other times, as in Joy's case, they remain as crazy and improbable at sixth glance as at first.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Frankly, I don't understand why people would hang around blogs and/or forums with people who all agree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can understand why, though my own preference is to engage with others who disagree.  Why do you think I spent so much time at TT (and at UD before then)?

In any case, engaging with those who disagree hardly means that you have to abandon your critical faculties.  A fair, open-minded evaluation of Joy's claim regarding government suppression of superconductivity research leads to this conclusion:  It's batshit!  

If you truly consider yourself Joy's friend, you might want to gently suggest to her that psychological and/or psychiatric treatment might be helpful.
 
Perhaps she'll listen to you.
Posted by: olegt on July 21 2008,07:17

Someone should point out to Bradford that < Evidence, shmevidence > has already been discussed at TT.
Posted by: jeffox on July 21 2008,07:31

Thought provoker wrote above:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, I find her crazy-like-a-fox personna (she calls it being a "Professional Fool") interesting and challenging.

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



Having at least some expertise in "crazy like a fox", :)  :)  and doing at least some observation of Joy's posts, (both in here and at TT) I would conclude that Joy is definitely NOT anything like a fox.  Crazy-tard yes, crazy-fox no.  (snarky voice) Nuclear mafia, indeed.

My 2c.
Posted by: lcd on July 21 2008,07:33

Hey Thought Provoker.  Yes, I'm the same lcd from the TT board.  Eye to are an Inganere.  Nice to see you over here.

They're not so bbad, maybe little more bravado than that is needed.  But I understand your position, I fear there are some things they just won't look into and give an honest shake to when they don't like it.  Also, if you leave the reservation, check out what they are doing to an atheist Phd on the Uncommonly Dense Thread.


Ed
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 21 2008,13:26

Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,15:01)
I suggest Joy has more depth of character than you give her credit.

She does have a temper that gets in the way at times (an understatement).

However, I find her crazy-like-a-fox personna (she calls it being a "Professional Fool") interesting and challenging.

I have found our association rewarding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depth of character.

Here's another:

The Jewish Anti-Defamation league came out condemning the Darwin = Hitler meme in Expelled. Joy rejected this, and said that even tho she is not Jewish, she knows what anti-Semitism is better than Jews do. I personally find that to be completely insane. Do you have an opinion on this?

Don't you find it demoralizing to have your 'movement' led by people who think like this?
Posted by: lcd on July 21 2008,13:41

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 21 2008,13:26)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,15:01)
I suggest Joy has more depth of character than you give her credit.

She does have a temper that gets in the way at times (an understatement).

However, I find her crazy-like-a-fox personna (she calls it being a "Professional Fool") interesting and challenging.

I have found our association rewarding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depth of character.

Here's another:

The Jewish Anti-Defamation league came out condemning the Darwin = Hitler meme in Expelled. Joy rejected this, and said that even tho she is not Jewish, she knows what anti-Semitism is better than Jews do. I personally find that to be completely insane. Do you have an opinion on this?

Don't you find it demoralizing to have your 'movement' led by people who think like this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did she really say that?

Could you provide a link?

I'll withhold my opinion until I see such a thing.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 21 2008,14:34

It took some digging, but it all seems to have gone down < here. >

The craziness and weaselly goalpost-moving seems to have peaked here:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Zach:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As we're talking about the common meaning of a term, these would be appropriate and authoritative cites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am not Jewish, and I am not the ADL (or even AIPAC). I can extend denial of the whole perversion of science that led to the Holocaust under the heading of denial because it IS denial. Sleight of mind, distraction and retreat into narrow definitions is SOP for DDs around here. I do not recognize ADL's "authority" to define the Holocaust - or the American experience that led to it - as an exclusively Jewish horror. "Authority" is what caused the whole mess. I'm not falling for this crazy sleight of mind at this late date.

Regardless of ADL's singular and exclusive focus (Israel today isn't all that well known for its inclusiveness) it wasn't just Jews who suffered from eugenics, and it wasn't just Jews who suffered and died in Hitler's camps. It definitely wasn't Jews in the US who were the targets of US eugenics policies. The eugenics horror stories here are about blacks, Creoles, Native Americans, Asian and Hispanic immigrants, poor southern and Appalachian whites, orphans and anybody else the Robber Barons of the age decided to label 'inferior'. Hitler targeted Jews because he hated Jews. Duh.

In eugenics the target groups are interchangeable according to whoever "authority" hates, wherever in the world some megalomaniac can convince his underlings to do the dirty deeds. Heck, most of 'em don't even need to claim 'scientific' support, since mass murder is so popular on its own. It's just that white guys thought scientific excuses would work really well, and they did.

That which we call The Holocaust was what Adolph Hitler did with eugenics in his country and those he seized and occupied - Jews were NOT his only targets despite what the ADL would have you believe. The Roma didn't get a country and ample, open-ended financial and military support out of their suffering like the Jews did. Maybe because there weren't enough of them left to occupy a country, or maybe because nobody wants them around, to this very day.

 

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

I think everyone agrees that those who were complicit should make amends.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks for finally saying so. It does not appear that Oleg is prepared to even consider that there's anything to apologize for, eugenics being supported by such a tiny little insignificant group of people and all…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This was also discussed here at ATBC (twice), but I can't find the threads where it happened.

Joy's argument, boiled down, seems to be that since non-Jews suffered in the Holocaust, then Jews have no right to say that Darwinism ISN'T anti-Semitic. Ouch.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on July 21 2008,14:35

Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,14:04)
I enjoy interacting with "PhD types".  The feeling isn't always mutual.  Many get frustrated by my oversimplication of their very complex ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some engineers, yours truly included, understand that oversimplification is a bad thing by definition.  :angry:
Posted by: Thought Provoker on July 21 2008,14:36

Arden,

First of all, I am very much a critic of the movement created and supported by the Discovery Institute.

I make a distinction between the ID Movement and ID Science.

There have been many discussions on Telic Thoughts as to pros and cons of using the ID label.  I think Telic Thoughts should disassociate themselves from the movement and focus more on science.

However, I am but one voice with limited influence.

I am aware of Joy's emotional responses to the holocaust to which she attaches significant blame on runaway science.

She and I disagree on how significantly Hitler was influenced by the modern eugenics program as opposed to historical references such as the Spartans.

If you are interested, you can review our exchanges in various threads on Telic Thoughts.

However, like it or not, there is some merit in being concerned about the dehumanizing effects of certain scientific endeavours.  A cry for "never again" is understandable.
Posted by: keiths on July 21 2008,14:58

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 21 2008,12:35)
   
Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,14:04)
I enjoy interacting with "PhD types".  The feeling isn't always mutual.  Many get frustrated by my oversimplication of their very complex ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some engineers, yours truly included, understand that oversimplification is a bad thing by definition.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm an engineer, also.  Isn't it interesting that TP projects his personal shortcomings onto our entire profession?

Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,12:04)
I R a Inginear.

We all have our roles to play.  "PhD types" write lengthy papers and use fancy words and use fancy words to analyze things in nuanced detail.  As a result, "PhD types" tend to write well.

"Engineer types", on the other hand, reduce things to sketches and power point slides with as few words as possible.  Whatever it takes to make things work in the least amount of effort.  As a result, the writing of "Engineer types" tend to flow poorly, often with misspellings.

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


Technical competence and linguistic proficiency are not mutually exclusive, TP.  It's not "engineer types" -- it's you.
Posted by: keiths on July 21 2008,15:10

Quote (lcd @ July 21 2008,11:41)

Did she really say that?

Could you provide a link?

I'll withhold my opinion until I see such a thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, now you've seen it.  What's your opinion, lcd?
Posted by: silverspoon on July 21 2008,18:29

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 21 2008,14:35)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,14:04)
I enjoy interacting with "PhD types".  The feeling isn't always mutual.  Many get frustrated by my oversimplication of their very complex ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some engineers, yours truly included, understand that oversimplification is a bad thing by definition.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having read a number of detailed reports written by engineers (without PhD’s) over the years, dealing with fracture mechanics that address flawed weldments, and submitted to the NRC for their assessment and approval of the engineers resolution to the problem, I’d have to say TP is FOS.
Posted by: lcd on July 21 2008,18:51

Quote (keiths @ July 21 2008,15:10)
Quote (lcd @ July 21 2008,11:41)

Did she really say that?

Could you provide a link?

I'll withhold my opinion until I see such a thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, now you've seen it.  What's your opinion, lcd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not happy.
Posted by: stevestory on July 21 2008,19:04

Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 21 2008,15:36)
I make a distinction between the ID Movement and ID Science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




"How does the ID movement differ from ID science?"
"I don't know, how?"
"It exists!"
"O-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho..."
Posted by: Thought Provoker on July 21 2008,19:40

Hi Steve,

I have to admit that was a good one.

Thanks for giving me a reason to smile. :)
Posted by: Zachriel on July 22 2008,10:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: Many of you were shocked when our leader, Mike Gene, decided to leave Telic Thoughts. Well tonight I have more shocking news. I have decided to switch sides. Well, okay I’m just going to pretend that I’m switching. Why? I have always been driven by a curiosity why people think the way they do. In other words, I really want understand the thought process you guys use in forming your arguments; and what better way is there than try to assume your point of view.

You can choose to help me if you wish. I will be honestly trying to represent your point of view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then JOHN_A_DESIGNER goes on to reasonably summarize the view on abiogenesis contrary to his own. I was quite impressed and said so. (Snags might include what constitutes scientific evidence, or what would be considered sufficient confidence to draw an initial conclusion.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: You {IDers}, on the other hand cannot offer an alternative hypothesis that is scientifically testable. Can you? (smirk, smirk)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I point out that it's not easy, but I do try to avoid the smirks (or at least keep them on AtBC where they're on topic).
Posted by: dnmlthr on July 22 2008,11:18

Quote (lcd @ July 22 2008,00:51)
 
Quote (keiths @ July 21 2008,15:10)

Well, now you've seen it.  What's your opinion, lcd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not happy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A both reasonable and understandable response.
Posted by: keiths on July 22 2008,14:36

Quote (dnmlthr @ July 22 2008,09:18)
Quote (lcd @ July 22 2008,00:51)
Quote (keiths @ July 21 2008,15:10)

Well, now you've seen it.  What's your opinion, lcd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not happy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A both reasonable and understandable response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 22 2008,14:44

*deleted!*
Posted by: stevestory on July 22 2008,14:47

what was deleted?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 22 2008,14:57

Quote (stevestory @ July 22 2008,14:47)
what was deleted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll never know!



Mwuahahahahahahah.   hah.    aha..      *cough*
Posted by: keiths on July 22 2008,15:10

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 22 2008,12:57)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 22 2008,14:47)
what was deleted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll never know!



Mwuahahahahahahah.   hah.    aha..      *cough*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How Ftkesque of you.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 22 2008,15:16

seems like to me sternbergerstory could just use his magical powers, or NMNH keys, or access... never mind.  crossed narratives.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 22 2008,15:20

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 22 2008,13:16)
seems like to me sternbergerstory could just use his magical powers, or NMNH keys, or access... never mind.  crossed narratives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kristine could probably do it with one of those magic spell dealies of hers.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 22 2008,15:27

*clutches onto edit key for dear life*

< Baleeted! >
Posted by: keiths on July 22 2008,15:52

Quote (Zachriel @ July 22 2008,08:04)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: Many of you were shocked when our leader, Mike Gene, decided to leave Telic Thoughts. Well tonight I have more shocking news. I have decided to switch sides. Well, okay I’m just going to pretend that I’m switching. Why? I have always been driven by a curiosity why people think the way they do. In other words, I really want understand the thought process you guys use in forming your arguments; and what better way is there than try to assume your point of view.

You can choose to help me if you wish. I will be honestly trying to represent your point of view.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then JOHN_A_DESIGNER goes on to reasonably summarize the view on abiogenesis contrary to his own. I was quite impressed and said so. (Snags might include what constitutes scientific evidence, or what would be considered sufficient confidence to draw an initial conclusion.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: You {IDers}, on the other hand cannot offer an alternative hypothesis that is scientifically testable. Can you? (smirk, smirk)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I point out that it's not easy, but I do try to avoid the smirks (or at least keep them on AtBC where they're on topic).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad I'm banned from Telic Thoughts.  That sounds like it could actually be a worthwhile exchange.
Posted by: keiths on July 22 2008,22:53

lcd,

You made < this comment > today at Telic Thoughts:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is difficult for me to say. I want to find evidence to support the idea of an Intelligent Designer, but Front Loading bothers me.

The reason is simple. To say that there is Front Loading means the Designer did indeed plan to have man Fall. I for one don't like the idea that man's fall was planned by The Designer.

That would mean The Designer meant for sin to enter the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're right -- the problem of evil is a serious one for ID proponents.  And a sensitive one, as illustrated by the prickly reaction your comment provoked at TT.

Despite Wonders for Oyarsa's dismissive reply to Todd, the problem of evil is still very much a live issue among philosophers and theologians, as it has been for thousands of years.  It is a problem not just for ID proponents, but for any theist who believes (as most Christians do) that God is a) perfectly benevolent, b) omniscient, and c) all-powerful.

Epicurus put it very succinctly over 2000 years ago:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As I see it, there are only a few "solutions" to the problem of evil:

1. If God doesn't exist, the problem vanishes.

2. If God exists but is not perfectly benevolent, the problem vanishes.

3. If God exists but is either not omniscient, not omnipotent, or both, the problem vanishes.

4. If you reject options 1-3, as most Christians do, then the only remaining logical option is to argue that everything, including all of the apparent evil and suffering in the world, is somehow, mysteriously for the best.  This was the position held by Leibniz and lampooned by Voltaire in the character of Dr. Pangloss.

The problem of evil was a major reason for my rejection of Christianity as a young teenager.  Other things led to my rejection of theism altogether.

It's worth some serious thought.
Posted by: bystander on July 22 2008,23:08

I had what we would call a liberal Catholic upbringing but I think that we reconciled it by saying that God didn't do evil but allowed evil to happen due to granting us free will.

I think that the whole Buddist wheel of life thing makes more sense in that having bad things happen is a way to allow us to evolve to the perfect beings or whatever.
Posted by: bystander on July 22 2008,23:15

On less philosophical grounds the problems I a non professional have with front loading is:

1. Where the heck do you fit all this front loaded information
2. Doesn't Lenskis experiment cause a serious problem for front loading?

The third issue is that I thought that frontloading would be a fertile area for making and testing hypothesis but still there is silence other than them saying that Junk DNA is not Junk.

And even with Junk DNA is not Junk but hold some special code, should some analysis tool be able to tell us that there is some thing there?

Michael
Posted by: keiths on July 22 2008,23:41

Quote (bystander @ July 22 2008,21:08)
I had what we would call a liberal Catholic upbringing but I think that we reconciled it by saying that God didn't do evil but allowed evil to happen due to granting us free will.

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


I was raised as a Lutheran, and we were taught the same thing.  The problem is that if God is omniscient, then he knows what we will do before he even creates us.  If so, then he is ultimately responsible for our actions whether or not our will is free.  After all, he can choose whether or not to create us.

Another problem is that free will cannot account for suffering due to natural causes.  The Indian Ocean tsunami wasn't caused by humans, after all.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think that the whole Buddist wheel of life thing makes more sense in that having bad things happen is a way to allow us to evolve to the perfect beings or whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Many Buddhists are atheists, so the problem of evil doesn't worry them.  But I have also heard Christians suggest that evil and suffering are here to help us grow.

Some of my objections to that idea:

1. What didactic purpose is served by giving an innocent baby a painful genetic condition that kills her within six months of birth?  How is her character "improved" by that experience?

2. If it's because her parents "need" the "lesson", how is that fair to her?  

3. Is it really plausible that the only parents who lose a child are those who need this kind of "lesson"?  Why, then, does suffering seem to be apportioned so randomly?  Even the Bible acknowledges this problem:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness.
(Ecclesiastes 7:15, NIV)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


4. Why does an omnipotent God create people who need to suffer in order to improve themselves?  Why not grant them the desired characteristics in the first place?
Posted by: keiths on July 23 2008,00:09

Quote (bystander @ July 22 2008,21:15)
1. Where the heck do you fit all this front loaded information?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This isn't necessarily an insurmountable problem, depending on the amount of information that actually needs to be front-loaded.  DNA is pretty compact.  There is a species of amoeba that contains 690 billion DNA base pairs, which is more than 200 times as many as in humans.

A bigger problem is how to preserve all of the front-loaded information.  The integrity of genetic information is partially protected by natural selection itself, in that most mutations harm their possessors and are weeded out of the gene pool.  But this only works for genetic information that is actually expressed.  Unexpressed information tends to be corrupted very quickly, because the corruption has no effect on the fitness of the organism.

Front-loading advocates like Mike Gene are aware of this problem, so they are forced to argue that the front-loaded information is useful to, and expressed by, organisms throughout their evolutionary history.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. Doesn't Lenskis experiment cause a serious problem for front loading?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know about other front-loading advocates, but Mike Gene actually acknowledges the power of natural selection, even referring to it as a "designer-mimic".  He does not argue that all genetic information is front-loaded, but that certain crucial pieces are.  In particular, he argues that the potential for multicellularity was front-loaded into unicellular organisms by an intelligent designer.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The third issue is that I thought that frontloading would be a fertile area for making and testing hypothesis but still there is silence other than them saying that Junk DNA is not Junk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, it's been a pretty unproductive paradigm.  In more than two years of TT-watching, I've noticed a pattern:  someone discovers that some simple organism is more complicated than we thought it was, or that a particular capability evolved sooner than we thought it did.  The TT folks then say that this "increases the plausibility" of front-loading.

That's about it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 23 2008,00:53

and of course... how do you know what conditions to prepare for? How does front loading explain extinction?
Posted by: Art on July 23 2008,01:13

Quote (keiths @ July 23 2008,00:09)
Quote (bystander @ July 22 2008,21:15)
1. Where the heck do you fit all this front loaded information?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This isn't necessarily an insurmountable problem, depending on the amount of information that actually needs to be front-loaded.  DNA is pretty compact.  There is a species of amoeba that contains 690 billion DNA base pairs, which is more than 200 times as many as in humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem may indeed be insurmountable, at least for ID proponents.  This is because they believe that new protein-coding genes cannot arise de novo, and they believe that genomes are fairly littered with ORFans.  If you grant people like Paul Nelson a few hundred ORFans per species, then we're talking about the need to "store" information for millions or billions of proteins.  All of this has to be in the ancestral front-loaded creature.  I believe an ancestral genome that could encode a few billion proteins is far larger than one might reasonably hypothesize or could probably exist, and that this is a serious problem for "front loaders".
Posted by: keiths on July 23 2008,01:40

Quote (Art @ July 22 2008,23:13)
The problem may indeed be insurmountable, at least for ID proponents.  This is because they believe that new protein-coding genes cannot arise de novo, and they believe that genomes are fairly littered with ORFans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's why I specified that I was talking about Mike Gene's version of front-loading in particular.  As far as I can tell, he has no problem with the idea of protein-coding genes arising de novo.

He seems to think more along these lines:  the designer front-loads enough information to bias evolution in certain directions, but the guidance ends there.  Many of the particulars evolve in an unguided fashion (apart from the influence of the initial front-loaded bias).

Extinctions are presumably an undesired side effect of this sloppy, semi-guided process.

How this all really works is something he hasn't attempted to explain in any detail, as far as I know.  Perhaps we will find out how it all works when the eagerly-awaited sequel :p to The Design Matrix is published.
Posted by: RupertG on July 23 2008,02:17

Sounds to me that this hypothetical front-loading is a very good candidate for speculative computer modelling - or at least some basic barn-door mathematics.

Conversely, the lack of any plausible numbers or models is not a good sign. Nor was Mike Gene's traditional answer to the question "how could one tell the difference between your idea of front-loading the gene with hints, and ordinary classic evolution?" - which was "You can't. Ah-HA! See what I did there?"

The god of the gapless, I guess.

<forehead-slap>
Posted by: lcd on July 23 2008,07:03

Are you guys sure who is and who is not a "sheep in wolf's clothing"?

On the Telic Thoughts board there are some who are promoting "Front Loading".  At first I had no problem with Front Loading.  I thought it was a great way to disprove Darwinism and made a great way to show just how Intelligent the Designer is.

My wife brought home a copy of the "Design Matrix" from one of our friends from Church.  When I first read it, I thought, "Great, now this is what we need to drive a stake in the heart of the Darwin Beast".  Then that is when it hit my wife.

What my wife did was she asked this one question, "Ed, why did God do this?  Why did God plan to have things come into to the world later as if He expected something to go wrong?"

I was asked by kornbelt888 "if my theology is more important than what the evidence suggests".  It is.  This is also on a blog that had people posting about "The Road to Truth" and that how "evidence can be superficial".

As I said earlier, I am not happy.
Posted by: Assassinator on July 23 2008,07:07

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,07:03)
Are you guys sure who is and who is not a "sheep in wolf's clothing"?

On the Telic Thoughts board there are some who are promoting "Front Loading".  At first I had no problem with Front Loading.  I thought it was a great way to disprove Darwinism and made a great way to show just how Intelligent the Designer is.

My wife brought home a copy of the "Design Matrix" from one of our friends from Church.  When I first read it, I thought, "Great, now this is what we need to drive a stake in the heart of the Darwin Beast".  Then that is when it hit my wife.

What my wife did was she asked this one question, "Ed, why did God do this?  Why did God plan to have things come into to the world later as if He expected something to go wrong?"

I was asked by kornbelt888 "if my theology is more important than what the evidence suggests".  It is.  This is also on a blog that had people posting about "The Road to Truth" and that how "evidence can be superficial".

As I said earlier, I am not happy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ofcourse you're not happy, Jesus is against lying, and you're clinging on to a lie (The Darwinist Beast, what the hell?). And I agree with Jesus here, ooo yes.
Posted by: Art on July 23 2008,07:42

Quote (keiths @ July 23 2008,01:40)
 
Quote (Art @ July 22 2008,23:13)
The problem may indeed be insurmountable, at least for ID proponents.  This is because they believe that new protein-coding genes cannot arise de novo, and they believe that genomes are fairly littered with ORFans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's why I specified that I was talking about Mike Gene's version of front-loading in particular.  As far as I can tell, he has no problem with the idea of protein-coding genes arising de novo.

He seems to think more along these lines:  the designer front-loads enough information to bias evolution in certain directions, but the guidance ends there.  Many of the particulars evolve in an unguided fashion (apart from the influence of the initial front-loaded bias).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been discussing things like this with Mike Gene since 2000.  The most one can say is that he is non-committal when it comes to the origination of new proteins.  Heck, he never really accepted that < T-urf13 > is a definitive example of de novo origination of a new protein-coding gene, and he never acknowledged that front-loading only works if one grants that life is a low or zero-CSI proposition.

No, I believe my criticism most definitely applies to Mike Gene's front-loading.  (I'd been hoping for, like, forever that Mike Gene and Paul Nelson would have a knock-down, drag-out on TT over this matter, but the illusion of a united front took precedent over critical thinking and "teach the controversy".)
Posted by: Louis on July 23 2008,08:51

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,14:47)
Quote (Assassinator @ July 23 2008,08:40)
It doesn't matter what you beleive, reality doesn't care about what you beleive, what I beleive or what anyone beleives. You knów about how our view on reality is developing, and that it's not in correlation with your interpretation of your holy texts. Yet, you keep clinging on your interpretation and reject anything that goes against it. I call that lying, dishonest would cut it as well. And Jesus doesn't fancy that, and I thought you were pretty fond of Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no reason to go against the Word of God.

What I find interesting is that I am supposed to not believe in God's own Words and what believe in the same stuff you do?  I'm supposed to change my belief in God into your belief in Darwin.

No thanks.

As for my believing in what the Bible says, not believing in God's Word is not an option for me.  Some may pick and choose what they believe from the Bible but as they say, the road to salvation is narrow while the road to damnation is well paved and easy to follow.

I choose the road that leads to salvation no matter how difficult it may seem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one, I repeat, NO ONE believes in Darwin. Or Darwinism. Or Evolutionary Biology. Or any such thing.

a) Science is not a religion whatever lies you;ve been sold.

and

b) Belief simply doesn't enter into it.

Is it possible that you are STILL this clueless? Do you want to learn anything or actually discuss anything or are you simply here to spout creationist tropes everyone has heard and refuted since about the 1900s?

Louis
Posted by: lcd on July 23 2008,08:59

Quote (Louis @ July 23 2008,08:51)
No one, I repeat, NO ONE believes in Darwin. Or Darwinism. Or Evolutionary Biology. Or any such thing.

a) Science is not a religion whatever lies you;ve been sold.

and

b) Belief simply doesn't enter into it.

Is it possible that you are STILL this clueless? Do you want to learn anything or actually discuss anything or are you simply here to spout creationist tropes everyone has heard and refuted since about the 1900s?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have to believe that you're right in what the evidence presents in front of you don't you?  You believe in what Darwin says, right?

As for believing stuff, I don't believe in Front Loading.  See how this part of the thread started here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y117554 >

I spoke my peace on how I came to reject Front Loading both on this board and at TT.  Yes, it was on theological grounds but check it out here:

< http://telicthoughts.com/we-were-absolutely-stunned/#comments >

So no, I don't believe things that were told to me just because.
Posted by: lcd on July 23 2008,09:04

OBTW Louis,


I have to put this in a new post as I don't have an edit function yet.

I don't like this idea of "Academic Freedom" either as passed by Louisiana.  I can see too many other types, even worse than Evil, Nazi, Jack-Booted Darwinists (for Lou), trying to push their own agenda into schools and guising it up like science.  I can see Voodoo, Neo-Paganism-New Age stuff and worse sliding into schools as "teaching the controversy".

As for "Darwinists", I have a deal with this board to consider.

Stop calling Creationists "Tards" and I'll stop referring to you guys as "Darwinists".

Fair deal?
Posted by: jeffox on July 23 2008,09:14

LCD, there is a HUGE difference between KNOWING something and BELIEVING something.  You can believe all you want that 2 plus 2 equals 5.  The rest of us know that 2 plus 2 equals 4.  Always and ever.  Belief can't compare.  

I don't have to believe anything scientific.  I can observe it for myself.  What's more it works that way EACH AND EVERY TIME.  No magic.  No BS.  My attitude and previous state of mind DON'T MATTER.  

And I'm more than willing to admit that, yes, I do have to eat and drink to stay alive.  I KNOW that I NEED more than THE WORD to survive.  

Now, I'm not here to tell you, or anybody else for that matter, what to or what not to believe.  I'm just explaining that I DON'T.  I have reality, and that works just fine for me.  If you can't handle that, then don't wonder why I bandy the word TARD around when you're in here.
Posted by: Louis on July 23 2008,09:14

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,14:59)
 
Quote (Louis @ July 23 2008,08:51)
No one, I repeat, NO ONE believes in Darwin. Or Darwinism. Or Evolutionary Biology. Or any such thing.

a) Science is not a religion whatever lies you;ve been sold.

and

b) Belief simply doesn't enter into it.

Is it possible that you are STILL this clueless? Do you want to learn anything or actually discuss anything or are you simply here to spout creationist tropes everyone has heard and refuted since about the 1900s?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have to believe that you're right in what the evidence presents in front of you don't you?  You believe in what Darwin says, right?

As for believing stuff, I don't believe in Front Loading.  See how this part of the thread started here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y117554 >

I spoke my peace on how I came to reject Front Loading both on this board and at TT.  Yes, it was on theological grounds but check it out here:

< http://telicthoughts.com/we-were-absolutely-stunned/#comments >

So no, I don't believe things that were told to me just because.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're equivocating on the meaning of the word "believe". I no more BELIEVE in evolutionary biology than I BELIEVE I am sat on a chair. As I said, BELIEF doesn't enter into it in anything like the sense that you mean when you refer to your religion.

I should have known you'd misunderstand what I said in precisely that way.

Do I BELEIVE or accept every word Darwin wrote 149 years ago? Nope. Why? Because it's not all accurate. Modern science has been developed on the basis of evidence, and Darwin a) got some things wrong and b) didn;t have the evidence we now have. You simply don't understand how science works, and it rings out in every post you make. Let's see how you misunderstand THAT!

As for your subsequent crapola, learn what a "tu quoque" fallacy is and learn what the "fallacy of equivocation" is and learn why your faith in X and mountains of evidence supporting X are not the same thing.

Louis

ETA: Darwinst is not insulting, it's inaccurate. Tard on the other hand is insulting but unfortunately woefully accurate in almost all cases.
Posted by: stevestory on July 23 2008,21:01

I love bashing religion as much as other people like defending it. But that's not the purpose of this board. Discussions about how great christianity is or isn't should go on the bathroom wall. When you find things have gone markedly off-topic, take it to the bathroom wall, and maybe provide a link in the original thread to your continued discussion. Such responsible behavior will make the moderators, Lou and Kristine, more kindly disposed toward you.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 23 2008,21:29

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,08:59)
Quote (Louis @ July 23 2008,08:51)
No one, I repeat, NO ONE believes in Darwin. Or Darwinism. Or Evolutionary Biology. Or any such thing.

a) Science is not a religion whatever lies you;ve been sold.

and

b) Belief simply doesn't enter into it.

Is it possible that you are STILL this clueless? Do you want to learn anything or actually discuss anything or are you simply here to spout creationist tropes everyone has heard and refuted since about the 1900s?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have to believe that you're right in what the evidence presents in front of you don't you?  You believe in what Darwin says, right?

As for believing stuff, I don't believe in Front Loading.  See how this part of the thread started here:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y117554 >

I spoke my peace on how I came to reject Front Loading both on this board and at TT.  Yes, it was on theological grounds but check it out here:

< http://telicthoughts.com/we-were-absolutely-stunned/#comments >

So no, I don't believe things that were told to me just because.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


good god that is a heap of tard.


pssst, lcd



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Argument Regarding Design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on July 24 2008,07:34

The thread has indeed gone quite off topic.  I was otherwise occupied yesterday, and thus did not nip that in the bud.

Apologies.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bathroom Wall >, by The Opus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA:  Extricating some valuable pieces of this conversation that do relate to science and evidence may be a bit messy and subjective.  I understand there may be some disagreement over that, which should be taken up by PM.

I'll do the best I can.


Posted by: dogdidit on July 24 2008,07:49

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 23 2008,22:59)
       
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 23 2008,19:34)
arden, after SHF you stay the hell away from my garden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'SHF'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The End of Days. Apocalypse. Supper's Ready (for you aging Genesis fans). When the balloon goes up. A faeco-ventilatory event.

Um, returning to thread: I find that TT is much better enjoted live then discussed here, thanks to the substantially lower frequency of bannination (as compared to UD), which permits AtBCers to participate in situ. In particular, I am repeatedly impressed by the ju jitsu of Zachriel's discussion style, most recently exemplified on the thread the presently ends < here >. I watch, and I learn.
Posted by: olegt on July 27 2008,08:39

fifth monarchy man tells us how Einstein's theory is < pure common sense >:
 

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

They don’t have to understand it fully to grasp that time is a dimension just like length and width. It’s really rather simple...   it’s easer to grasp time as a dimension than differential equations.  In redneck logic Einstein wins.

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


Actually, promoting time to a fourth dimension was the subject of special relativity.  General relativity deals with a curved spacetime.  It's pretty heavy on (ahem) differential equations, and not just ordinary differential equations but partial ones.  < Curvature and connection > are hardly redneck stuff.
Posted by: olegt on July 27 2008,09:56

< More wisdom > from fmm:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When Einstein’s relativity predicted a certain bending of light at an eclipse it was not as though Newton’s theory predicted the opposite.

Newton made no predictions at all about bending light. Therefore Einstein’s prediction was distinguishing
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Newton didn't make any predictions in that regard, but a calculation based on Newtonian mechanics was made nonetheless ca. 1801 by  < Johann Georg von Soldner >.  Einstein's first (1911) calculation, based on special relativity, yielded the same value.  

When general relativity was formulated (1915), Einstein got an answer that was twice as large.  It turned out that his previous, ad hoc calculation included the effect of time dilation but didn't account for space curvature near the sun.  

So, Newtonian mechanics did make a prediction about the bending angle and Einstein's theory of general relativity made a different prediction.  1919 observations by Eddington and others were consistent with the latter but not the former.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 27 2008,20:41

Quote (olegt @ July 27 2008,08:39)
fifth monarchy man tells us how Einstein's theory is < pure common sense >:
 

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

They don’t have to understand it fully to grasp that time is a dimension just like length and width. It’s really rather simple...   it’s easer to grasp time as a dimension than differential equations.  In redneck logic Einstein wins.

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


Actually, promoting time to a fourth dimension was the subject of special relativity.  General relativity deals with a curved spacetime.  It's pretty heavy on (ahem) differential equations, and not just ordinary differential equations but partial ones.  < Curvature and connection > are hardly redneck stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i beg to differ.

of course it depends on how you define 'redneck' and also 'redneck stuff'.

but chucking an arrow at a moving deer from 5 meters above the ground might apply.

if not, then shooting a hog out of the bed of a pickup truck in the park (haven't done) or killing a grouse on the side of the parkway with a chunk of locust log tossed from the window of an F-150 travelling 30 miles an hour (have done, yum) surely does.  

i sniff in this fifth monarchy dumbasses general direction.
Posted by: olegt on July 29 2008,11:01

Joy gives Zachriel < a lesson in new math >.
 

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

It wasn't an explosion (relatively speaking) because it took maybe 30 million years? That sort of demands we sacrifice basic understanding of relative comparisons and factors of 10. 30 million years compared to 3.8 billion years deals with exponentials. It took just over one ten-thousandth [10^-5] of total evolutionary time for the animal kingdom to diversity as far as it was going to diversify clade-wise, everything else was just fun with evo-devo and expression in ecological interplay. Tinkering. That seems fairly 'explosive' to me, relatively speaking.

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


Ummm.  If memory serves right, Joy was educated in the US, where a billion is 10^9, not 10^12 (as it < would be > in Russia).  So 30 million = 30 x 10^6 divided by 3.8 billion = 3.8 x 10^9 is 0.008, i.e. about 10^-2, not 10^-5.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 29 2008,11:33

Quote (olegt @ July 27 2008,09:56)
< More wisdom > from fmm:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When Einstein’s relativity predicted a certain bending of light at an eclipse it was not as though Newton’s theory predicted the opposite.

Newton made no predictions at all about bending light. Therefore Einstein’s prediction was distinguishing
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Newton didn't make any predictions in that regard, but a calculation based on Newtonian mechanics was made nonetheless ca. 1801 by  < Johann Georg von Soldner >.  Einstein's first (1911) calculation, based on special relativity, yielded the same value.  

When general relativity was formulated (1915), Einstein got an answer that was twice as large.  It turned out that his previous, ad hoc calculation included the effect of time dilation but didn't account for space curvature near the sun.  

So, Newtonian mechanics did make a prediction about the bending angle and Einstein's theory of general relativity made a different prediction.  1919 observations by Eddington and others were consistent with the latter but not the former.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wasn't going to pursue this angle, but fifth monarchy man insisted.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: I notice that you did not address my comment about Einstein’s prediction of bended light at an eclipse


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When Einstein’s relativity predicted a certain bending of light at an eclipse it was not as though Newton’s theory predicted the opposite.

Newton made no predictions at all about bending light. Therefore Einstein’s prediction was distinguishing
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Zachriel >: That is incorrect. Not "made no predictions about bending", but "predicted no bending". These are quite different statements, and wrong in any case.

The acceleration in a gravitational field in Newtonian Mechanics is independent of the mass being accelerated, i.e. A = Gm/r˛. Assuming Newton's corpuscular theory of light, then light will bend around the Sun even if it has zero mass. Einstein calculated that light would bend twice as much as predicted by Newtonian Mechanics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As Einstein pointed out "Half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the Sun, and the other half by the geometrical modification ('curvature') of space caused by the Sun"
Posted by: Zachriel on July 29 2008,21:13

Quote (olegt @ July 29 2008,11:01)
Joy gives Zachriel < a lesson in new math >.


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

It wasn't an explosion (relatively speaking) because it took maybe 30 million years? That sort of demands we sacrifice basic understanding of relative comparisons and factors of 10. 30 million years compared to 3.8 billion years deals with exponentials. It took just over one ten-thousandth [10^-5] of total evolutionary time for the animal kingdom to diversity as far as it was going to diversify clade-wise, everything else was just fun with evo-devo and expression in ecological interplay. Tinkering. That seems fairly 'explosive' to me, relatively speaking.

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


Ummm.  If memory serves right, Joy was educated in the US, where a billion is 10^9, not 10^12 (as it < would be > in Russia).  So 30 million = 30 x 10^6 divided by 3.8 billion = 3.8 x 10^9 is 0.008, i.e. about 10^-2, not 10^-5.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: It's all woo to the non-conscious and entirely unaware, TP. It has always been thus. There's no sense fighting it. Zach's just a glorified ingest-excrete tunnel. He has no mind, no intelligence, no consciousness, no reason to be. And wants us to be just like him.

No, thanks. But he can be the nothing he'd be proud to be if he had a mind. I don't mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe I shouldn't have corrected her < arithmetic >. Joy indicated there was no < serious creativity > beyond the Cambrian Explosion, then belittles all organisms with a glorified ingest-excrete tunnel.

Nor did I ever say I was a deuterostome.

< >

Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Posted by: stevestory on July 29 2008,21:53

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,10:04)
OBTW Louis,


I have to put this in a new post as I don't have an edit function yet.

I don't like this idea of "Academic Freedom" either as passed by Louisiana.  I can see too many other types, even worse than Evil, Nazi, Jack-Booted Darwinists (for Lou), trying to push their own agenda into schools and guising it up like science.  I can see Voodoo, Neo-Paganism-New Age stuff and worse sliding into schools as "teaching the controversy".

As for "Darwinists", I have a deal with this board to consider.

Stop calling Creationists "Tards" and I'll stop referring to you guys as "Darwinists".

Fair deal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Many if not most of the people here are scientists or at least have scientific degrees, and they're steeped in the culture of science, which is a culture a lot of people would find shocking and rude. It's a culture where people very aggressively criticise each other's ideas. It's not uncommon for scientists to call each other's ideas "stupid" or "totally wrong" or things like that. It's not personal, it's just a part of the system. Ideas are viciously attacked, and the ones which withstand attack gain respect.  

On the other hand, we have to keep a certain minimum civility here. We've all got busy schedules so sometimes we don't enforce all the rules like we should. LCD, one of the rules here is that people should generally behave with the civility to each other that would be expected of them in a college classroom. So while we make fun of outsiders on occasion, if anybody here just starts harshly insulting you, alert a moderator and the comments will be kicked to the bathroom wall.
Posted by: stevestory on July 29 2008,21:59

Quote (Zachriel @ July 29 2008,22:13)
Joy indicated there was no < serious creativity > beyond the Cambrian Explosion,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...a claim contrary to the creationists' argument that the gulf between chimps and humans is so vast that it can't possibly be crossed by evolution.
Posted by: lcd on July 30 2008,07:57

Actually Steve, I've been treated very well on this board, despite my views being different than many of the posters here.

I find that refreshing and speaks very well of the board.

Of course that makes my unhappy about censorship on other boards, grumble, grumble.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 01 2008,09:01

Quote (lcd @ July 30 2008,07:57)
Actually Steve, I've been treated very well on this board, despite my views being different than many of the posters here.

I find that refreshing and speaks very well of the board.

Of course that makes my unhappy about censorship on other boards, grumble, grumble.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you've made an impresson at Telic Thoughts.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford > to lcd: Your ignorant creationist act does not cut grade B acting. When you lie keep your story straight. No staunch YEC would have been OK with front loading (which is at odds with YEC) until a contrived question from one's wife convinces him it was wrong in one fell stroke.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a dangerous {virtual} world, full of trolls and puppets and demons. Oh my.

< >

(A few innocent may be inadvertently hacked in the process.)
Posted by: lcd on Aug. 01 2008,09:13

Wow,


So much bitterness.  I guess it's time to go.  Perhaps I'll learn to be more "Internet Savvy" as Joy suggested.  Asking questions seems to be something that TT doesn't want to see happen.  The part that surprises me the most is that they deny God.

I will continue my studies and learn more.  Thanks for treating me so well here on this board.  I'll be back but not for some time.


Ed
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 01 2008,09:33

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 01 2008,09:13)
Wow,


So much bitterness.  I guess it's time to go.  Perhaps I'll learn to be more "Internet Savvy" as Joy suggested.  Asking questions seems to be something that TT doesn't want to see happen.  The part that surprises me the most is that they deny God.

I will continue my studies and learn more.  Thanks for treating me so well here on this board.  I'll be back but not for some time.


Ed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The converstaion doesn't have to stop here, LCD. But, if you're taking a break, have fun!
Posted by: dheddle on Aug. 01 2008,09:51

My nixplanatory filter is notoriously unreliable, but somehow I don't see LCD as a sockpuppet. If he is, I give him kudos for a nuanced performance. And if he is, his ability to do it here and and TT is, as far as I know, revolutionary. An achievement right up there with the first time an actor broke the fourth wall, or when Dylan went electric.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 01 2008,10:02

Quote (dheddle @ Aug. 01 2008,09:51)
My nixplanatory filter is notoriously unreliable, but somehow I don't see LCD as a sockpuppet. If he is, I give him kudos for a nuanced performance. And if he is, his ability to do it here and and TT is, as far as I know, revolutionary. An achievement right up there with the first time an actor broke the fourth wall, or when Dylan went electric.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, lcd. You've just been compared to Dylan. But that only applies if you are a double agent provocateur. Otherwise, nevermind.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 01 2008,10:19

Quick! Shield your irony meters!  Joy < holds forth >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are not just playing internet footsies and are indeed the college educated engineer you claim to be, you should have a better understanding of science than you display.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 01 2008,11:45

Lcd, don't feel lonely.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Don't you have better things to do than disrupt other blogs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently, I'm trolling because, on an open thread, I directly answered Bradford's question "Why not?" as to whether an engineer off the street would necessarily understand Front Loading.

Addendum: I decided to < respond >—despite Bradford flexing his moderator muscle. (Teach me not to banter on an open thread titled "Open Thread".)
Posted by: Nerull on Aug. 01 2008,13:59

That's how they all operate.

Why do you think their "majority" is only among laymen? They go into churches and lie, lie, lie, in the hopes that you will never try to find out anything else. And most people don't. So they sell books, and fleece more money from the flock.

If someone is willing to do real research with real evidence, then ID can claim to be a science. Probably not a correct one, but at least you tried. But you've gotta dump these "leaders". They don't care about science. They just care that you keep buying their books and paying their speaking fees. This will go on line this forever so long as people like that are in charge.
Posted by: dheddle on Aug. 02 2008,16:54

< Here's something you don't see often. > An open letter to the double doc.

As unsual as a pass for the lead in an F1 race.

Edit: edited what I had previously submitted.
Posted by: bystander on Aug. 02 2008,19:14

Unfortunately, the letter was badly written and I don't think that it clearly said what the author intended. The way it is written it is easy to dismiss by saying "when doing ID science why should you care about a co-workers religion."

Instead I think his argument should be around when DrDr accuses "Darwinists" of belonging to some kind of cult, why doesn't he hold Wells to the same standard.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 04 2008,11:10

Quote (dheddle @ Aug. 02 2008,16:54)
< Here's something you don't see often. > An open letter to the double doc.

As unsual as a pass for the lead in an F1 race.

Edit: edited what I had previously submitted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*sigh* Props to Heddle for his comment on that thread.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Aug. 04 2008,12:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
RogerRabbitt Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 5:39 am

steve says:  

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


Who's the designer? I'm not supposed to say. When was the design implemented? I'm not supposed to say. What's the purpose of the design? I'm not supposed to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess I never got that memo. Do you have a copy you could share with us?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 4, 2008 @ 5:39 am    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
David Heddle Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 10:00 am

RogerRabbitt
   

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

I guess I never got that memo. Do you have a copy you could share with us
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can help there. I got the memo. It was when I was still in the good graces of the IDers. I raised the issue of the scientific evidence for an old earth. While ID has a Brobdingnagian tent including YECs, OECs, a smattering of self-described atheists some of whom are likely sockpuppets, Christians, Moonies, as well as “Transparadigmantic” and “Noetic” Scientists, it has a nano-tent when it comes to discussing science. In particular, the age of the earth is off the table—I was told so by the big cheese himself. The ostensible reason was that the age of the earth is not relevant for ID. That explanation is as bizarre as a Mary K. Olsen fan club. There can hardly be an issue more relevant for ID. If the scientific evidence confirms a young earth, then ID wins hands down. Dawkins himself would attend midnight Mass on the day science demonstrated that the earth was only thousands of years old—virtually everyone would accept design. So the scientific evidence for the age of the earth can hardly be irrelevant for ID. The real reason for the nano-tent? Well, I reckon you don’t have to be Federico Fellini to figure it out.


Comment by David Heddle — August 4, 2008 @ 10:00 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just in case. BTW who's the big cheese, David?

(< link > added in edit)
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 05 2008,07:40

Quote (dogdidit @ July 24 2008,07:49)
The End of Days. Apocalypse. Supper's Ready (for you aging Genesis fans).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'm not that aging, but I saw them in Albany last September.  I had to sit throught their post-1980 top-40 garbage, but the handful of old gems they played - anad played well - was worth it.
It killed me to see hundreds of thirty-somethings get up and leave during their last encore song - the Carpet Crawlers...
Losers...
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 05 2008,07:42

Quote (olegt @ July 29 2008,11:01)
Joy gives Zachriel < a lesson in new math >.
   

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

It wasn't an explosion (relatively speaking) because it took maybe 30 million years? That sort of demands we sacrifice basic understanding of relative comparisons and factors of 10. 30 million years compared to 3.8 billion years deals with exponentials. It took just over one ten-thousandth [10^-5] of total evolutionary time for the animal kingdom to diversity as far as it was going to diversify clade-wise, everything else was just fun with evo-devo and expression in ecological interplay. Tinkering. That seems fairly 'explosive' to me, relatively speaking.

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


Ummm.  If memory serves right, Joy was educated in the US, where a billion is 10^9, not 10^12 (as it < would be > in Russia).  So 30 million = 30 x 10^6 divided by 3.8 billion = 3.8 x 10^9 is 0.008, i.e. about 10^-2, not 10^-5.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lots of creotards have math issues.

I saw a guy on the CARM board try to denigrate an evolutionist by writing that 1/1000 would be written 1x10^3....
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 05 2008,08:34

Quote (slpage @ Aug. 05 2008,07:40)
   
Quote (dogdidit @ July 24 2008,07:49)
The End of Days. Apocalypse. Supper's Ready (for you aging Genesis fans).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'm not that aging, but I saw them in Albany last September.  I had to sit throught their post-1980 top-40 garbage, but the handful of old gems they played - anad played well - was worth it.
It killed me to see hundreds of thirty-somethings get up and leave during their last encore song - the Carpet Crawlers...
Losers...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A fan? Cool!! Pre- or post-Gabriel departure? :)

I first saw them at the Whiskey-a-Go-Go in Hollywood is nineteen-mumbledy-something. Peter Gabriel in a giant tetrahedral papier-mache head, bouncing around to Apocalypse in 9/8 time. I was so-o-o-o-o-o stoned.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 05 2008,10:42

Besides that, even if 30 million is a small fraction of  3.8 billion, calling it an "explosion" is still an analogy, and therefore not reliable as an argument.

Henry
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 05 2008,12:04

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 05 2008,10:42)
Besides that, even if 30 million is a small fraction of  3.8 billion, calling it an "explosion" is still an analogy, and therefore not reliable as an argument.

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


An explosion you could measure in ice ages?
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 05 2008,12:22

Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 05 2008,08:34)
Quote (slpage @ Aug. 05 2008,07:40)
   
Quote (dogdidit @ July 24 2008,07:49)
The End of Days. Apocalypse. Supper's Ready (for you aging Genesis fans).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'm not that aging, but I saw them in Albany last September.  I had to sit throught their post-1980 top-40 garbage, but the handful of old gems they played - anad played well - was worth it.
It killed me to see hundreds of thirty-somethings get up and leave during their last encore song - the Carpet Crawlers...
Losers...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A fan? Cool!! Pre- or post-Gabriel departure? :)

I first saw them at the Whiskey-a-Go-Go in Hollywood is nineteen-mumbledy-something. Peter Gabriel in a giant tetrahedral papier-mache head, bouncing around to Apocalypse in 9/8 time. I was so-o-o-o-o-o stoned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was pretty wasted the first time I saw them - 1983.  I've seen Gabriel twice.  I'm a bit too young to have seen them together.  I think Trick of the Tail was their best post-Gabriel effort, though Wind and Wuthering had some good cuts on it.

I've even got my kids (7 and 10) humming along to 'Watcher of the Skies'...
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 05 2008,12:24

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 01 2008,10:19)
Quick! Shield your irony meters!  Joy < holds forth >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are not just playing internet footsies and are indeed the college educated engineer you claim to be, you should have a better understanding of science than you display.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Well, I expect no less from Joyhole...
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 05 2008,21:27

Quote (slpage @ Aug. 05 2008,12:22)
I've even got my kids (7 and 10) humming along to 'Watcher of the Skies'...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too funny! Next thing, they'll be doing an entire vaudeville version of "Harold the Barrel" in your living room.

Reminds me of a colleague who's kids "rediscovered" the charms of Monty Python's Holy Grail. Entire scenes of dialogue being recited randomly throughout the house, and the toddlers dragooned into shouting "NI!" at almost any prompting...

*looks around in surprise*

What, too off-topic? Oh, uh- something to do with B B King, right? Oops, wrong thread...

Thanks for the memory lane visit, slpage. Cueing up Foxtrot as soon as I'm done here.
Posted by: jeffox on Aug. 05 2008,21:36

NI!!!

:)
Posted by: lcd on Aug. 06 2008,20:14

"And your mother smelled of elder berries"

From my younger days.

Ok.  "Front Loading".  Is there anything in your Evolutionary DOGMA that points to "Front Loading" of the genes?

When I was first introduced to the concept, I thought that was something an Intelligent Designer would do.  What bothers me of course is why would God front load anything as that is a contingency plan if something went wrong.

It is my belief we sinned and that is what is leading our DNA to get errors and such.  We were perfect until in our arrogance we sinned and let decay and death into this world.  God wouldn't have planned on that being the way it happened.
Posted by: lcd on Aug. 06 2008,20:16

Just a note, as I can't edit my posts.

For the humor impared, when I put things in Italic Caps that means I'm being purposely sarcastic and trying to be funny.
Posted by: creeky belly on Aug. 06 2008,20:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is my belief we sinned and that is what is leading our DNA to get errors and such.  We were perfect until in our arrogance we sinned and let decay and death into this world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To quote Lewis Black, "Now get in the car, kids! If we have time, we can still sacrifice your sister at the Hoover Dam."

Well, here's a thought from astrophysics: transcription errors are quantum effects (at the molecular level). We have neutron stars (pulsars) going back ~3 billion years, which wouldn't exist without the physics of fermion degeneracy pressure (a quantum effect). So we have a pretty good idea how long these processes have been going on. Although, I don't know what your opinion is on the age of the earth, so I'm not sure that this will mean anything.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 06 2008,20:43

"Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'"
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 06 2008,20:48

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 06 2008,20:14)
"And your mother smelled of elder berries"

From my younger days.

Ok.  "Front Loading".  Is there anything in your Evolutionary DOGMA that points to "Front Loading" of the genes?

When I was first introduced to the concept, I thought that was something an Intelligent Designer would do.  What bothers me of course is why would God front load anything as that is a contingency plan if something went wrong.

It is my belief we sinned and that is what is leading our DNA to get errors and such.  We were perfect until in our arrogance we sinned and let decay and death into this world.  God wouldn't have planned on that being the way it happened.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lcd - You're half right.

Front Load = Pants load.  THat part you got correct.

The rest of your post -  
"It is my belief we sinned and that is what is leading our DNA to get errors and such.  We were perfect until in our arrogance we sinned and let decay and death into this world.  God wouldn't have planned on that being the way it happened." -

is also right in that is is a belief you have, but it ain't falsifiable, so it ain't science, hence everything after "we sinned" is only opinion, and is a science stopper, and should have been a sentence stopper too.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 07 2008,02:49

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 06 2008,20:14)
It is my belief we sinned and that is what is leading our DNA to get errors and such.  We were perfect until in our arrogance we sinned and let decay and death into this world.  God wouldn't have planned on that being the way it happened.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you know any of that?

On the whole, humanity appears to be doing OK, errors and all.

LCD, have you ever heard of < Reed Solomon error correction >?

If at one time genes were perfect, then once we've sequenced enough we should be able to work backwards, in a process similar to the link above, to find the "perfect original" genome? Right LCD?
Posted by: Quack on Aug. 07 2008,03:57

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 06 2008,20:16)
Just a note, as I can't edit my posts.

For the humor impared, when I put things in Italic Caps that means I'm being purposely sarcastic and trying to be funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fine, but to avoid confusion, use  Italic Caps only.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 07 2008,05:04

Quote (Quack @ Aug. 07 2008,09:57)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 06 2008,20:16)
Just a note, as I can't edit my posts.

For the humor impared, when I put things in Italic Caps that means I'm being purposely sarcastic and trying to be funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fine, but to avoid confusion, use  Italic Caps only.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded.

Although unintentionally funny in any text is apparently LCD's milieu.

Anyway, no death before we sinned? Did pre-fall Eden residents eat? Did they digest their food? How did they do this without gut bacteria? Which, unless they died, would have grown to a sufficiently large population to pop Adam and Eve like over filled E. coli balloons pricked with a pin after a few days (at a first timescale guess).

I prescribe little less bible and a lot more biology.

Louis
Posted by: Woodbine on Aug. 07 2008,06:00

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 07 2008,05:04)
Anyway, no death before we sinned? Did pre-fall Eden residents eat? Did they digest their food? How did they do this without gut bacteria? Which, unless they died, would have grown to a sufficiently large population to pop Adam and Eve like over filled E. coli balloons pricked with a pin after a few days (at a first timescale guess).

I prescribe little less bible and a lot more biology.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's an argument much under-used, sadly.

Didn't some bloke in the 19th Century argue that if horse ownership grew at the then current rate we would all be buried under horsey poo by now? Same with the whole garden of Eden thing.....swamped under microbes and bugs and critters and anything else with a bonkers replication rate.....yay for Eve.
Posted by: lcd on Aug. 07 2008,07:10

It's called faith.

I don't have evidence that you'd consider to be so for why I believe and think the way that I do.  What I'm looking for is science evidence that will back up my faith.

So yes all you ATHEISTIC EVIL NAZI-MARXIST WANNABES I'm looking for evidence to give to more than a few people I know and teach them a few things.

Later
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 07 2008,07:25

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 07 2008,07:10)
I don't have evidence that you'd consider to be so for why I believe and think the way that I do.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do. You have been programmed from an early age.

Tell me LCD, did you choose your faith at 18 or did the people who brought you up also believe and pass that to you? Are you the only one in your family who believes as you do? In your community?

It's quite simple really.

Nothing wrong with that*. It's just the way it is.

There are no christian babies, just babies. It needs to be programmed into them.

What evidence is it that you are looking for?

How old do you think the earth is LCD?

Was there really a global flood that covered the entire earth and killed all but a handful of people?

Did Adam and Eve really exist?

Are these things you are looking for evidence for?

*Everything wrong with that.
Posted by: qetzal on Aug. 07 2008,08:32

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 07 2008,07:10)
What I'm looking for is science evidence that will back up my faith.

So yes all you ATHEISTIC EVIL NAZI-MARXIST WANNABES I'm looking for evidence to give to more than a few people I know and teach them a few things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you want evidence that can be selectively made to fit your pre-determined belief, and that can be used to dishonestly* convince others of that belief.

(*Dishonestly because it selects only the 'favorable' evidence, and implies that unfavorable evidence doesn't exist.)

Did I understand you correctly?

Oh, well. At least you're being 'honest' about your plans to be, er, dishonest.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 07 2008,08:58

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 07 2008,13:10)
It's called faith.

I don't have evidence that you'd consider to be so for why I believe and think the way that I do.  What I'm looking for is science evidence that will back up my faith.

So yes all you ATHEISTIC EVIL NAZI-MARXIST WANNABES I'm looking for evidence to give to more than a few people I know and teach them a few things.

Later
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I really hope you're not telling the truth here, or that this is some form of "street theatre"/loki troll/sock puppetry humour/generalised trolling that I have suspected you of since the first thread you posted on.

Do you realise, as others have noted, just precisely how dishonest this sort of behaviour is? Didn't YOUR god say something about bearing false witness? Didn't YOUR god mention something about motes and beams? Let me guess, it doesn't count because it's all "Lies for Jesus"?

Eurgh, I feel dirty and I'm not even a member of your religion, what you say reflects nothing on me.* I feel sorry for more sensible and intellectual christians. It's they who are (wrongly) tarred with the unfortunate ramifications of your fundamentalist ignorance. As a generally anti-religious atheist though, I just have to thank you for doing my work for me. Keep making religion look ridiculous and keep exposing faith as the epistemological non-starter it is.

It's why I am actually grateful for the people like FTK, Skeptic, AFDave, GoP, DaveScott, Sal, you, etc, it's not that you are unpleasant (heaven forfend that I should rely on such an obvious logical fallacy), you're probably not, it's that every chance you get you expose your claims for the weak beer they are, and the justification for them as the rampant dishonesty and ignorance it is. Thanks!

Louis

*Aside from our shared humanity, and since I a) already know and b) freely admit that we humans are fallible and often unpleasant, this is really no skin of my nose.
Posted by: Quack on Aug. 07 2008,10:13

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 07 2008,07:10)
It's called faith.

I don't have evidence that you'd consider to be so for why I believe and think the way that I do.  What I'm looking for is science evidence that will back up my faith.

So yes all you ATHEISTIC EVIL NAZI-MARXIST WANNABES I'm looking for evidence to give to more than a few people I know and teach them a few things.

Later
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just what is it you want to teach? Faith or facts?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 07 2008,10:21

Quote (Quack @ Aug. 07 2008,10:13)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 07 2008,07:10)
It's called faith.

I don't have evidence that you'd consider to be so for why I believe and think the way that I do.  What I'm looking for is science evidence that will back up my faith.

So yes all you ATHEISTIC EVIL NAZI-MARXIST WANNABES I'm looking for evidence to give to more than a few people I know and teach them a few things.

Later
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just what is it you want to teach? Faith or facts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not faith or facts; it's faith or empiricism.

Exactly why anyone would look for evidence to bolster faith is beyond my imagination. The evidence for revealed religion has been on a downhill slope for centuries.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 07 2008,10:40

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 07 2008,16:21)
Quote (Quack @ Aug. 07 2008,10:13)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 07 2008,07:10)
It's called faith.

I don't have evidence that you'd consider to be so for why I believe and think the way that I do.  What I'm looking for is science evidence that will back up my faith.

So yes all you ATHEISTIC EVIL NAZI-MARXIST WANNABES I'm looking for evidence to give to more than a few people I know and teach them a few things.

Later
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just what is it you want to teach? Faith or facts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not faith or facts; it's faith or empiricism.

Exactly why anyone would look for evidence to bolster faith is beyond my imagination. The evidence for revealed religion has been on a downhill slope for centuries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There used to be some?

Louis
Posted by: Lou FCD on Aug. 07 2008,11:59

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 07 2008,08:10)
It's called faith.

I don't have evidence that you'd consider to be so for why I believe and think the way that I do.  What I'm looking for is science evidence that will back up my faith.

So yes all you ATHEISTIC EVIL NAZI-MARXIST WANNABES I'm looking for evidence to give to more than a few people I know and teach them a few things.

Later
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidence - u r doin it rong
Faith - u r doin it rong 2
Posted by: swbarnes2 on Aug. 07 2008,12:03

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 07 2008,07:10)
It's called faith.
What I'm looking for is science evidence that will back up my faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, human psychology tells us that this is a recipe for being wrong.  

If you wish to be right, if you wish to believe accurate things about the physical world, the way to go about it is to look for science evidence that will contradict your prior beliefs.  And if you find none, and if other people agree that that there is none, then you can conclude that you might be right.

It's kind of a scary process.  You might end up rejecting things you wish were true as being not true.  

Or, keep up your pretense of only looking for facts that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside about your prior beliefs.  99 out of a hundred Creationists do that, no one will be surprised.

Back to mutations, scientists have all kinds of explanations for how mutations happen, and all kinds of evidence that their explanatins are right.  These explanations are all physical and chemical in nature.

Are you arguing that they are wrong abut those facts of chemistry?  Or are you arguing that the laws of chemistry are the way they are because of sin?
Posted by: Chayanov on Aug. 07 2008,12:31

If it's called faith, then why are you seeking scientific evidence to support it? Seriously. If you can back it up with proof, it's no longer faith, it's certainty. If you're expecting a Bible with citations and a bibliography full of scientific references at the back, it's never going to happen.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 07 2008,12:33

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 07 2008,04:04)
Quote (Quack @ Aug. 07 2008,09:57)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 06 2008,20:16)
Just a note, as I can't edit my posts.

For the humor impared, when I put things in Italic Caps that means I'm being purposely sarcastic and trying to be funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fine, but to avoid confusion, use  Italic Caps only.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded.

Although unintentionally funny in any text is apparently LCD's milieu.

Anyway, no death before we sinned? Did pre-fall Eden residents eat? Did they digest their food? How did they do this without gut bacteria? Which, unless they died, would have grown to a sufficiently large population to pop Adam and Eve like over filled E. coli balloons pricked with a pin after a few days (at a first timescale guess).

I prescribe little less bible and a lot more biology.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, obviously, that "no-death" thing only applies to animals large enough to be seen, and not to plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, or animals that happen to be microscopic.

Next question? :)
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 07 2008,13:13

Quote (swbarnes2 @ Aug. 07 2008,13:03)
If you wish to be right, if you wish to believe accurate things about the physical world, the way to go about it is to look for science evidence that will contradict your prior beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This was summarized by a guy I knew thusly: "Stupid people try to find evidence that they're right. Smart people try to find evidence that they're wrong."
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 07 2008,13:13

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 07 2008,18:33)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 07 2008,04:04)
Quote (Quack @ Aug. 07 2008,09:57)
 
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 06 2008,20:16)
Just a note, as I can't edit my posts.

For the humor impared, when I put things in Italic Caps that means I'm being purposely sarcastic and trying to be funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fine, but to avoid confusion, use  Italic Caps only.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded.

Although unintentionally funny in any text is apparently LCD's milieu.

Anyway, no death before we sinned? Did pre-fall Eden residents eat? Did they digest their food? How did they do this without gut bacteria? Which, unless they died, would have grown to a sufficiently large population to pop Adam and Eve like over filled E. coli balloons pricked with a pin after a few days (at a first timescale guess).

I prescribe little less bible and a lot more biology.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, obviously, that "no-death" thing only applies to animals large enough to be seen, and not to plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, or animals that happen to be microscopic.

Next question? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah but of course! Silly of me not to know that really.

It's really SPECIAL things like that argument which leave me PLEADING for more. ;-)

Louis
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 07 2008,15:22

Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 05 2008,21:27)
Quote (slpage @ Aug. 05 2008,12:22)
I've even got my kids (7 and 10) humming along to 'Watcher of the Skies'...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too funny! Next thing, they'll be doing an entire vaudeville version of "Harold the Barrel" in your living room.

Reminds me of a colleague who's kids "rediscovered" the charms of Monty Python's Holy Grail. Entire scenes of dialogue being recited randomly throughout the house, and the toddlers dragooned into shouting "NI!" at almost any prompting...

*looks around in surprise*

What, too off-topic? Oh, uh- something to do with B B King, right? Oops, wrong thread...

Thanks for the memory lane visit, slpage. Cueing up Foxtrot as soon as I'm done here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O Knights... who until recently said Ni.
Posted by: jeffox on Aug. 07 2008,15:38

NI!!!

:)
Posted by: dheddle on Aug. 07 2008,15:53

My family has taken to saying Python's "Ni" for no. That includes my wife, who is Taiwanese, and has some difficulty appreciating Python humor. And my son Luke, who is autistic, but nevetheless uses "Ni" appropriately, at least as I and my other son define it, which is when you want to make an answer of "no" lighthearted, perhaps for selfish reasons:

Lady Heddle: Samuel, did you take out the garbage?

Samuel: Ni!

Luke, for a while, had a violin teacher named Mr. Ni. That was an endless source of amusement, especially because he was one strange agent.

Edited: for typo.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 07 2008,16:40

Quote (dheddle @ Aug. 07 2008,15:53)
Luke, for a while, had a violin teacher named Mr. Ni. That was an endless source of amusement, especially because he was one strange agent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watch for him getting a PhD, Scar, and white cat.
Posted by: lcd on Aug. 07 2008,19:43

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 07 2008,07:25)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 07 2008,07:10)
I don't have evidence that you'd consider to be so for why I believe and think the way that I do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I do. You have been programmed from an early age.

Tell me LCD, did you choose your faith at 18 or did the people who brought you up also believe and pass that to you? Are you the only one in your family who believes as you do? In your community?[/quote]I was not born into my faith.  I was Catholic but they didn't hold me.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's quite simple really.

Nothing wrong with that*. It's just the way it is.

There are no christian babies, just babies. It needs to be programmed into them.

What evidence is it that you are looking for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wow.  I never really thought about it.  I want to say evidence that everyone agrees on is a start.  The engineer part in me knows that you get 4 injunears in a room and you have 24 opinions.  Evidence that stands up to scrutiny and any counter-attack that descends into name calling and hand waiving.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How old do you think the earth is LCD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have been told that the Earth is 6 to 10 thousands years old.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was there really a global flood that covered the entire earth and killed all but a handful of people?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That is what I believe.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did Adam and Eve really exist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That is what I've been told.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are these things you are looking for evidence for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The age of the Earth and the Flood are great places to start.[quote]*Everything wrong with that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey,


Since you asked so nicely:


Night.
Posted by: lcd on Aug. 07 2008,19:44

Can I get the edit function so I can fix mix ups like that?
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 09 2008,11:55

A most excellent exposition on why universal negatives are scientifically vacous.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: Science doesn't deal in "proof" either way, there is support and falsification. If theory #1 predicts something that can't be found, and theory #2 predicts it won't be found because it doesn't exist, the lack of evidence for theory #1 tends to support theory #2. This is quite simple. All the tap dancing won't change things.

1) Proponents of theory #2 don't need to look for evidence in favor of theory #1 if theory #2 predicts there is none. Proponents of theory #1 will scour heaven and earth in search of the evidence their theory requires, everyone else can just note that they haven't found it. Every time they don't find it, theory #2 is further supported.

If nobody were seeking evidence for precursors THEN proponents of theory #2 would be obligated to waste time and gub'ment money seeking it. Fortunately (because proponents of theory #2 don't enjoy gub'ment money), that is not the situation.

2) Those searching for evidence in favor of theory #1 get to define the search space, since it's their theory. When they find evidence to support their theory within the reasonable search space (and not just-so Anazi tales or wishful imaginings), that evidence will falsify theory #2's prediction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't even have to bother to look for evidence!
Posted by: skeptic on Aug. 09 2008,20:19

Looks like I've come late to this party but just to catch up quickly and get a bit of clarification, LCD, are you looking for scientific evidence supporting the existence of God and do you have any kind of science background?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Aug. 10 2008,00:01

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 09 2008,21:19)
Looks like I've come late to this party but just to catch up quickly and get a bit of clarification, LCD, are you looking for scientific evidence supporting the existence of God and do you have any kind of science background?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aren't you grounded?
Posted by: skeptic on Aug. 10 2008,09:12

uh, (looks around), apparently not.  :D
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 10 2008,10:49

< Fresh tard > from Joy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To flesh this out, consider current CERN experiments once again seeking good ol' Wiggly Higgly, their "God Particle." They're predicting that if they once again don't find him, they'll at least know where he's not (and tweak their theory that predicted him at much lower energy levels accordingly).

I personally am of the opinion that Higgs doesn't exist - they'll never find him, he's not there to find. Now, I know how they work. They'll claim for a few years that they "might" have found him. They'll pour over readouts until they're cross-eyed, then they'll predict Higgs is so close to approaching the equally missing graviton that they'll never have the power to find him. But he'll remain in their model, because their model relies upon the existence of a "God Particle." Sad, really.

Then someday, someone will come along with the new theory physicists have known they needed for nearly 50 years now. Just like they knew would happen, because "everybody knew" the SM was wrong. They were just clocking accelerator time because it was available, and they could…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  The Higgs story comes in two parts.  The Standard Model (SM) relies heavily on one of them: the < Higgs mechanism > is the only known way to generate masses for W and Z, the heavy cousins of the photon.  The SM has been thoroughly tested: all of its predictions, including those which rely on the Higgs mechanism, are consistent with experiments.  

The < Higgs boson > is not part of the SM.  All the SM has to say about it is this: since the Higgs field exists, we ought to be able to create waves in it.  The properties of those excitations are determined by physics beyond the SM, which we do not know at this time.  

A few speculative scenarios have been offered on the basis of extensions of the Standard Model, string theory or just symmetry considerations.  In the simplest scenario, the excitations of the Higgs field would be in the form of a particle without spin and electrical charge, the Higgs boson.  As far as theory is concerned, its mass is anyone's guess.  Existing experimental data exclude a Higgs boson with a mass below 114 GeV and around 170 GeV.  

Not finding the Higgs boson at the LHC will not invalidate the Standard Model: it does not rely on the Higgs boson and makes no predictions about its mass.  

And what does the graviton (which is, by the way, massless) have to do with it?  I have no idea.  She must have thrown it in to make it sound authoritative.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Aug. 10 2008,11:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...way to generate masses for W and Z, the heavy cousins of the photon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



W and Z are also the sex chromosomes in birds. Is that part of the Standard Model, too?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Aug. 10 2008,12:28

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 10 2008,11:02)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...way to generate masses for W and Z, the heavy cousins of the photon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



W and Z are also the sex chromosomes in birds. Is that part of the Standard Model, too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.  And when they don't find the Higgs that will prove evolution is wrong.  Waterloo!!!!!111!!!oneoneone
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 10 2008,13:56

Actually that's W+, W-, and Z. Three particles mediate the weak nuclear force.

As for the "God Particle", IIRC that was a nickname given it by Leon Lederman in his epynomous science book, written back in 1993 partially in an attempt to preserve funding for the Superconducting Supercollider. Alas, the US Congress decided that while they liked Big Science, they didn't like it enough to pay for two big projects...so the SSC was cancelled and we built the International Space Station instead. Diplomacy, cooperation with the Russians, blah blah blah...

Lederman claimed to have wanted to call it the Goddam Particle but his editors balked. I'm not a physicist, and can't assess how important it is to the Standard Model (Lederman seemed to think it was needed to prevent a crisis in the SM at high energies) but it's obvious that people like Joy hear the term "God Particle" and go to their unhappy place. It was a joke, Joy. Get a grip.

<edited for spellerfication>
Posted by: lcd on Aug. 10 2008,20:00

I'll ask here as I've already asked on the TT Board.

What systems are considered IC by IC proponents?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 10 2008,20:16

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 10 2008,20:00)
I'll ask here as I've already asked on the TT Board.

What systems are considered IC by IC proponents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooooh. A moving target.

Edit: The correct answer is any system that hasn't (yet) been explained as an accumulation of small steps.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 10 2008,20:38

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 10 2008,20:16)
   
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 10 2008,20:00)
I'll ask here as I've already asked on the TT Board.

What systems are considered IC by IC proponents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooooh. A moving target.

Edit: The correct answer is any system that hasn't (yet) been explained as an accumulation of small steps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been trying to < pin it down >, but it's like putting a leash on a < slime mold >. It's not so easy.

< >
Posted by: bystander on Aug. 11 2008,08:26

It's not just what is defined by IC, it is the definition of IC. Originally Behe said the flagellum is IC because there was no precursor to the flagellum. When som precursors were found, Behe said that the gaps were too large and there is no way that it could have developed through small steps.

When scientists proposed an evolutionary path to the flagellum, Behe then said that it was still IC until scientists proved that this was the actual path that occured.

There was also something to do with blood clotting. This was blown out of the water as well and I don't know if Behe is still claiming it is IC.

But generally, the ID people will claim anything is IC if you do not know the exact path that something did evolve. If somebody proposes a possible path they are accused of making just so stories.
Posted by: lcd on Aug. 11 2008,08:58

Thanks for all your replies.  I still have to ask this question.

Science is looking for evidence correct?  So if there is no direct evidence, how do we actually know what happened?  For IC systems, if these incremental steps can produce something that is needed, I take it that one or more of the following occurred:

1:  The organism didn't need the function before hand.

2:  The first "organ" or "enzyme" was version 1.0 and didn't work as well as the later versions are currently doing.

3:  The new function replaced a now kaput and no longer available way the function was produced.

Am I missing anything?
Posted by: Assassinator on Aug. 11 2008,09:13

I don't think I can really answer your question, but I do want to correct a mistake you made there. It's not so that it did not need the enzym, or that enzym 1.0 didn't work properly. It's that, for example, enzym 2.0 works better in a given enviroment and/or situation then 1.0, wich means that in that ecological niché the organism with enzym 2.0 is much more succesfull. Things aren't broken, for example the first humanoids weren't faulty, broken or not-yet-finished Homo Sapiens, they were well adapted for the enviroment they lived in only to be superseded because another species was better adapted, and they lost the battle for there specific ecological niché.

PS: If I made any mistakes, can someone who has more expertise on these topics please correct them?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 11 2008,09:18

Adding on to that, the word "better" is relative to the current environment, which changes all the time.

Also, it is possible to be "as good as". Sexual selection allows populations to drift apart for purely cosmetic reasons. Some chicks just prefer guys with redder feathers, for arbitrary reasons.

There are other forms of drift as well.
Posted by: Assassinator on Aug. 11 2008,09:39

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 11 2008,09:18)
Adding on to that, the word "better" is relative to the current environment, which changes all the time.

Also, it is possible to be "as good as". Sexual selection allows populations to drift apart for purely cosmetic reasons. Some chicks just prefer guys with redder feathers, for arbitrary reasons.

There are other forms of drift as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aaa yes, ofcourse. I thank you for your wisdom :)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 11 2008,09:44

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 11 2008,08:58)
Thanks for all your replies.  I still have to ask this question.

Science is looking for evidence correct?  So if there is no direct evidence, how do we actually know what happened?  For IC systems, if these incremental steps can produce something that is needed, I take it that one or more of the following occurred:

1:  The organism didn't need the function before hand.

2:  The first "organ" or "enzyme" was version 1.0 and didn't work as well as the later versions are currently doing.

3:  The new function replaced a now kaput and no longer available way the function was produced.

Am I missing anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LCD,
Of all the types of eye in the world, which one is the "best"?

kthanxby
Posted by: lcd on Aug. 11 2008,09:50

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 11 2008,09:44)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 11 2008,08:58)
Thanks for all your replies.  I still have to ask this question.

Science is looking for evidence correct?  So if there is no direct evidence, how do we actually know what happened?  For IC systems, if these incremental steps can produce something that is needed, I take it that one or more of the following occurred:

1:  The organism didn't need the function before hand.

2:  The first "organ" or "enzyme" was version 1.0 and didn't work as well as the later versions are currently doing.

3:  The new function replaced a now kaput and no longer available way the function was produced.

Am I missing anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LCD,
Of all the types of eye in the world, which one is the "best"?

kthanxby
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Trick question.

I understand that the eye of a Cephalopod doesn't have a blind spot where as our mammalian eyes do.  That comes from the blood vessels in the Cephalopod being able to supply blood under the light receptive areas in their eyes.

Ours are fed through the top.  An interesting design feature to be sure.
Posted by: lcd on Aug. 11 2008,09:52

Hit the send to quickly.

As to which one is best, do cephalopods see the same way as we do?  Is their colors as vivid, etc.?  Does the design of one way, ours, have intrinsic value we don't know?

To answer honestly, I don't know.  I'm not being rude or nasty.  I don't know which is best.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 11 2008,10:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To answer honestly, I don't know.  I'm not being rude or nasty.  I don't know which is best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If eyes are designed, as you say, then does it not make more sense that there would be a single type of eye? That the blood would be fed in in a single way?

Does the fact that we do not see uniformity prompt any thoughts in you?

Lets for a moment say the cephalopods eye is the "best". Does that mean that "lesser" eyes don't work?

LCD, did you know that "IC systems" are in fact a prediction of evolutionary theory? And that such systems were in fact predicted before Behe had written a single book on the subject?

The simple fact is that IC systems are not by any means a problem for evolution.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hermann Muller, in the early 20th century, discussed a concept similar to irreducible complexity. However, far from seeing this as a problem for evolution, he described the "interlocking" of biological features as a consequence to be expected of evolution, which would lead to irreversibility of some evolutionary changes.[15] He wrote, "Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary."[16]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Joseph_Muller >
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Aug. 11 2008,11:17

Quote (dheddle @ Aug. 02 2008,17:54)
< Here's something you don't see often. > An open letter to the double doc.

As unsual as a pass for the lead in an F1 race.

Edit: edited what I had previously submitted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thread deleted; lock, stock, and comments.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo says >:I deleted the open letter to Dembski. It occurred to me that it was the type of thing that would fit in better at UD, instead of at TT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With more and more threads about Jesus, and more and more threads getting 404'ed the difference is becoming negligible.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 11 2008,11:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear Prof. Dembski,

[I've added a little, in bold type] I'm writing this letter out of a sincere concern that I have had for some time. I haven't written it up until now, because I didn't think it was quite suitable material for TelicThoughts. We usually try to focus on science and the question of intelligent design, and this is more about religion. Specifically, about Jonathan Wells' religion. A number of years ago, way back at ARN, it was revealed that Dr. Wells was a member of the Unification Church. This meant that he believed that the Reverend Sun Myung Moon was the second coming of Jesus Christ. I was shocked to learn it at the time. But I figured, what the heck? We all have our quirky idiosyncratic beliefs. Why shouldn't he?

But I've become more concerned by a few recent events. First, you co-authored a recent book with Dr. Wells. Second, Dr. Wells had a role in the recent movie, Expelled, where he offered a definition of evolution that would be acceptable to any Young Earth Creationist. Third, you recently had a thread at your own blog where you accused Darwin of purposely trying to be the messiah of a secular religion. Fourth, I've recently been told that we should hold fellow Christians to a higher standard than we do non-Christians.

So I'm asking that you distance yourself from Dr. Wells' religion, and publicly declare that the Reverend Moon is a false messiah. If you are willing to make such a declaration against Darwin (a view that many Christians would dispute), you should at the very least make an equally strong declaration against the Reverend Moon. If you refuse to do this, I will suspect [Of course, I often have delusional suspicions. For example, when Mike Gene's book was late coming out, I suspected that he was pulling our leg the whole time. And I still suspect that Bush/Cheney/Pentagon at least deliberately allowed 9/11. So let the reader take my suspicions with a large grain of salt] that either you also believe in the Reverend Moon, or that either you or the Discovery Institute might suffer monetary loss by making such a declaration.

This letter is not intended as a criticism of your views on Intelligent Design, or of the work you have done in this field. I have stated on a number of occasions that I greatly admire your work. If you need to know my real name, Mike Gene has my permission to give it to you.

Sincerely,
Bilbo

P.S. To fellow TTers, I promise not to bring this subject up again. And if any of you think this letter is inappropriate, you have my permission to delete it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Comments are still in the Yahoo cache
< Link >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 11 2008,11:28

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 10 2008,21:00)
I'll ask here as I've already asked on the TT Board.

What systems are considered IC by IC proponents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Although not directly responsive to your question, a very extensive discussion of IC occurred with Ftk on the unreasonable Kansan's thread.

It starts < here >, with some interruptions and spans many days/pages.

Keep reading until you encounter Ftk's ultimate cop-out of a conclusion.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 11 2008,12:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: I deleted the open letter to Dembski. It occurred to me that it was the type of thing that would fit in better at UD, instead of at TT.

< David Heddle >: One way of reading that is spot-on. Deleting a post is indeed the type of thing that fits in well at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 11 2008,12:51

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 11 2008,13:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: I deleted the open letter to Dembski. It occurred to me that it was the type of thing that would fit in better at UD, instead of at TT.

< David Heddle >: One way of reading that is spot-on. Deleting a post is indeed the type of thing that fits in well at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah ouch!
Posted by: Assassinator on Aug. 11 2008,13:16

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 11 2008,09:50)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 11 2008,09:44)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 11 2008,08:58)
Thanks for all your replies.  I still have to ask this question.

Science is looking for evidence correct?  So if there is no direct evidence, how do we actually know what happened?  For IC systems, if these incremental steps can produce something that is needed, I take it that one or more of the following occurred:

1:  The organism didn't need the function before hand.

2:  The first "organ" or "enzyme" was version 1.0 and didn't work as well as the later versions are currently doing.

3:  The new function replaced a now kaput and no longer available way the function was produced.

Am I missing anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LCD,
Of all the types of eye in the world, which one is the "best"?

kthanxby
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Trick question.

I understand that the eye of a Cephalopod doesn't have a blind spot where as our mammalian eyes do.  That comes from the blood vessels in the Cephalopod being able to supply blood under the light receptive areas in their eyes.

Ours are fed through the top.  An interesting design feature to be sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed a trick question, like I explained before (with the help of midwifetoad), all the eyes out there are good in there ecological niché. There is no such thing as the best eye out there. Don't forget as well, that a simple eye patch was considered "high tech" a long long time ago.

PS: Shouldn't this little conversation be moved to the lcd thread?
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 11 2008,16:08

When someone points out that you are wrong, just < raise the level of pomposity >.  And don't forget to add boldface and italic types:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was from the beginning quite simple, there was no need to go Googling for authority I've already dismissed in my example. When I said that there is no evidence that a Higgs particle exists, all you needed to know is that there is no evidence that a Higgs particle exists. THAT is the actual state of affairs. Simply shifting the goalposts after every failed attempt does not inspire great confidence in the accuracy of the theory.

Citing the 'primary literature' about where one team thinks they might find Wiggly Higgly next time they look is utterly pointless and completely non-contextual to this example. I don't care where the Tevatron team thinks he's hiding this time, nor do I care where the Brookhaven or LHC teams think he's hiding (and they all have different ideas about that). It doesn't matter. The FACT is that he's still MIA, and every time they fail to find him it lends support to the suspicion that he doesn't exist at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the goal posts have not been moved.  In 1979 < Cabbibo et al. > showed that the Higgs boson should be lighter than 200 GeV.  Today that theoretical upper bound stands at 190 GeV.  The lower theoretical bound has been floating around 100 GeV and is at 130 GeV today.  See < Searches for Higgs bosons > (a PDF file).

Earlier experiments at CERN (LEP) have ruled out a Higgs mass below 114 GeV.  The Tevatron at Fermilab shows no Higgs around 170 GeV.  There's still plenty of space for a Higgs within those bounds.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 12 2008,07:32

The tard < keeps flowing >, overwhelming poor Zachriel:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The search space ranges from 140 GeV to more than 11 TeV. Predictions from 140 GeV through ~1.5 TeV have already been tested. Yes, this shortens the search space, but that's always going to be limited by the power we are able to provide in the Largest Machines on Earth. We are not likely ever to get past 5 TeV, and that's being hopeful. We are never likely to be close enough to a collapsing star to directly measure what happens when the laws of physics turn to mush either. Or, we should all hope NOT!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's what has actually been done, from Searches for Higgs bosons linked above (emphasis mine):
     

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

Prior to 1989, when the electron-positron collider LEP at CERN came into operation, the searches for Higgs bosons were sensitive to masses below a few GeV only (see Ref. 7 for a review).  In the LEP1 phase, the collider was operating at center-of-mass energies close to [the mass of Z boson]. During the LEP2 phase, the energy was increased in steps, reaching 209 GeV in the year 2000 before the final shutdown. The combined data of the four LEP experiments, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL, are sensitive to neutral Higgs bosons with masses up to about 117 GeV and to charged Higgs bosons with masses up to about 80 GeV.

Higgs boson searches have also been carried out at the Tevatron proton-antiproton collider. With the presently available data samples, the sensitivity of the two experiments, CDF and DŘ, is still rather limited, but with increasing sample sizes, the range of sensitivity should eventually exceed the LEP range [8]. The searches will continue later at the LHC proton-proton collider, covering masses up to about 1 TeV [9]. If Higgs bosons are indeed discovered, the Higgs mechanism could be studied in great detail at future electron-positron [10,11] and muon-antimuon colliders [12].

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


Since this review was last updated (2005), the Tevatron experiments have reached above the LEP range.  This month (August 2008), they < ruled out a Higgs mass > around 170 GeV (plus-minus a couple of GeV).  That's the only portion of the energy range above 140 GeV that has been excluded (at the confidence level of 95%).  

Joy just makes things up as she goes along.
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 12 2008,08:05

olegt, does Joy have a background in particle physics?

In my opinion, Joy is frustrated by Zachriel's superior ju jitsu, and it is showing. Her tiger-style no match for his monkey-style. (erm- mixed cultural references here...)
< She hung this out there: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I personally am of the opinion that Higgs doesn't exist - they'll never find him, he's not there to find.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

...and now she has to defend it. So far, without success. What a pointless opinion to assert!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, I know how they work. They'll claim for a few years that they "might" have found him. They'll pour over readouts until they're cross-eyed, then they'll predict Higgs is so close to approaching the equally missing graviton that they'll never have the power to find him. But he'll remain in their model, because their model relies upon the existence of a "God Particle." Sad, really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sad, really. Quite the anti-scientist. Has she revealed this side before?
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 12 2008,08:45

Joy < has a background in health physics >, which deals mostly with effects of ionizing radiation on humans.  At US universities, health physics programs are typically administered by medical schools and schools of public health (as at < Colorado State >) or by departments of nuclear engineering (as at < Texas A&M >).  A < typical curriculum > doesn't offer much in the way of particle physics.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 12 2008,08:47

Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 12 2008,08:05)
Sad, really. Quite the anti-scientist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nor a particularly careful reader.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: The search space ranges from 140 GeV to more than 11 TeV. Predictions from 140 GeV through ~1.5 TeV have already been tested.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had already posted on this the < previous day > in direct response to her.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Fermilab > 2007: The experimental sensitivity for directly observing the Higgs boson is steadily improving. The Tevatron experiments are within reach of directly excluding a Higgs boson with mass near 160 GeV/c2. Searches for a Higgs boson with lighter mass will require more data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Much of The Argument Regarding Design Teleology involves the use of < bolding >.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 12 2008,08:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Much of The Argument Regarding Teleology involves the use of bolding.

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

Sharp. On many levels.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 12 2008,09:28

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 12 2008,08:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Much of The Argument Regarding Teleology involves the use of bolding.

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

Sharp. On many levels.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As in a TART™ rejoinder.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Aug. 12 2008,11:53

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 12 2008,08:32)
The tard < keeps flowing >, overwhelming poor Zachriel:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I often call that < The Tsunami of Ignorance > technique.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Aug. 12 2008,14:49

Quote (lcd @ Aug. 11 2008,09:52)
Hit the send to quickly.

As to which one is best, do cephalopods see the same way as we do?  Is their colors as vivid, etc.?  Does the design of one way, ours, have intrinsic value we don't know?

To answer honestly, I don't know.  I'm not being rude or nasty.  I don't know which is best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I quite like you lcd,

You remind me of myself a few years ago. I am hoping that you are genuinely asking questions BTW rather than being a troll.

If you are genuine you are in for a shock or two.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 13 2008,07:26

Joy apparently reads the Swamp:


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

< A Very Cool, Very Big Machine >

I have expressed some interest in High Energy Physics and various QC, GUT and SUSY theories on occasion. There are several Swamp denizens (including one doing double duty as commenter here and peanut gallery heckler there) who strongly believe that I have no business being or right to be interested or following theories and developments at that end of physics. I beg to differ.

Why, anyone interested in what science knows or doesn't know about the nature of nature and/or any part of nature (and what they're doing to plug holes in their knowledge) might find the theories and experiments of HEP of great interest and entertainment value. I figure that when I have no business or right to know what's going on in theoretical and experimental physics, they'll stop reporting what's going on in theoretical and experimental physics. A situation none of us should welcome...

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


Adjust you reading glasses, Joy.  No one is trying to keep you away from physics.  It's great that you are interested!  The remainder of your post about the opening of the LHC is quite informative.  It's clear that you did your homework this time.  My hat is off to you.
Posted by: Joy on Aug. 13 2008,20:49

olegt:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At US universities, health physics programs are typically administered by medical schools and schools of public health (as at Colorado State) or by departments of nuclear engineering (as at Texas A&M).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm getting a window, this is a test...

Um... Guess you're not conversant with "Rickover's Navy." But that's neither here nor there. I have every right to follow the theories and the progress of experiments to test them, with whatever level of understanding I can or care to apply. I've seen evidence of stranger beasties than mere twin mini-holes, so I'm not scared.

Since they choose to take the risks in all our names (without asking, thanks), I might as well follow what they're looking for and why. I need no petty bullshit about my bona-fides on that level, nor do I need anyone's permission to follow my interest. Or the [public] money.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's clear that you did your homework this time.  My hat is off to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, give me a break. That information was out there all along, it's obvious I've been keeping up. The only 'new' thing here is the LHC. That background and overview was entirely superfluous to the Higgs analogy. Is still immaterial to the Higgs analogy, as offered. As if I'm somehow not "qualified" to offer such an analogy. That's bullshit, from Zach or from you.

You just thought you'd inject some snide asides (based on your dislike of me personally because I think life is intelligently designed) for Zach's benefit, since he tried so hard at TT to pretend to knowledge he doesn't own. Even I - who claims to be nobody at all - knew better than that.

/test
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 13 2008,21:04

Joy:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I figure that when I have no business or right to know what's going on in theoretical and experimental physics, they'll stop reporting what's going on in theoretical and experimental physics. A situation none of us should welcome...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



olegt:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Adjust you reading glasses, Joy.  No one is trying to keep you away from physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joy:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Um... Guess you're not conversant with "Rickover's Navy." But that's neither here nor there. I have every right to follow the theories and the progress of experiments to test them, with whatever level of understanding I can or care to apply.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Lady, you can shout at that strawman til you're blue in the face, but it just makes you look weird. Nobody here suggested you didn't have the right to follow physics. Calm down.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 13 2008,21:08

BTW Joy, since you're here, what do you think of the Discovery Institute Senior Fellow who said this last week:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It’s a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(source: < http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/08/discovery-insti-8.html > )
Posted by: Joy on Aug. 13 2008,21:45

stevestory:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...what do you think of the Discovery Institute Senior Fellow who said this last week:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Intelligent Design *is not* a theory, though I do think it's a compelling explanation. As yet not quite formulated in testable terms, but tending in that direction. Those will all still be sub-hypotheses to be tested, the question is what "ID" means as a challenge.

It can't "defeat" evolution because it's not in competition with evolution. I've got no problems with the idea that life forms change - and demonstrably complexify - over deep time. Never did have a problem with it. I know you've been told that it's the mechanisms of evolution at issue in these debates, so don't play dumb. Dripping stereotypes can't be any better than straw men, except that straw men absorb more moisture before it spills all over you. §;o)
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 13 2008,21:51

Quote (Joy @ Aug. 13 2008,22:45)
It can't "defeat" evolution because it's not in competition with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Intelligent Design Offers a Competing Explanation for the Origin of Life.

< http://www.discovery.org/a/2925 >
Posted by: Joy on Aug. 13 2008,21:55

Um... haven't you guys been telling me for years that OOL isn't part of evolution?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 13 2008,21:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Creationism requires a student to affirm the creed that God created the heavens and the earth, and the theory of evolution requires that a student affirm the creed that there is no God. Neither claim is scientific, neither can be empirically verified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where do they find these idiots?  Joy isn't it clear to you that these guys are frauds?  I don't read TT enough to know how you feel about the DI but with friends like that who needs polio?
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 13 2008,22:01

Quote (Joy @ Aug. 13 2008,22:55)
Um... haven't you guys been telling me for years that OOL isn't part of evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ugh. Do you have to miss the point every single time? I'm done.
Posted by: Joy on Aug. 13 2008,22:15

Erasmus:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 Joy isn't it clear to you that these guys are frauds?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You quote a creationist affirmation to me? I don't care about creationists. You shouldn't care either if that affirmation is any gauge. Honestly, y'all are such lily-livered landlubbers! Scared of your own shadows.

TT is not a DI construct or grantee. It has never pretended to be. Please don't bring your UD hangover if you care to address me. I represent nobody but myself (the TT crew often wishes it didn't know me), I've never claimed to represent anyone but myself, and I'm not answering for anybody who ever punched you in the nose. Because I don't have to.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 13 2008,22:24

yeah you are missing two points at a time now.

the quote (apologies, i didn't provide link context) came from the DI post that steve had just linked to.

i'm just curious as to how much you are willing to tolerate from your fellow travellers?  the recent issue with bilbo retracting his 'public letter' to dembski was very interesting.  at the very least, I suspect TT would do very well to find a new acronym or moniker to describe it's position, "Intelligent Design" has been coopted by a gang of atavist reactionaries that I find it hard to believe share your sensibilities.

no one has punched me in the nose, hon.  i don't go hanging around Sugar Hill.  Do you?  haven't i seen you at the volunteer fire department in Old Fort on Friday night?
Posted by: Joy on Aug. 13 2008,22:35

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the quote (apologies, i didn't provide link context) came from the DI post that steve had just linked to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh. I didn't read it. I don't care what the DI says or does.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the recent issue with bilbo retracting his 'public letter' to dembski was very interesting.  at the very least, I suspect TT would do very well to find a new acronym or moniker to describe it's position, "Intelligent Design" has been coopted by a gang of atavist reactionaries that I find it hard to believe share your sensibilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL!!! Why in the world would we do that? It's "independent." Do you fathom the meaning of that word? Bilbo can be who he is. Believe what he believes. I don't care, so why should you?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
no one has punched me in the nose, hon.  i don't go hanging around Sugar Hill.  Do you?  haven't i seen you at the volunteer fire department in Old Fort on Friday night?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow, 'ras. That looks a little bit like an inter-tube threat. Given that I am a woman and all, and you're busy trying to assert your macho-ness and all. Mods? I think this crosses the line. If you'd like to make that formal, I object to the term "hon."
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 13 2008,22:46

Quote (Joy @ Aug. 13 2008,20:35)
Wow, 'ras. That looks a little bit like an inter-tube threat. Given that I am a woman and all, and you're busy trying to assert your macho-ness and all. Mods? I think this crosses the line. If you'd like to make that formal, I object to the term "hon."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being oppressed!!!


Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 13 2008,22:55

One comment has been kicked to the Bathroom Wall because of the longstanding rule against directly insuling other commenters.
Posted by: Joy on Aug. 13 2008,23:09

Oh, yeah. There's a reason I don't post here often enough to sign in between clarifications. Never mind.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 13 2008,23:20

nothing gets my goat like that brand of intentional designed stupid point deflection.  i'll clarify, and leave out the bits that might have disturbed your karma.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you are getting realy good at missing points here.  almost as if it were intentional.

I just want to hear it straight from [your] mouth just why you feel the need to protect your fellow travelers, even at the risk of accommodating odious liars and pretentious frauds.  if you don't wanna tell me because the nookular mafia is listening, by all means run away then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and feel free to climb back up on your cross and flounce out of the swamp.  the bottom line is, you are an enabler for some of the most pernicious intellectual fraud ever foisted upon well-meaning religious believers.  and sometimes you seem proud of it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 13 2008,23:22

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 13 2008,21:20)
and feel free to climb back up on your cross and flounce out of the swamp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You must mean her 'mountain'.
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 13 2008,23:23

Quote (Joy @ Aug. 14 2008,00:09)
Oh, yeah. There's a reason I don't post here often enough to sign in between clarifications. Never mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too many biologists? Speaking of that, Joy, is there a single person at TT with a biology degree?
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 13 2008,23:27

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 14 2008,00:20)
nothing gets my goat like that brand of intentional designed stupid point deflection.  i'll clarify, and leave out the bits that might have disturbed your karma.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you are getting realy good at missing points here.  almost as if it were intentional.

I just want to hear it straight from [your] mouth just why you feel the need to protect your fellow travelers, even at the risk of accommodating odious liars and pretentious frauds.  if you don't wanna tell me because the nookular mafia is listening, by all means run away then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and feel free to climb back up on your cross and flounce out of the swamp.  the bottom line is, you are an enabler for some of the most pernicious intellectual fraud ever foisted upon well-meaning religious believers.  and sometimes you seem proud of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to object to your calling us the Swamp. Not because it's mean, but because it's not clever. If you want to insult us, at least put some creativity into it. Twist our name. Call us the Dive Bar or something. The Swamp is boring and unintelligent, like listening to Bradford talk about proteins or something.
Posted by: Joy on Aug. 13 2008,23:34

stevestory:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Too many biologists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The subject of my posting here - now - was biology? Where is Higgs located in your cells, steve? You willing to get atomized and sent through the accelerator to find out?

I don't know if anyone has a biology degree, you'd have to ask them. I don't care. See ya... and the sheep you rode in on. Somewhere. Someday. Maybe. Or not...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 13 2008,23:36

Quote (Joy @ Aug. 13 2008,21:34)
I don't know if anyone has a biology degree, you'd have to ask them. I don't care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We figured.

Hey, if Jews can be wrong about the holocaust, biologists are probably all wrong about evolution.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 13 2008,23:45

This sort of malicious ignorance just says it all about this 'Joy' person.  From the telic tards thread she oozed over here to defend:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Todd B.:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll gladly wager anyone all the money I have that the LHC will not destroy the Earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, that's what the bet is. Some people are apparently not amused. Might be because it's their money that paid for these gigantic toys for overgrown boys in the first place. Or maybe it's because they're sick of living underneath science's Damocles' Sword and have finally awakened to realize they aren't afraid anymore. Perhaps it's because they don't believe risks like these are any one person's (or group of people's) business or right to make by fiat.

I'd hazard a guess that attitudes like yours don't help generate excitement from the public about the possibilities of knowledge to be gained at risk to everyone's existence. Or make them glad about getting dunned annually to pay for this kind of arrogant garbage. Luckily the only public that has so far exerted its collective raspberry at the ridiculous expense and apparent purposeless-ness of toys like these are confined to the US of A. As the growing recession builds into a worldwide depression (with all attendant sociological upheavals likely to ensue), a lot of professional atom-smashers may be very glad they're safely ensconced in a tunnel more than 16 miles in diameter about 350 feet underground on the border of Switzerland and France. Unless they neglected to stock the vending machines, that is… §;o)

For the record, I don't think they'll destroy the earth either. Stranger things than mere mini-holes have been created, the earth is still here. Still, I've always found the psychological tension between utterly arrogant scientists and the regular people they disdain thoroughly fascinating. In popular lore the Frankensteins always whine that they're doing it "for humanity!" when in fact it's humanity they hate most (and do not feel a part of).

If you're gleefully creating monsters in the basement, you've got no business complaining when the neighbors torch your castle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's a lot of tard to cram into three and a half paragraphs.  Congrats.

ETA bolding.  This person had the audacity to accuse me of making veiled threats, this isn't even veiled.  Joy you are an extremely dishonest person.  They orta run you out of McDowell county.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 14 2008,02:49

Joy thinks that scientists are utterly arrogant.

I think that Joy is utterly arrogant.

Therefore ID is science?

 

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

Oh, yeah. There's a reason I don't post here often enough to sign in between clarifications. Never mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's because you are unable to exist in a venue where you don't control the censor stick, other then to hit and run.

Bye now! No doubt we'll be chatting on TT again shortly, as we have been for several months now...  :D

Almost got ya where I want ya!
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 14 2008,07:09

Quote (Joy @ Aug. 13 2008,20:49)
As if I'm somehow not "qualified" to offer such an analogy. That's bullshit, from Zach or from you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't argue against your personal authority, but to the issues. So please don't imply otherwise.

Quote (Joy @ Aug. 13 2008,20:49)
You just thought you'd inject some snide asides (based on your dislike of me personally because I think life is intelligently designed) for Zach's benefit, since he tried so hard at TT to pretend to knowledge he doesn't own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't argue from personal authority (not even on the subject of crystal spheres), but to the issues. So please don't imply otherwise.

The problem, Joy, is that you just sidestep when errors are pointed out to you. For instance, you suggested that the search for the Higgs boson has been completed for energies up to 1 TeV. I provided a recent report from < Fermilab > explaining why this is not correct. You repeated your misstatement, never correcting it.

Just because the Hubble Space Telescope can see a certain magnitude of stars doesn't mean that every such star has been studied in detail or that Hubble has sufficient focusing power to resolve all outstanding questions. Similiarly with particle accelerators. The amount of data that has to be created and analyzed is huge.



If When I < mangle my Latin >, I hope that others will take the trouble to correct my error. I would hate to be thought an uneducated barbarian.

< >

What's this thing? "< ROMANES EUNT DOMUS >"? "People called Romanes they go the house?"
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 14 2008,07:59

I'll try to address the original comment Joy posted here last night.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Um... Guess you're not conversant with "Rickover's Navy." But that's neither here nor there. I have every right to follow the theories and the progress of experiments to test them, with whatever level of understanding I can or care to apply. I've seen evidence of stranger beasties than mere twin mini-holes, so I'm not scared.

Since they choose to take the risks in all our names (without asking, thanks), I might as well follow what they're looking for and why. I need no petty bullshit about my bona-fides on that level, nor do I need anyone's permission to follow my interest. Or the [public] money.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't even know who < Rickover > was until last night.  Still don't know how this is relevant to my explanation of what health physics is and where and by whom it's taught.  Maybe Joy wanted to say that she was educated in the Navy, but the train of thought didn't pause long enough at that station and moved on.  

On to the next complaint.  As I have said before, you are more than welcome to explore physics and you are free to express your opinion about physical theories and experiments.  Likewise, others are free to point out your misconceptions.  Particularly when you < can't get your numbers straight >.  

We now have arrived at Misconception 1 in your comment.  Physicists did not "choose to take the risks in all our names."  The doomsday scenarios, which started floating in connection with RHIC experiments at Brookhaven and were later recycled for the LHC, were the work of outsiders.  To address these concerns, Brookhaven Lab director convened a panel of top-notch particle physicists, both theorists and experimentalists, who assessed the 3 proposed scenarios (production of black holes, decay of the vacuum, formation of strangelets).  < Their opinion > in a nutshell (with lots more details at the link):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"We conclude that there are no credible mechanisms for catastrophic scenarios at RHIC," said committee chair Robert Jaffe, Professor of Physics and Director, Center for Theoretical Physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Accordingly, we see no reason to delay RHIC operation."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the physicists didn't "choose to take the risks," they did not see any.  

On to the next paragraph.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, give me a break. That information was out there all along, it's obvious I've been keeping up. The only 'new' thing here is the LHC. That background and overview was entirely superfluous to the Higgs analogy. Is still immaterial to the Higgs analogy, as offered. As if I'm somehow not "qualified" to offer such an analogy. That's bullshit, from Zach or from you.

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


As far as I can tell, < the Higgs analogy > was meant to support the following thesis: lack of evidence for theory 1 constitutes evidence for competing theory 2.  Let's set aside the main thesis, with which I disagree: a lack of evidence for theory 1 doesn't support theory 2, it is consistent with it; support comes in the form of positive evidence.  Your Higgs analogy illustrates this point.  As I < pointed out above >, the search for the particle has just begun.  Out of the plausible range (100-200 GeV), experiments have ruled out only two regions, 100-114 GeV and 168-172 GeV.  That's 15% of the search space, if you will.  The absence of the Higgs signal in these ranges is consistent with the nonexistence of the Higgs boson, but it doesn't constitute evidence for such a theory.  Once the entire range up to 200 GeV is covered and the Higgs is not there, then you can say: told ya!  

 

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

You just thought you'd inject some snide asides (based on your dislike of me personally because I think life is intelligently designed) for Zach's benefit, since he tried so hard at TT to pretend to knowledge he doesn't own. Even I - who claims to be nobody at all - knew better than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is Misconception 2.  You have no idea what is going on inside my head.  It's the mix of ignorance and arrogance that I dislike.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 15 2008,06:52

Must have hit a nerve.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: I don’t really think Zachriel enjoys parsing English or any other language. I think this is all about disruption, obfuscation and obstructionism. Unfortunately, for some reason, it is something a lot of the “resident” TT critics feel that they need to resort to. Why? What is wrong with having an open minded discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Nothing. That's why I barred this type of obfuscation on the DNA Replication thread. If there is an existing evolutionary pathway and it can be described with a reasonable degree of specificity it will be produced. The fact that these threads tend to degenerate into parsing of words indicates that evidence does not encompass discernable pathways.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< RogerRabbitt >: So a genuine belief in the 1st half of that sentence shouldn't mutate into a fact in the second half, that you are now bound to point out on every possible occasion. If one is being open-minded and interested in genuine dialogue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RogerRabbitt has made a habit of pretending he doesn't have to respond to someone so ignorant, but then posts hundreds of words anyway. That allows him avoid responding to the points I raise, while making vague claims and casting sideways aspersions.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Aug. 15 2008,11:57

Joy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the TT crew often wishes it didn't know me
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And here I thought I had nothing in common with those clowns. I mean, besides the big floppy shoes.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 16 2008,11:59

Oleg wrote...

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't even know who Rickover was until last night.  Still don't know how this is relevant to my explanation of what health physics is and where and by whom it's taught.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As an engineer, I am disappointed (but not surprised) you aren't familiar with the significance of how the U.S. Nuclear Navy came to be.

You see Rickover was one of those people who mixed "ignorance and arrogance" which you dislike.  He made the bold assumption that it was possible to build a nuclear powered naval vessels.  More than that, he decided whether or not it was possible, the US needed to do it.

Assumptions were made (read "arrogant guesses").  Models were built.  Testing was done.  Mistakes were corrected.  There was no room in "Rickover's Navy" for nay-sayers.  Rickover wasted little effort worrying about brusing egos of those who thought their academic degrees or policial positions warranted respect.

Because of her age, knowledge and attitude I strongly suspect Joy was a product of this effort.

Are you familiar with the term "Skunk Works" as it applies to engineering projects?

There are times when the best course of action is act based on bold assumptions rather than wait on "PhD types" being scientifically modest out of fear of making mistakes.

Skunk works is about more than just bypassing red-tape.  It is about intentionally taking the risk of doing something wrong.

A Skunk Works project might be wrong about getting promised funding.  It might even be wrong about the feasibility of completing the whole project.  Skunk Works projects attract a certain personality type.  Those who can be arrogant in the face of ignorance due to a knack for overcoming adversity.

Like all things, there are multiple sides to the issue.  Boldness also has its downside.  I suggest the Yin/Yang conflict provides balance most of the time.  No one view is the Ultimate Truth.

Joy's view has merit as does yours.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 16 2008,12:20



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

Joy's view has merit as does yours.

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



I'm just back from a nice trip to Michigan's upper peninsula with my wife and her parents. Rather than try to sort out the past few pages, could you give a precis of Joy's view?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 16 2008,12:59

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 16 2008,12:20)


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

Joy's view has merit as does yours.

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



I'm just back from a nice trip to Michigan's upper peninsula with my wife and her parents. Rather than try to sort out the past few pages, could you give a precis of Joy's view?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are times when the best course of action is act based on bold assumptions rather than wait on "PhD types" being scientifically modest out of fear of making mistakes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is close.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 16 2008,13:08

"We don't like your (PhD) types round here."



Louis
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 16 2008,13:21

Thought Provoker,

It's one thing to be arrogant.  Lots of scientists are arrogant SOBs (not that I endorse that kind of attitude).  It's a totally different thing when you are consistently wrong about a great many things and don't learn from your errors.  Zachriel < sums up > nicely what's wrong with Joy's comments:


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

The problem, Joy, is that you just sidestep when errors are pointed out to you. For instance, you suggested that the search for the Higgs boson has been completed for energies up to 1 TeV. I provided a recent report from Fermilab explaining why this is not correct. You repeated your misstatement, never correcting it.

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


Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 16 2008,13:25

Hi Wesley,

I was in the middle of typing a long response when I lost it. Here is a shorter version...

I suggest Joy presented her position on the state of the scientific evidence when she wrote...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent Design *is not* a theory, though I do think it's a compelling explanation. As yet not quite formulated in testable terms, but tending in that direction. Those will all still be sub-hypotheses to be tested, the question is what "ID" means as a challenge.

It can't "defeat" evolution because it's not in competition with evolution. I've got no problems with the idea that life forms change - and demonstrably complexity - over deep time. Never did have a problem with it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The conflict is in something Joy calls "dueling metaphysics".

"Randomness did it" on one side.

"God did it" on the other.

Joy was the one who pointed out Penrose/Hameroff's Orch OR model to me.  I suspect she considers this to be a potential ID hypothesis.

I suggest both God and Randomness are metaphysical constructs.  The evidence from Quantum Mechanical experiments show quantum effects are interconnected in both space and time.  Why do we presume true randomness exists?

Orchestrated quantum effects would be a challenge to Status Quo thinking.  Whether it is called Intelligent Design or not is just semantics.  At least to me.

Joy tends to rather intolerant of nay-sayers (aka "ID critics").

EDIT-minor changes
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 16 2008,13:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suggest both God and Randomness are metaphysical constructs.  The evidence from Quantum Mechanical experiments show quantum effects are interconnected in both space and time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Been there, done that, TP.  This stuff is good for cocktail conversations, but there's no science in it.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 16 2008,13:32

Hi Oleg,

Which is why Orch OR and ID are not scientific theories.

Yet.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 16 2008,14:21

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,13:25)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent Design *is not* a theory, though I do think it's a compelling explanation. As yet not quite formulated in testable terms, but tending in that direction. Those will all still be sub-hypotheses to be tested, the question is what "ID" means as a challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

....
Joy was the one who pointed out Penrose/Hameroff's Orch OR model to me.  I suspect she considers this to be a potential ID hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doesn't it bother you at all to constantly have to point out that this isn't science? That it offers no explanation, but is "tending" toward being able to do that? Don't you realize that if it is not "formulated in testable terms" yet, it is not likely to ever reach that hopeful tendency? Can you explain how it can be a "compelling explanation" without being testable? Why not "witches and warlocks designed the world'? That, to me, is equally compelling. And equally testable (i.e. NOT).

Seems to me that ID, TT, and the next bastard son of creationism, the Design Matrix, all share one salient characteristic. They are all a waste of time and energy, and are going nowhere.

Let us know if it ever gets past the "tendency" and becomes testable. Actually, no, why don't you wait until it is tested, and the results get published in a decent peer-reviewed journal.  Thanks.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 16 2008,15:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do we presume true randomness exists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In a nutshell, TP, because it's the only game in town.  

Quantum mechanics postulates that measuring the location of a particle prepared in a state with a wave function psi(x) reveals the particle at a point x with the probability psi(x) squared.  This uncertainty is of a totally different kind than the classical one.  We may have perfect knowledge about the system, meaning that the system has zero entropy, yet the location of the particle is unknown and can only be ascribed a probability.  

A good example of that would be a hydrogen atom in a not-too-noisy environment (a vacuum chamber will do).  Its electron is in the state of lowest energy (-13.6 eV) known as 1s described in any QM textbook as well as < on Wikipedia >.  The state has zero entropy, yet the electron's position is uncertain and is consistent with the probability distribution given by psi(x) squared.  

As you may know, attempts were made to reduce this quantum uncertainty to our ignorance of some hidden classical variables.  However, quantum entanglement indicates that such hidden variables have to possess rather unphysical properties: they must be able to propagate faster than light.  Such entities violate causality and are thus unobservable, even in principle.  So hidden variables are no more physical than the tooth fairy.  

There's no other theory that competes with the standard QM, as far as I know.  So the randomness hypothesis is the only thing we have.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 16 2008,15:22

Is the assumption of randomness really necessary? Would a system of variation that produced all possible alleles in sequential order have different evolutionary consequenses than one that produced them in random order?

Just asking. :p
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 16 2008,15:46

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 16 2008,15:22)
Is the assumption of randomness really necessary? Would a system of variation that produced all possible alleles in sequential order have different evolutionary consequenses than one that produced them in random order?

Just asking. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Randomness may not be necessary in many cases: you can feed deterministic pseudorandom numbers to a Monte Carlo simulator and it will still reproduce thermal properties of the simulated system (unless of course you have a lousy number generator with a short period).  Likewise, evolution can proceed equally well when mutations are deterministic and cover a broad enough range.  

It would be impossible to prove that mutations are truly random: there is no experimental test that can show that, as far as I know.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 16 2008,16:00

The question though, is does it matter? As long as the variation generator produces all possible values for a given string.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 16 2008,20:54

Hi All,

Thank you for the reasoned and reasonable responses.  I will try to return in kind.

Albatrossity2 asked…
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't it bother you at all to constantly have to point out that this isn't science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually it does bother me.  Which is why I pester the folks at Telic Thoughts with...

"Let's do Science!"  :D

If ID proponents focus on the science it addresses two birds with one stone.  They could possibly contribute something useful (if nothing else, provoking introspective re-evaluation) and it detracts from the ID Movement as envisioned by Dr. Dembski and the Discovery Institute.

Albatrossity2 continued with…
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That it offers no explanation, but is "tending" toward being able to do that? Don't you realize that if it is not "formulated in testable terms" yet, it is not likely to ever reach that hopeful tendency? Can you explain how it can be a "compelling explanation" without being testable? Why not "witches and warlocks designed the world'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I disagree with your characterization that things like Orch OR offer “no explanation”.  It potentially offers quite a bit of explanation for the existence and characteristics of consciousness.  For example, it provides a simple explanation for the “Color Phi and cutaneous rabbit anomalies” along with Benjamin Libet’s experimental data showing up to a half a second delay in conscious recognition of events. (< link >)

The easy and straight forward explanation is that the same natural process occurring in quantum experiments like Wheeler’s Delayed Choice is happening in consciousness.  But the implications of accepting that explanation as seriously plausible is too risky for cautious “PhD Types”  exercising scientific modesty.

BTW, Dr. Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose both have PhDs.  However, I don’t clump them into my stereotypical “PhD Types” because they go out of their way to try to explain their ideas in laymen’s terms and aren’t afraid of being ridiculed for doing so.

But bringing this back to Albatrossity's question.  Yes, I wish more ID proponents would provide hypotheses and models.

Oleg wrote...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In a nutshell, TP, because it's the only game in town.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In a nutshell, I disagree.

I believe Dr. Hameroff and Dr. Penrose disagree too.

While you may still want to interpret Dr. Penrose's universal wavefunction as dynamic and truly random, I think it is obvious that it is fixed similar to a set of pseudorandom numbers or, more appropriately, a Mandelbrot Set in four complex dimensions of space-time.

"Randomness did it" verses "God did it" is mostly about which default gets to be presumed.

I think there is merit in questioning the "Randomness did it" presumption.  A potential positive aspect of the few honest ID proponents is that it might cause this presumption to be questioned.

Please note, I do not want to replace it with "God did it."

I am leaning towards "orchestrated quantum effects did it".

I think there is some scientific evidence to back this up.  Granted, the evidence is currently weak.  But it is getting stronger, IMO.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 16 2008,21:04

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,20:54)
Albatrossity2 asked…
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't it bother you at all to constantly have to point out that this isn't science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually it does bother me.  Which is why I pester the folks at Telic Thoughts with...

"Let's do Science!"  :D

If ID proponents focus on the science it addresses two birds with one stone.  They could possibly contribute something useful (if nothing else, provoking introspective re-evaluation) and it detracts from the ID Movement as envisioned by Dr. Dembski and the Discovery Institute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But. They. Can't. Do. Science.

Or won't.

It really doesn't matter; either way. Providing positive evidence for teleology without identifying where, when, how, or whom is impossible.

That's why all of the activity at TT and UD (and yes, I do consider them to be siblings of similar ineptitude) is nothing more than mental masturbation.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 16 2008,21:35

OK, I thought that there might be something of substance at issue in talking about "views", but it seems to be a synonym for "opinion" in this case. Everybody has opinions, and they can be "valid" in the sense that, yes, a person really does have that opinion.

The thing is that once one starts checking opinions against the available evidence, some opinions do turn out to be more or less valid than others.

 

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

The conflict is in something Joy calls "dueling metaphysics".

"Randomness did it" on one side.

"God did it" on the other.

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



And metaphysics does describe that well. It also appears to partake liberally of false dichotomy. "Rickover's Navy" may be cryptic for some, but others appear not to have heard the phrase "secondary causes".
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 16 2008,23:05

Hi Wesley,

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, I thought that there might be something of substance at issue in talking about "views"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt anyone who knows even a little bit about you believes for a minute you actually thought something new and substantial came from an ID proponent like Joy.

Please, don't get me wrong.  I understand your motivations.  At least I think I do.  I suspect we have similar goals, just different methods.

Do you remember the first time we "met" on the internet?

I had just started commenting on Telic Thoughts when Uncommon Descent suddenly disappeared from Google searches which resulted in a flurry of accusations and counter-accusations.

I commented on Telic Thoughts these kind of activities were counter productive.  Their response was to dare me to post on Austringer, which I did (< link >).

I was pleasantly surprised that my comment was unmoderated and your response was reasonable.

One of the things I have noticed over the intervening couple of years is the circle-the-wagon attitude from both camps.

Also, both sides use the tactic I call "Shield Bashing" (using a "defensive" shield as an offensive weapon).  It is similar to small children saying "but he/she started it" as an excuse for bad behavior.

It doesn't matter who started it.  If both sides continue to argue politics instead of the science, science will lose.

I know I am probably simply wasting bandwidth by offering my "view", but there it is.

By the way, I do appreciate the respect you and others of shown me, especially in these recent comments.  Maybe there is hope for open dialog after all.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 16 2008,23:10

P.S.

When you said...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also appears to partake liberally of false dichotomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree.  That is why I call my musing "The Third Choice" on Telic Thoughts.

Orchestrated quantum effects is neither random nor divine.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 16 2008,23:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While you may still want to interpret Dr. Penrose's universal wavefunction as dynamic and truly random, I think it is obvious that it is fixed similar to a set of pseudorandom numbers or, more appropriately, a Mandelbrot Set in four complex dimensions of space-time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This makes no sense, TP.  The < Mandelbrot set > is defined in the complex plane or equivalently in a two-dimensional real space.  Space-time is four-dimensional.  What the heck are you talking about?
Posted by: keiths on Aug. 16 2008,23:37

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,21:05)
It doesn't matter who started it.  If both sides continue to argue politics instead of the science, science will lose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One "side" has never done any science.  The other side continues to do good science on a massive scale.  

The only way science will lose is if the first side wins.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 17 2008,00:18

Hi Oleg,

Thank you for providing the link to the Mandelbrot Set I was too lazy to do.

As to your questions.  From page 179 of Penrose's The Road to Reality...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Up to this point, we have been considering spaces of only one dimension.  The reader might well be puzzled by this remark, since the complex plane, the Riemann sphere, and various other Riemann surfaces have featured strongly in several of the previous chapters.  However, in the context of holomorphic functions, these surfaces are really to be thought of as being, in essence, of only one dimension, this dimension being a COMPLEX dimension..."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here, Penrose is explaining that a complex dimension is still a single dimension.  This is at the start of Chapter 10 where Penrose starts laying the foundations for understanding Chapter 18, Minkowskian geometry, where he describes the observable universe as being four COMPLEX dimensions of space-time and how the "clock paradox" is a geometry problem that ceases to be a paradox when recognized as such.  This eventually leads to Chapter 23 titled The entangled quantum world.  While Penrose doesn't argue for orchestration in this chapter, he is clearly indicating quantum effects are interconnected (i.e. "entangled").

As for the Mandelbrot Set.  If we can forgo semantic concerns, I am trying to convey the concept of a wavefunction in four complex dimensions.

When you realise that Mandelbrot Set is the result of a very simple formula of only one dimension (albeit complex) it helps communicate what a four dimensional version would be like.

The Mandelbrot Set demonstrates a combination of apparent chaos and patterns.  A four dimensional version would do something similar.  If one of the dimensions was time, some parts would be indistiguishable from random chaos but there would also be patterns.

A question for you...

If time is a property of the four dimensional universe, how could the universe's wavefunction be anything but static?
Posted by: jeffox on Aug. 17 2008,02:02

TP, you wrote above:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As an engineer, I am disappointed (but not surprised) you aren't familiar with the significance of how the U.S. Nuclear Navy came to be.

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



TP, I was in "Rickover's Navy".  I was a qualified nuclear electrician on a 688 class submarine.



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

You see Rickover was one of those people who mixed "ignorance and arrogance" which you dislike.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While I never met Admiral Rickover, I heard an awful lot about him from many people who did meet him.  Some from people who knew him well.  I never heard them speak that way about him.



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

He made the bold assumption that it was possible to build a nuclear powered naval vessels.  More than that, he decided whether or not it was possible, the US needed to do it.

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



Ummm, he wasn't exactly alone in doing that.  While I'll agree that he certainly was a key player, he didn't exactly act in a vacuum, either.  Most people were already aware of the tactical possibilities of submarines anyway - nuclear power only made them far more so.  Surface craft are nothing but targets anyway.  :)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assumptions were made (read "arrogant guesses").  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A stretch, at best.  The stuff that I saw was pretty well-designed, science-wise.  Even the very early stuff was well within the scientific paradigm.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Models were built.  Testing was done.  Mistakes were corrected.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good engineering projects are like that.  Duh.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was no room in "Rickover's Navy" for nay-sayers.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I saw plenty of naysaying.  If anybody were to order me to put the plant into an unsafe condition, I could, and was literally supposed to, tell them NO, SIR!  As long as I was right I was OK.  It was a unique system, but it did work well.

This may not be quite what you mean by this, but then your point is rather moot.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rickover wasted little effort worrying about brusing egos of those who thought their academic degrees or policial positions warranted respect.

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



Admirals can do that, believe it or not.  It's a tradition that goes waaaaaay back.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because of her age, knowledge and attitude I strongly suspect Joy was a product of this effort.

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



I totally disagree.  Naval nuclear power and civilian nuclear power are two very different things.  Joy has also written about a "nuclear mafia" that I strongly think does not exist.  I've seen no evidence for it, anyway (and I should have, if it DID actually exist).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you familiar with the term "Skunk Works" as it applies to engineering projects?

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



I never heard that term the entire time I was involved with my submarine.  Or in my (somewhat extensive) nuclear training prior to my actual service.  To the best of my knowledge, this term was applied to some CIA-based secret aircraft somesuch.  Blackbird or something like that.  Real expensive stuff.  Good for what, I dunno.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are times when the best course of action is act based on bold assumptions rather than wait on "PhD types" being scientifically modest out of fear of making mistakes.

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



Very, very rare times, I think.  Myself, I can't think of a single historical example that works, successfully, for the above statement.  I can think of many that make it untrue.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Skunk works is about more than just bypassing red-tape.  It is about intentionally taking the risk of doing something wrong.

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



While I'm not a big fan of "red tape", I recognize that it's usually there for a reason.  Usually several good ones.  Intentionally taking the risk of doing something wrong is what I call TARD.  I think most adult humans would agree there.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A Skunk Works project might be wrong about getting promised funding.  It might even be wrong about the feasibility of completing the whole project.  Skunk Works projects attract a certain personality type.  Those who can be arrogant in the face of ignorance due to a knack for overcoming adversity.

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



So you're saying tard attracts tard to do tard to and/or for the tard.  How tard!   :)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like all things, there are multiple sides to the issue.  Boldness also has its downside.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, here we can agree.  I wouldn't call tard boldness, however.  No, I call tard tard; and I think that all tard is bad.  It's certainly not science or scientific.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suggest the Yin/Yang conflict provides balance most of the time.  No one view is the Ultimate Truth.

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



Interesting philosophical opinions.  I don't think that they apply to your above assertions, however.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy's view has merit as does yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I disagree that Joy's view has merit.  Nuclear mafia, indeed!  I do keep my viewpoint open enough to allow a change, should Joy actually begin making scientific sense and tone down the rhetoric.  I also don't think that your point(s) above are meritless, I just disagree (based on pretty close personal experience) with your assessments of Rickover, the U.S. Navy, and Joy.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 17 2008,08:17

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,23:05)
Hi Wesley,

You wrote...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, I thought that there might be something of substance at issue in talking about "views"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt anyone who knows even a little bit about you believes for a minute you actually thought something new and substantial came from an ID proponent like Joy.

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



Your statement wasn't that Joy had produced something "new and substantial"; you wrote that her "view" was "just as valid". I was interested in finding out what the character of the discussion was that would permit comparison of the validity of views, and you provided that... there was, though, little that could be tied to anything of an empirical nature.

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,23:05)

Please, don't get me wrong.  I understand your motivations.  At least I think I do.  I suspect we have similar goals, just different methods.

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



Whatever. Some differences may suggest themselves further on.

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,23:05)

Do you remember the first time we "met" on the internet?

I had just started commenting on Telic Thoughts when Uncommon Descent suddenly disappeared from Google searches which resulted in a flurry of accusations and counter-accusations.

I commented on Telic Thoughts these kind of activities were counter productive.  Their response was to dare me to post on Austringer, which I did (< link >).

I was pleasantly surprised that my comment was unmoderated and your response was reasonable.

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



Not so surprised though, that you should have found it worth reporting < back to TT as to what you learned >. And looking at the thread there, nobody "dared" you to do anything; it was entirely your idea to repeat your comment in a different venue.

I've been in discussions online since the mid-1980s. If you had known something about me, there would have been little of "surprise" there. The instance noted and your comment is another of those cases where "views" are just opinions; you didn't like the fact that opinions were exchanged on the topic and said so at TT and Austringer. It's no skin off my back to have you disagree on something like that.

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,23:05)

One of the things I have noticed over the intervening couple of years is the circle-the-wagon attitude from both camps.

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



But this gets my goat. It is not simply a matter of "view" here; there has been a long-term, well-funded, determined effort to intrusively insert narrow religious views into public school curricula. There really is a public policy issue at the center of this, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Those of us who prefer that the government stay out of the preaching business but remain in the science instruction business "circle the wagons" because the Indians really are on the warpath. (That's your unfortunate choice of metaphor, not mine.)

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,23:05)

Also, both sides use the tactic I call "Shield Bashing" (using a "defensive" shield as an offensive weapon).  It is similar to small children saying "but he/she started it" as an excuse for bad behavior.

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



What bad behavior? The fact that I and others choose to respond to and resist intrusive efforts to put narrow religious views into public schools does not make us guilty of "bad behavior". There's no sale on that argument.

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,23:05)

It doesn't matter who started it.  If both sides continue to argue politics instead of the science, science will lose.

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



There is nothing but politics at issue here. Science loses nothing by having people stand up for the integrity of science education and the separation of church and state.

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,23:05)

I know I am probably simply wasting bandwidth by offering my "view", but there it is.

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



I wouldn't say that. I appreciate knowing where people stand.

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,23:05)

By the way, I do appreciate the respect you and others of shown me, especially in these recent comments.  Maybe there is hope for open dialog after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You shouldn't mistake mostly polite discussion for respect.
Posted by: Nerull on Aug. 17 2008,08:17

Quote (jeffox @ Aug. 17 2008,03:02)
TP, you wrote above:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As an engineer, I am disappointed (but not surprised) you aren't familiar with the significance of how the U.S. Nuclear Navy came to be.

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



TP, I was in "Rickover's Navy".  I was a qualified nuclear electrician on a 688 class submarine.

 

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

You see Rickover was one of those people who mixed "ignorance and arrogance" which you dislike.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While I never met Admiral Rickover, I heard an awful lot about him from many people who did meet him.  Some from people who knew him well.  I never heard them speak that way about him.

 

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

He made the bold assumption that it was possible to build a nuclear powered naval vessels.  More than that, he decided whether or not it was possible, the US needed to do it.

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



Ummm, he wasn't exactly alone in doing that.  While I'll agree that he certainly was a key player, he didn't exactly act in a vacuum, either.  Most people were already aware of the tactical possibilities of submarines anyway - nuclear power only made them far more so.  Surface craft are nothing but targets anyway.  :)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assumptions were made (read "arrogant guesses").  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A stretch, at best.  The stuff that I saw was pretty well-designed, science-wise.  Even the very early stuff was well within the scientific paradigm.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Models were built.  Testing was done.  Mistakes were corrected.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good engineering projects are like that.  Duh.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was no room in "Rickover's Navy" for nay-sayers.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I saw plenty of naysaying.  If anybody were to order me to put the plant into an unsafe condition, I could, and was literally supposed to, tell them NO, SIR!  As long as I was right I was OK.  It was a unique system, but it did work well.

This may not be quite what you mean by this, but then your point is rather moot.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rickover wasted little effort worrying about brusing egos of those who thought their academic degrees or policial positions warranted respect.

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



Admirals can do that, believe it or not.  It's a tradition that goes waaaaaay back.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because of her age, knowledge and attitude I strongly suspect Joy was a product of this effort.

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



I totally disagree.  Naval nuclear power and civilian nuclear power are two very different things.  Joy has also written about a "nuclear mafia" that I strongly think does not exist.  I've seen no evidence for it, anyway (and I should have, if it DID actually exist).

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you familiar with the term "Skunk Works" as it applies to engineering projects?

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



I never heard that term the entire time I was involved with my submarine.  Or in my (somewhat extensive) nuclear training prior to my actual service.  To the best of my knowledge, this term was applied to some CIA-based secret aircraft somesuch.  Blackbird or something like that.  Real expensive stuff.  Good for what, I dunno.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are times when the best course of action is act based on bold assumptions rather than wait on "PhD types" being scientifically modest out of fear of making mistakes.

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



Very, very rare times, I think.  Myself, I can't think of a single historical example that works, successfully, for the above statement.  I can think of many that make it untrue.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Skunk works is about more than just bypassing red-tape.  It is about intentionally taking the risk of doing something wrong.

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



While I'm not a big fan of "red tape", I recognize that it's usually there for a reason.  Usually several good ones.  Intentionally taking the risk of doing something wrong is what I call TARD.  I think most adult humans would agree there.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A Skunk Works project might be wrong about getting promised funding.  It might even be wrong about the feasibility of completing the whole project.  Skunk Works projects attract a certain personality type.  Those who can be arrogant in the face of ignorance due to a knack for overcoming adversity.

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



So you're saying tard attracts tard to do tard to and/or for the tard.  How tard!   :)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like all things, there are multiple sides to the issue.  Boldness also has its downside.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, here we can agree.  I wouldn't call tard boldness, however.  No, I call tard tard; and I think that all tard is bad.  It's certainly not science or scientific.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suggest the Yin/Yang conflict provides balance most of the time.  No one view is the Ultimate Truth.

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



Interesting philosophical opinions.  I don't think that they apply to your above assertions, however.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy's view has merit as does yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I disagree that Joy's view has merit.  Nuclear mafia, indeed!  I do keep my viewpoint open enough to allow a change, should Joy actually begin making scientific sense and tone down the rhetoric.  I also don't think that your point(s) above are meritless, I just disagree (based on pretty close personal experience) with your assessments of Rickover, the U.S. Navy, and Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Skunkworks was a division of Lockheed Martin, developing aircraft. They built the U-2, F-117, SR-71, and F-22. They are currently working on the F-35. Not all of their projects are secret, since you know about the F-22 and F-35.

The name is trademarked by Lockheed, but has been adopted anyway to describe branches of companies that are secretive and given largely free reign to play with ideas.

They don't do what they do by ignoring science and pretending to be physicists, though. Someone like Joy wouldn't last a day. You have to know your stuff, not bullshit.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 17 2008,08:31



Original Skonk Works.
Posted by: JAM on Aug. 17 2008,12:17

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,11:59)
There are times when the best course of action is act based on bold assumptions rather than wait on "PhD types" being scientifically modest out of fear of making mistakes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP, this is one of the dumbest things you've ever written.

PhD types, in reality, make lots of mistakes. Doing science (something you are afraid to do) involves lots of mistakes. If a biologist gets 1 of 10 experiments to work, she's doing great. If an engineer gets 1 of 10 designs to work, he's fired.

Quit projecting. Your characterization of the "sides" in the ID dispute is fundamentally wrong.
Posted by: JAM on Aug. 17 2008,12:21

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,13:25)

The conflict is in something Joy calls "dueling metaphysics".

"Randomness did it" on one side.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP, this is false and you're FOS. Evolution isn't random. Never has been, never will be.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy was the one who pointed out Penrose/Hameroff's Orch OR model to me.  I suspect she considers this to be a potential ID hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BS. There's no such thing as "a potential ID hypothesis." It either is or isn't.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suggest both God and Randomness are metaphysical constructs.  The evidence from Quantum Mechanical experiments show quantum effects are interconnected in both space and time.  Why do we presume true randomness exists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We don't, particularly wrt mutations. You falsely attribute that position to us. Perhaps you should listen more and pontificate less?
Posted by: JAM on Aug. 17 2008,12:28

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,20:54)
Actually it does bother me.  Which is why I pester the folks at Telic Thoughts with...

"Let's do Science!"  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You say that a lot, but you never do any science. You quote and promote lame-ass appeals to authority.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If ID proponents focus on the science it addresses two birds with one stone.  They could possibly contribute something useful (if nothing else, provoking introspective re-evaluation) and it detracts from the ID Movement as envisioned by Dr. Dembski and the Discovery Institute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID proponents, including those at TT, will never focus on the science. They reject the scientific method itself.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I disagree with your characterization that things like Orch OR offer “no explanation”.  It potentially offers quite a bit of explanation for the existence and characteristics of consciousness.  For example, it provides a simple explanation for the “Color Phi and cutaneous rabbit anomalies” along with Benjamin Libet’s experimental data showing up to a half a second delay in conscious recognition of events. (< link >)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we're doing science, we don't stop at explanation. We do predictions and we test the predictions empirically.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 But the implications of accepting that explanation as seriously plausible is too risky for cautious “PhD Types”  exercising scientific modesty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you're simply lying, TP, and I say so with utter sincerity.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, Dr. Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose both have PhDs.  However, I don’t clump them into my stereotypical “PhD Types” because they go out of their way to try to explain their ideas in laymen’s terms and aren’t afraid of being ridiculed for doing so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe your stereotype is a figment of your imagination.

Hint: appeals to authority aren't scientific.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But bringing this back to Albatrossity's question.  Yes, I wish more ID proponents would provide hypotheses and models.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They won't.

And why did you omit the far more important activities of predictions and testing of predictions? I hypothesize that you did so because it wouldn't fit your fraudulent stereotype of "PhD types" and your attempts to draw scientific equivalence between one side that rejects the scientific method and another side that does real science.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 17 2008,13:18

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 17 2008,00:18)
Hi Oleg,

Thank you for providing the link to the Mandelbrot Set I was too lazy to do.

As to your questions.  From page 179 of Penrose's The Road to Reality...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Up to this point, we have been considering spaces of only one dimension.  The reader might well be puzzled by this remark, since the complex plane, the Riemann sphere, and various other Riemann surfaces have featured strongly in several of the previous chapters.  However, in the context of holomorphic functions, these surfaces are really to be thought of as being, in essence, of only one dimension, this dimension being a COMPLEX dimension..."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here, Penrose is explaining that a complex dimension is still a single dimension.  This is at the start of Chapter 10 where Penrose starts laying the foundations for understanding Chapter 18, Minkowskian geometry, where he describes the observable universe as being four COMPLEX dimensions of space-time and how the "clock paradox" is a geometry problem that ceases to be a paradox when recognized as such.  This eventually leads to Chapter 23 titled The entangled quantum world.  While Penrose doesn't argue for orchestration in this chapter, he is clearly indicating quantum effects are interconnected (i.e. "entangled").

As for the Mandelbrot Set.  If we can forgo semantic concerns, I am trying to convey the concept of a wavefunction in four complex dimensions.

When you realise that Mandelbrot Set is the result of a very simple formula of only one dimension (albeit complex) it helps communicate what a four dimensional version would be like.

The Mandelbrot Set demonstrates a combination of apparent chaos and patterns.  A four dimensional version would do something similar.  If one of the dimensions was time, some parts would be indistiguishable from random chaos but there would also be patterns.

A question for you...

If time is a property of the four dimensional universe, how could the universe's wavefunction be anything but static?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP,

Penrose's 4-dimensional complex space is the twistor manifold, not the spacetime.  The two are related (you can use twistors to describe light rays in Minkowski space) but they are not the same.  

You can surely generate patterns a la Mandelbrot in higher-dimensional spaces, but unless you specify how such a structure is connected to the wave function of a particle, this is daydreaming.  

Anyway, you and I have gone over these things at length and I see no further point in doing so.
Posted by: jeffox on Aug. 17 2008,13:38

Twas writ above:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Skunkworks was a division of Lockheed Martin, developing aircraft. They built the U-2, F-117, SR-71, and F-22. They are currently working on the F-35. Not all of their projects are secret, since you know about the F-22 and F-35.

The name is trademarked by Lockheed, but has been adopted anyway to describe branches of companies that are secretive and given largely free reign to play with ideas.

They don't do what they do by ignoring science and pretending to be physicists, though. Someone like Joy wouldn't last a day. You have to know your stuff, not bullshit.

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



Thank you for the information/clarification, Nerull.

AND NOW BREAKING NEWS!!!  SUPER-SECRET VIEW INSIDE THE SKUNK WORKS - NEWS AT 11:00!!!



Skunk Works Executive Director/President/Spokesperson/Lawyer, Mr. W. Easel, (pictured below) had this to say:



"I DON' KNOW NUTTIN' 'BOUT 'NUTTIN.  GOT DAT?  WRITE DAT DOWN, RIGHT NOW!  NOW GO 'WAY, HEAR?"

:)    :)    :)     :)     :)
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 17 2008,14:16

Hi Jeffox,

Thank you for your response.

Based on your background with the 688, I take it you are familiar with Mk48 and Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes?

Did you know there was a Mk48 production facility in Cleveland, Ohio (around E185th street)?

I spent over 10 years in the R&D division there.

And, yes, I am familiar with the concept that, to a submariner, every vessel on the surface is presumed to be a target and every vessel below the surface is presumed to be an enemy.

I especially liked your insight from inside a nuclear sub because it further confirmed my perceptions.

As to "Rickover's Navy"…

On August 9, 1945 the US dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan.  That totally exhausted the US nuclear capabilities at the time.  There were no more atomic bombs.

Seven years later, the Nautilus' keel was laid.  Three years after that the Nautilus was "Underway on nuclear power."  In ten years the US nuclear weaponry went from the equivalent of two sticks of dynamite to a battle tank.

1955 was the year the Nautilus started its history making journeys that included logging 60,000 nautical miles before sailing under the Arctic Ice cap in 1958.

The point is that the US pulled off a monumental engineering feat under Rickover’s leadership.

For good, or for bad, Rickover did not wait for scientists to work out all of the details before proceeding.  When bold endeavors succeed, they are applauded and presumed to have been executed with appropriate caution.  When bold endeavors fail, it is dismissed as an unwarranted mixture of “arrogance and ignorance”.

1961 was the year the USSR's first nuclear sub, K19, set sail for the first time.  During its maiden voyage a coolant leak in the reactor forced K19's captain to order crewmembers to break its containment to effect repairs (a suicide mission).  The contaminated K19 was towed back to port.

Rickoff and his very large team (personally handpicked by Rickoff) succeeded, the Russians failed.

I’m not suggesting it was luck, quite the opposite.  Rickoff worked hard to justify his arrogance.  I have no doubt that in the 1960’s, especially aboard an US Nuclear Attack Sub, that few would say Rickover took unwarranted risks in the face of unknowns.

However, I strongly suggest a decade or two prior to this the general opinion of Rickoff was quite different.  From an old < Times article >…

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 1946, Captain Rickover, still a sharp, square peg confronted by polished, rounded holes, learned that the Bureau of Ships had decided to send a captain and four junior officers to Oak Ridge to study nuclear energy. He got the job. (No other qualified captain applied.) Nuclear physics in those days was something to scare even brilliant officers.

Since his decision to go to Oak Ridge, Rickover's life has been a battle to get the Navy and the atom together. It was a battle of a type that has been fought before—between the necessary conservatism of a military organization and the equally urgent necessity to keep it up to date.

Engineer Rickover freely concedes that the reactor of the Nautilus will not be the best conceivable. "Sure," he says, "the scientists can think up thousands of reactors. But the Navy wanted a nuclear submarine, and it wanted one fast. We picked a simple type of reactor that we knew a lot about already. If we'd waited for the scientists, we'd still be fooling around."

The simple reactor of the Nautilus is not simple by normal standards. Its official name is STR (Submarine Thermal Reactor), because the neutrons that are its "fire" are slowed down to the "thermal" speed of molecules in everyday matter. Basically, it is a "core" containing enriched uranium,† cooled by ordinary water that is kept by high pressure from turning into steam. The water comes out of the reactor hot and radioactive. Tightly shielded against radiation, it goes through a "heat exchanger" (a kind of boiler), where it turns a second batch of water into high-pressure steam. The steam. which is not radioactive, runs a turbine that turns the propellers.

Zirconium. The STR, designed by Argonne National Laboratory and Westinghouse Electric Corp., was a staggering exercise in pioneer engineering. One enormous problem was the material for tubes and other structural parts in the reacting core. It must resist corrosion, and it must not absorb too many neutrons. The answer was the rare metal zirconium, then a laboratory curiosity. Its metallurgy was shockingly difficult, but Rickover pushed it so hard that he called himself "Mr. Zirconium."

Pumps to circulate the high-pressure, radioactive water had to have perfection never demanded before. The shield to enclose the radioactive parts was a formidable problem. So was the control system whose function is to keep the reactor from destroying itself and the submarine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My point is the Status Quo needs an occasional “sharp, square peg” confronting its “polished, rounded holes” to provoke needed change in thinking.
Posted by: dhogaza on Aug. 17 2008,15:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On August 9, 1945 the US dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan.  That totally exhausted the US nuclear capabilities at the time.  There were no more atomic bombs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not exactly, there were several cores along with initiators and high-explosive shells available.  They required hand-assembly but could be delivered with a few days' notice.

Much of what you ascribe to Rickover applies equally well to the Manhattan Project.  The Project, under Groves, pursued multiple methods of separating U235 and U238, building as research progressed.  Has more to do with being willing to optimize for time rather than money rather than any particularly enlightening insight into the management of large-scale engineering and research projects.  Everything that was done, though, was based on sound engineering and sound science, with the pace of engineering and construction paced as closely as possible to the research.

Rickover's Nautilus was an engineering project, no real research was necessary.  The Manhattan Project had led to the construction of working reactors for the production of plutonium.  A variety of reactor designs fell out from the Project.  The engineering problem was to fit one into the hull of a submarine, to make operation reliable under sea (and undersea) conditions, under the control of naval enlisted men and officers, etc etc etc.   And most of that problem was solved by Westinghouse, who was contracted to design and build the reactor ...
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 17 2008,15:41

Hi Wesley,

You wrote...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...there has been a long-term, well-funded, determined effort to intrusively insert narrow religious views into public school curricula. There really is a public policy issue at the center of this, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Those of us who prefer that the government stay out of the preaching business but remain in the science instruction business "circle the wagons" because the Indians really are on the warpath. (That's your unfortunate choice of metaphor, not mine.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I suggested earlier.  Our motivations are similar, it is out methods that differ.

I am very well aware of what the Discovery Institute's goals are.  I often quote the Wedge document on TT whenever someone suggests the ID Movement isn't religious.  I also have some quotes from Dembski and Wells clearly showing their motivations in their own words.

It is no accident that Telic Thoughts rarely tried to defend the Discovery Institute or Uncommon Descent any more.  Telic Thoughts is generally trying to maintain its independence.

It is my understanding Mike Gene and Telic Thoughts broke away from ARN over the issue of teaching ID in school. Those at Telic Thoughts opposed it.  Mike Gene’s forward in The Design Matrix included…

“I should make it explicitly clear from the start that I did not write this book to help those seeking to change the way we teach science to our kids. I do not argue that design deserves to be known as science.  At best, Intelligent Design may only be a nascent proto-science and thus does not belong in the public school curriculum. Nor does this book argue that evolution is false and deserves to be criticized in the public school curriculum. If the truth is to be told, I oppose such actions.” (pg. xi)

I won’t be surprised if you express suspicion and doubt.  But it matters little for my purposes whether or not those at Telic Thoughts are being 100% truthful as long as they stand by what they say.  I help encourage this by pointing out conflicts between the ID Movement and ID Science.  I am a vocal critic of the ID Movement.  I tend to be supportive of the stated goals of ID Science.

Of course, I now expect to hear something like…
There is no difference because there is no such thing as “ID Science”.

Ironically, I hear similar comments from ID proponents (although they just stop at “no difference”).

My agenda, my method, my goal is to provoke thinking.

I am offering an ID Hypothesis with some logic and evidence to back it up.  This puts ID proponents in the position of arguing a hypothesis that is at least as good or arguing against mine.  At least it is an argument about science.

Telling a group of people they are stupid and should shut up will only motivate them to ignore you.  It will also justify their presumption that it would do them no good to try to understand, to try to think.

Then they get elected to school boards.

I offer the Telic Thoughts is different from Uncommon Descent.  Even if you think the difference is insignificant, it wouldn't hurt to recognise that it is different in a positive way.

Unless, of course, it is your intent to force the different indian tribes into uniting against a common foe.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You shouldn't mistake mostly polite discussion for respect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't and didn't.
Posted by: rhmc on Aug. 17 2008,16:04

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,12:59)
There are times when the best course of action is act based on bold assumptions rather than wait on "PhD types" being scientifically modest out of fear of making mistakes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i have yet to see an example of "bold assumptions" that the "phd types" didn't go along with (or initiate) for fear of making mistakes.

do you have a few?  a couple?  one?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 17 2008,16:27

"Thought Provoker":



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

Telling a group of people they are stupid and should shut up will only motivate them to ignore you.  It will also justify their presumption that it would do them no good to try to understand, to try to think.

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



My aim is to have our best accountable science taught to students. I don't care what anyone wants to believe when they are at church; my interest in their non-science or anti-science views stops exactly when they exit the realm of public education policy. I don't care if they want to talk it up outside of that context. Back in the bad old days of dial-up modems and bulletin boards, my CNS BBS carried one of the largest selections of antievolution files of any BBS around. My view was that some of the best stuff for demonstrating the problems with religious antievolution was their own falsehood-laden mendacious literature.

So if you are directing that quoted aspersion at me, I'm expecting either an example or a retraction to follow.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 17 2008,16:56

Hi Jam,

There are times I miss Smokey.  I thought the Smokey/Bradford debates were classics.  However, I can easily understand how debating Bradford can be...  well... frustrating.

BTW, I like your "Like a rock, only dumber" Bushism.

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doing science (something you are afraid to do) involves lots of mistakes. If a biologist gets 1 of 10 experiments to work, she's doing great. If an engineer gets 1 of 10 designs to work, he's fired.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would love to do science but they pay me better for being an engineer.  You see, I have the knack and experience to quick grasp complicated systems and make 9.9 out of 10 designs to work the first time.  And we do it on time and within budget.

However, someday I plan to attempt the Wheeler's Delayed Choice Quantum experiment for myself.  In an earlier comment, Wesley pointed out a Scientific American article showing how quantum experiments can be done with readily available laser diodes and filters.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution isn't random. Never has been, never will be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And ID doesn't require God to be the designer.

The phrase "random mutation and natural selection" generally presumes mutations are random with respect to selection.

Not all "ID critics" agree with that.  Not all "ID proponents" presume God is the designer.

I'm the one suggesting there is middle ground between the two positions.  The Third Choice presumes neither God nor Randomness.  If you agree then welcome to the club.

You will have to excuse me for not exponding very much on my open and honest responses to Albatrossity's questions.  If he/she wants further explanation of what I mean by "PhD Types" I will give it.  Hint: I have run across many "PhD Types" who don't have PhDs.

As for the predictions and experiments surrounding Penrose/Hameroff's Orch OR < here is a link > to a 1998 paper that includes...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Appendix 2. Testable predictions of the Orch OR model

Here major assumptions (bold) and corresponding testable predictions (numbered) of the Orch OR model are listed:

Neuronal microtubules are directly necessary for consciousness

1. Synaptic sensitivity and plasticity correlate with cytoskeletal architecture/activities in both pre­synaptic and post­synaptic neuronal cytoplasm.

2. Actions of psychoactive drugs including antidepressants involve neuronal microtubules.

3. Neuronal microtubule­stabilizing/protecting drugs may prove useful in Alzheimer's disease, ischemia, and other conditions.

[B}Microtubules communicate by cooperative dynamics of tubulin subunits [/B]

4. Laser spectroscopy (e.g. Vos et al, 1993) will demonstrate coherent gigaHz Frhlich excitations in microtubules.

5. Dynamic vibrational states in microtubule networks correlate with cellular activity.

6. Stable patterns of microtubule­cytoskeletal networks (including neurofilaments) and intra­microtubule diversity of tubulin states correlate with memory and neural behavior.

7. Cortical dendrites contain largely "A­lattice" microtubules (compared to "B­lattice" microtubule, A­lattice microtubules are preferable for information processingTuszynski et al., 1995)

Quantum coherence occurs in microtubules

8. Studies similar to the famous "Aspect experiment" in physics (which verified non­local quantum correlations­­Aspect et al., 1982) will demonstrate quantum correlations between spatially separated microtubule subunit states a) on the same microtubule, b) on different microtubules in the same neuron, c) on microtubules in different neurons connected by gap junctions.

9. Experiments with SQUIDs (Superconducting Quantum Interference Device) such as those suggested by Leggett (1984) will detect phases of quantum coherence in microtubules.

10. Coherent photons will be detected from microtubules.

Microtubule quantum coherence requires isolation by cycles of surrounding actin­gelation

11. Neuronal microtubules in cortical dendrites and other brain areas are intermittently surrounded by tightly cross-linked actin gels.

12. Cycles of gelation and dissolution in neuronal cytoplasm occur concomitantly with membrane electrical activity (e.g. synchronized 40 Hz activities in dendrites).

13. The sol­gel cycles surrounding microtubules are regulated by calcium ions released and reabsorbed by calmodulin associated with microtubules.

Macroscopic quantum coherence occurs among MT in hundreds/thousands of distributed neurons and glia linked by gap junctions

14. Electrotonic gap junctions link synchronously firing networks of cortical neurons, and thalamo­cortical networks

15. Quantum tunneling occurs across gap junctions.

16. Quantum correlation occurs between microtubule subunit states in different neurons connected by gap junctions (the microtubule "Aspect experiment" in different neurons)

The amount of neural tissue involved in a conscious event is inversely proportional to the event time by E=hbar/T

17. The amount of neural mass involved in a particular cognitive task or conscious event (as measurable by near­future advances in brain imaging techniques) is inversely proportional to the pre­conscious time (e.g. visual perception, reaction times).

An isolated, unperturbed quantum system self­collapses according to E=hbar/T

18. Isolated technological quantum superpositions will self­collapse according to E=/T. (Preliminary discussions of such experiments involving superposition of crystals have begun between Roger Penrose and Anton Zeilinger.)

Microtubule­based cilia/centriole structures are quantum optical devices

19. Microtubule­based cilia in rods and cones directly detect visual photons and connect with retinal glial cell microtubule via gap junctions.

A critical degree of cytoskeletal assembly (coinciding with the onset of rudimentary consciousness) had significant impact on the rate of evolution.

20. Fossil records and comparison with present­day biology will show that organisms which emerged during the early Cambrian period with onset roughly 540 million years ago had critical degrees of microtubule­cytoskeletal size, complexity and capability for quantum isolation (e.g. tight actin gels, gap junctions; see Hameroff, 1998b).

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


Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 17 2008,17:14

Hi Wesley,

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if you are directing that quoted aspersion at me, I'm expecting either an example or a retraction to follow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have long ago learned to use passive voice in making controversial statements (yes, I participated in dial-up modem BBS too).  It wasn't an accusation, but I will still retract any possible implications and apologise if it offended you.


Let me point out that in two years of participating on Telic Thoughts the concept of teaching ID in public schools has generally been met with discouragement for the rare times it came up.

I suggest this is a noticable difference between Telic Thoughts and Uncommon Descent.  < Here is a link > to how the crowd at Uncommon  Descent reacted to Mike Gene's more moderate opinions concerning teaching ID.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 17 2008,17:51

Hi Oleg,

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Penrose's 4-dimensional complex space is the twistor manifold, not the spacetime.  The two are related (you can use twistors to describe light rays in Minkowski space) but they are not the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Chapter 18 of Penrose's Road to Reality is titled Minkowskian Geometry.  It includes the following on page 414, "...referring to the complex space C^4, which we may regard as the complexification CE^4 of E^4....is the same as the complexification of CM of M"

From this point on Penrose treats Minkowski space (M) as having four complex dimensions.  The four complex dimensions was also used in Penrose's treatment of the clock paradox.

Twistor space wasn't introduced until Chapter 33.

Multiple people are asking me to explain what I mean by "PhD types".  Thank you of helping me with an example of what I am talking about.

Please don't take it wrong.  I understand why it is important in your line of work to be precise in terminology and formulation.  But, to me, arguing about whether we are dealing in Minkowski space or Twister space isn't important to the overall concept.

It's like saying something is only possible in a polar coordinate system, not Cartesian.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 17 2008,17:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am a vocal critic of the ID Movement.  I tend to be supportive of the stated goals of ID Science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If this isn't a silly question, what goals does "ID Science" have that are independent of the politics?

AFAIK, the goal of a proposed scientific hypothesis is to explain some repeatable and verifiable pattern of observations of the thing being studied. Without that pattern of observations, there can't be a scientific goal.

Henry
Posted by: Alan Fox on Aug. 17 2008,18:05

I had to smile a little at this comment from Joy regarding her recent foray here:      

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It isn't that interesting, but I felt Joy and I did fairly well and there was even a little evidence of some independent thinking being provoked (see midwifetoad's questions to Oleg).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, good grief! You may want to fool yourself into believing a gaggle of minor league gangstas are capable of "independent thinking," but don't be attributing any such foolishness to me. My brief appearance was just me busting into their filthy treehouse to yell at them about the trash they threw in the front yard. I've zero tolerance for pasty creeps pitifully trying to make up for substandard man-parts with macho posturing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


So let that be a lesson to you, you pasty creeps, or, no doubt, Joy will taunt you a second time.

< link >
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 17 2008,18:15

Hi dhogaza,

Thank you for your comment.

I am not certain of exactly how long it would have taken for another atom bomb to be build.  I thought it was weeks if not months.

I will look it up now that you brought it to my attention.  Excuse me for hoping you are wrong because I understand a long lag time was an excuse we used for explain why we had to actually kill so many people instead of simply demonstrating our ability to do so.

Hiroshima was somewhat defendable (our lack of confidence the bomb would work and pay back for Pearl Harbor).

The only excuse for Nagasaki was to bluff the Japanese into believing we would mercilessly bomb a city a week until they surrendered unconditionally.

Bombing an unpopulated area would have demonstrated Hiroshima wasn't a fluke.

I would rather Nagasaki to have been a desperate bluff than to have been heartlessness on our part.
Posted by: khan on Aug. 17 2008,18:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the things I have noticed over the intervening couple of years is the circle-the-wagon attitude from both camps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Both the reality and fantasy based camps?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 17 2008,18:36

Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 17 2008,18:05)
I had to smile a little at this comment from Joy regarding her recent foray here:      

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It isn't that interesting, but I felt Joy and I did fairly well and there was even a little evidence of some independent thinking being provoked (see midwifetoad's questions to Oleg).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, good grief! You may want to fool yourself into believing a gaggle of minor league gangstas are capable of "independent thinking," but don't be attributing any such foolishness to me. My brief appearance was just me busting into their filthy treehouse to yell at them about the trash they threw in the front yard. I've zero tolerance for pasty creeps pitifully trying to make up for substandard man-parts with macho posturing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


So let that be a lesson to you, you pasty creeps, or, no doubt, Joy will taunt you a second time.

< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so that would undoubtedly be me this hag is referring to.  i find it hard to believe that she perceived that i was 'threatening her' simply because I brought up the very public facts that she had bragged about in another drive-by.  That is my neck of the woods after all, I find it hard to believe that she lives in that community and acts like the pretentious tard worshipper she wants so much to be, without having those mcdowell county rednecks take it personally.  All I wanted to know is why TT is trying to maintain the big tent when it clearly needs a good housecleaning.  Her hairy-toed drama sasquatch act was just an excuse to cover the fact that she was avoiding multiple points.

what a tard.
Posted by: dhogaza on Aug. 17 2008,19:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I thought it was weeks if not months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I said, the components were available, but each needed to be hand built.  Enough for a *few* bombs (half-dozenish).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only excuse for Nagasaki was to bluff the Japanese into believing we would mercilessly bomb a city a week until they surrendered unconditionally.

Bombing an unpopulated area would have demonstrated Hiroshima wasn't a fluke.

I would rather Nagasaki to have been a desperate bluff than to have been heartlessness on our part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The real target of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was arguably Stalin.  We knew the Japanese were folding, indeed most of the military brass (most staunch political conservatives) who knew of the bomb opposed its use, saying it wasn't necessary, Japan would fold within weeks regardless.

And Eisenhower repeated that belief and said he'd learned nothing to change his mind, in 1961, in a public speech, after his Presidency.

Personally I believe that if FDR had lived, neither bombing would've taken place.

But who knows...
Posted by: rhmc on Aug. 17 2008,19:23

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 17 2008,19:15)
Hi dhogaza,

I would rather Nagasaki to have been a desperate bluff than to have been heartlessness on our part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if you're looking for war crimes, look to dresden, hamburg, the fire raids on tokyo and other japanese cities...

plenty of crime to spread around.  the nuclear weapons were just flea bites compared to what was done earlier...
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 17 2008,19:35

Hi Henry,

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If this isn't a silly question, what goals does "ID Science" have that are independent of the politics?

AFAIK, the goal of a proposed scientific hypothesis is to explain some repeatable and verifiable pattern of observations of the thing being studied. Without that pattern of observations, there can't be a scientific goal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree with you with some caveats.

Obviously, I am not in a position to speak for ID proponents in general.  I have even argued that the name "Intelligent Design" is misleading and carried too much negative baggage.

That being said, I have been encouraging others to be more forthcoming with models and hypotheses.  At this point I see three categories...

1. A consciousness continuously designs and manipulates life.

2. A consciousness designed and frontloaded life in the past.

3. A combination of the above two.

Number 1 is problematic since it is difficult to distinguish from the current Evolutionary Theory.

Mike Gene (and others) suggest that evidence of foresight would provide evidence of a challenge to the status quo.  So they have focused on trying to find "A Consilience of Clues" (The Design Matrix' subtitle).

At this point, the goal of ID Science is to look for what you called a "pattern of observations".

Personally, I like to have a more solid framework (a model).  I believe Quantum Mechanics provides such a framework.  I understand that even Ken Miller has suggested God could work through quantum effects.

There has been some interest in this.  Yes, there is still a lot of religious motivation behind it, but at least it is starting to focus on the physical instead of the metaphysical.

One more caveat.  We already have a situtation where "repeatable and verifiable pattern of observations" can be complicated by the observation itself.  That is in Quantum Mechanics.

The "Observer Problem" isn't due to instrumentation (although there are some who still argue the opposite).  Quantum evidence suggests observation changes reality.  In some sense observation creates reality.  Which reality manefests itself in the dual slit experiment is based on how it is observed.

This shouldn't be an insermountable problem unless critics demand not only repeatability, but repeatability regardless of how it is observed.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 17 2008,19:36

Accused of independent thinking. I'm so ashamed. I think I'll go hide under a rock for a while.
Posted by: keiths on Aug. 17 2008,20:30

Edited to say: Oops.  Posted by mistake.
Posted by: keiths on Aug. 17 2008,20:56

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 17 2008,15:51)
Multiple people are asking me to explain what I mean by "PhD types".  Thank you of helping me with an example of what I am talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We discussed TP's anti-PhD bigotry < earlier in the thread >.

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 16 2008,21:10)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 16 2008,18:54)
While you may still want to interpret Dr. Penrose's universal wavefunction as dynamic and truly random, I think it is obvious that it is fixed similar to a set of pseudorandom numbers or, more appropriately, a Mandelbrot Set in four complex dimensions of space-time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This makes no sense, TP.  The < Mandelbrot set > is defined in the complex plane or equivalently in a two-dimensional real space.  Space-time is four-dimensional.  What the heck are you talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 17 2008,15:51)
Please don't take it wrong.  I understand why it is important in your line of work to be precise in terminology and formulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



TP, precision is important in any technical field, including engineering.  Your statement regarding the Mandelbrot set was as nonsensical as talking about a voltage of 500 ohms.  It simply made no sense, and Oleg didn't know what you were talking about.

I realize that you, personally, are imprecise in your use of terminology, but don't assume that other engineers are as sloppy as you are, or that we consider precise communication to be unimportant.

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 17 2008,13:41)
My agenda, my method, my goal is to provoke thinking.

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


From what I've seen, it appears that your goal is to prop up your sagging ego.  You deride "PhD types" to make yourself feel better about your own lack of education.  You denigrate terminological precision to make yourself feel better about your own sloppiness.  You pretend that all engineers are inarticulate and bad at spelling to excuse your own deficiencies in those areas.  You call yourself "Thought Provoker" when the truth is that you're more of a Correction Provoker.

If you want to feel better about yourself, TP, then try improving yourself rather than simply posturing on the Internet.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 17 2008,21:05

"Thought Provoker":



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

I have long ago learned to use passive voice in making controversial statements (yes, I participated in dial-up modem BBS too).  It wasn't an accusation, but I will still retract any possible implications and apologise if it offended you.

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



Perhaps larding fewer scattershot aspersions that might go astray into your statements would help generally with the respect issue, especially when responding to people of whom the aspersions are wholly inappropriate.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 17 2008,21:52

Hi TP, and thanks for the compliment.  I'll reciprocate below.  

Scientists may appear pedantic to you, but that's how science works.  Particularly physics, which makes a connection between the real world of physical objects and the ideal world of mathematics.  If you wish to make that connection, you need to translate objects into mathematical terms.   Instead, you walk around telling everyone that quantum events are interconnected in space and time or that the wave function is sorta like a Mandelbrot set in higher dimensions.  

Such fantasy games are known as Cargo cult.  Here's Richard Feynman describing < the phenomenon >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what happens when you read Penrose's Road to Reality < without having a minimal background >.  It's not a book for laymen.  You think you are making profound, thought-provoking statements, but actually you're just parroting lines that you don't understand.  

Take the issue of Minkowski space.  It has 4 real dimensions.  A complex 4-dimensional space would correspond to an 8-dimensional real space.  I don't have Penrose's book anymore, but I am 99.9999% sure that you are misreading it again.  Here's why.

Penrose did consider a complexified Minkowski space, but he did not identify it with our spacetime.  It was just another mathematical object to play with.  Often, when a theoretical physicist cannot solve a real-world problem, he replaces the original physical model with another one that can be solved.  While the new model doesn't describe the real world, the solvable toy model may tell him something interesting.  The complexified Minkowski space is exactly such a toy model.  It < allows one > to solve a nontrivial model with Yang-Mills gauge fields, something that isn't possible in ordinary Minkowski space.  But it is still a toy model, not a model of our space-time.  It contains too many (real) dimensions.  Here's what Penrose himself < wrote about it > in 1987:


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

Of course the possibility of simply describing things in terms of complexified (compactified) Minkowski space CM had occurred to me but - for reasons which are still not entirely clear to me - I had (correctly) *rejected this as insufficiently subtle for Nature. I think that one reason for being unhappy with CM as playing a primary role in physics was that the complexification is far too gross. As many additional "unseen" dimension (namely four) would need to be adjoined as are already directly physically interpretable (3).

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


Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 17 2008,22:09

Hi Keiths,

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From what I've seen, it appears that your goal is to prop up your sagging ego.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love it when someone suggests I have some underlying problem of an inferiority complex or somehow question my self worth.  My wife and co-workers hate it, but I find it rather amusing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You deride "PhD types" to make yourself feel better about your own lack of education.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you know my level of education?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You denigrate terminological precision to make yourself feel better about your own sloppiness.  You pretend that all engineers are inarticulate and bad at spelling to excuse your own deficiencies in those areas.  You call yourself "Thought Provoker" when the truth is that you're more of a Correction Provoker.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No comment



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you want to feel better about yourself, TP, then try improving yourself rather than simply posturing on the Internet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What do you suggest?

How about catching up on something outside my field of expertise?

Maybe reading and understanding a 1000 page book written prominent physicist?

How about pouring through multiple scientific papers covering complex topics in Biology and Quantum Mechanics?

Of course I have to do this in my spare time, because my work keeps me quite busy.

Believe it or not, I post on the internet as a method to help keep my ego in check at work and home.

A way to get it out of my system.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 17 2008,23:03

Hi Oleg,

I had started to write personal account behind my term "PhD type" but I changed my mind and deleted it because it would have been misunderstood.

The quick version is that over the last four decades I have worked with many very smart people who happened to have PhDs.  My endeavors involved testing Advanced Capability Torpedoes, JSF jet engines and Patriot Missiles.

My value was and is organizing teams to gather up all the complicated loose ends the very smart people though up and "make the planes land" as expected, on schedule and within budget.

In short, I make complicated things simple…

…and I am good at it.

Hopefully, you recognize that I value what you and others like you do.  I especially appreciate the time and effort you have spent in trying to help me understand.  I am a little saddened that you didn't hang on to Penrose's book but at least you took the time to review it.

Thanks again

I am sure we will discuss this again.  At which time you can try to explain how I am misunderstanding that Penrose is using his Twistor mathematical model to predict the existence of real world “quanglement” similar to how he used mathematical models to predict the existence of real world black holes.
Posted by: jeffox on Aug. 17 2008,23:17

Hello again, TP.  I've read your previous posts and (although I may not be speaking for the rest of the residents here at ATBC) I will have to compliment you on your level of discourse here, so far.  Many (including your associate Joy) from TT and UD and some of the other ID-related blogs come in here to troll, call names, and just generally cause trouble.  Evidently, you are at least above that, and I (for one) appreciate that.

I understand that you worked on the Mk 48 torpedo.  Yes, we had them onboard our "boat".  We had other weapons, also, but (obviously) I can't go into detail about them.  Thank you for your work - we never had any problems with them, nor have I ever heard of any flaws.  Hot runs are not fun, just ask the guys on the Kursk.

And I, personally, think that Cleveland rocks.  :)

I do agree with you, principally, regarding the need for science (or, for that matter, any modern field of study) to have a "kick in the pants" type of reformation or revolution (for lack of better terms) every so often.  However, I think that those things are endemic within the system(s) involved.  Accordingly, I feel that even science already has many of the "Rickover" types of personalities within it.  Basically, I think that that type of attitude is already there, for good or for ill.  Perhaps we may not agree to what extent that is present, but, imo, the present system (with it's present personality types) seems to work fine for science (and other fields) as it is.

However, I do not, in any way, feel that ID (in its current form, anyway) fits the mold of "revolutionary new science".  The reason why is that, as far as I can perceive, there is (as yet) no science involved with ID.  From what I've been reading, it seems that you at least agree with that in principle; and that you are attempting to move ID in the direction of science.  A noble intention, and I wish you good luck with that.  Whether or not you'll be successful, only time will tell.

Going back to another previous point, I would also like to add that the U.S.S. Nautilus wasn't built without a prototype reactor showing nuclear power's feasibility, first.  Do a quick Google search for "S1W" - I found the Wiki article to be accurate.  And I ought to know, because I qualified there as part of my nuclear training.  ("Run 'er till she blows." was our favorite catch-phrase regarding the plant, while I was there.  :)  I think the point could be made that the U.S.'s nuclear capability between the bombing attacks on Japan and the launching of the Nautilus wasn't exactly nonexistant or small.

I also have some very interesting stories about Adm. Rickover.  He was legendary; and, for now, I'll leave that at that.  :)

Once again, I will write that I appreciate your level of discourse here, TP.  Unlike Joy, you appear to have left a lot of the TT baggage behind you when you come in here.  Also, unlike Joy, you don't readily appear trollish.  Joy is a pretentious tard, imo.  Tell her I wrote so.  Nuclear mafia, indeed!
Posted by: creeky belly on Aug. 17 2008,23:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you suggest?

How about catching up on something outside my field of expertise?

Maybe reading and understanding a 1000 page book written prominent physicist?

How about pouring through multiple scientific papers covering complex topics in Biology and Quantum Mechanics?

Of course I have to do this in my spare time, because my work keeps me quite busy.

Believe it or not, I post on the internet as a method to help keep my ego in check at work and home.

A way to get it out of my system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know your ability to "pour" through scientific papers amounts to quoting abstracts; that much was apparent from previous pages in this thread. Do I need to bring up the DiBit paper and Minkowski space again? If that was supposed to keep your ego in check, I don't know what to say, you must be a joy to be around.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 17 2008,23:33

Hi Oleg,

And after jeffox suggested I wasn't a troll...

< Here is a link > to a 2008 paper on Twistor Space.  At least someone thinks Complexified Minkowski space corresponds to "spacetime"....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The basic correspondence between twistor space and spacetime is:
|PT                           | CM
|complex projective  | line point
|point                       | alpha-plane
|intersection of lines | null separation of points
Complexified Minkowski space CM can be thought of as the moduli space of complex projective lines, while (projective) twistor space PT can be thought of as the moduli space of a-planes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



P.S. Sorry, but its gotten too late.  Creeky Belly by all means post or repost whatever you feel is appropriate.
Posted by: creeky belly on Aug. 18 2008,01:55

< Pretty much this whole thread >

< DiBit Paper >

You lectured on nothing but your misunderstanding of Penrose in this thread. < The juicy bits are here. > Your conclusion: "I was wrong, but I'm still right."

Then you tried to apply an equation for a low temperature limit to a room temperature setup, because you didn't bother to read the actual paper the equation was based on.  < It took me about ~5 minutes to find it. >

This is the general lack of scholarship and hubris which gets the goad of many of the scientists around here. In your mind, you're doing scholarly and revolutionary work; to me, and I suspect others on this board, you come off as anti-intellectual and arrogant.

This is what I hear when you talk:
< Einstein's Idiots - The H-Atom >
Posted by: keiths on Aug. 18 2008,04:32

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 17 2008,20:09)
I love it when someone suggests I have some underlying problem of an inferiority complex or somehow question my self worth.  My wife and co-workers hate it, but I find it rather amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You must be as naďve about psychology as you are about physics if you think that someone who blusters and swaggers can't possibly suffer from feelings of inferiority.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you know my level of education?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm willing to bet that you're not a PhD.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you suggest?

How about catching up on something outside my field of expertise?

Maybe reading and understanding a 1000 page book written prominent physicist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That experiment didn't work out so well, as this thread shows.  (Follow creeky belly's links to refresh your memory).  You read The Road to Reality, but you didn't understand it, even when your errors were explained to you.

I would suggest an introductory physics text like Halliday and Resnick.  Learn the Newtonian stuff before you venture into relativity and quantum mechanics.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How about pouring through multiple scientific papers covering complex topics in Biology and Quantum Mechanics?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, I would suggest something more appropriate to your level of knowledge.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Believe it or not, I post on the internet as a method to help keep my ego in check at work and home.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't believe it.  If you were trying to keep your ego in check, you would behave quite differently.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 18 2008,07:47

I've gone back to the original AtBC thread linked to by creeky belly.  As < this September 2007 comment > indicates, TP doesn't seem to have learned much since then.  He's still talking about shortcuts in Minkowski space, Mandelbrot sets, and interconnected photons in spacetime.  And this after pages and pages of conversations both here and at TT!  Get a life, TP.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 18 2008,10:06

Hi Jeffox,

Thank you for your response and recognition.

Unfortunately, it looks like the troops are circling the wagons again.

Yes, I was aware for the submarine in the desert and was even tempted to mention it in my previous comment because it goes to show how incredably quickly the "Rickover Navy" got things going.

I understand there is also a battleship in the desert somewhere too.  Some of the navy guys had interesting stories about that too.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Aug. 18 2008,10:22

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 18 2008,16:06)
Hi Jeffox,

Thank you for your response and recognition.

Unfortunately, it looks like the troops are circling the wagons again.

Yes, I was aware for the submarine in the desert and was even tempted to mention it in my previous comment because it goes to show how incredably quickly the "Rickover Navy" got things going.

I understand there is also a battleship in the desert somewhere too.  Some of the navy guys had interesting stories about that too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I fail to see the utility of the Rickover navy analogy, unless they recycled debunked notions unsupported by evidence.

Looking to what has actually been produced, and keeping with the tortured military analogies, ID is more closely related to < First Earth Batallion >.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 18 2008,10:29

Hi Creeky Belly,

I appreciated you taking the time and effort to download the paper I didn't have access to and loading the picture up to imageshack so you could provide it to all.

I suspect it took more than five minutes, but that is all the more reason to thank you for it.

Yes, understanding decoherence is complicated, but I am betting Penrose's E=h/T and suggestion about macro-level decoherence at room temperatures is going to become accepted.  It explains too much (e.g. Buckyballs).

However, that is a different subject for a different time when I'm not as swamped with real work.

It looks like Penrose's Twistor Space is gaining in popularity.  When I have the time, I suspect I will be finding a lot more scientific papers clearly summarizing the implications of Penrose's ideas.

Will the summaries match my perceptions?  

If yes, I get more bragging rights.

If no, then I will have learned something in the process.

I can be patient.

Either way, I thank you for your interest and efforts.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 18 2008,10:40

Hi Keiths,

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You must be as naďve about psychology as you are about physics if you think that someone who blusters and swaggers can't possibly suffer from feelings of inferiority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But that is the irony.  Yes, I have feelings of inferiority and I am proud of that! :D

Feelings of inferiority compels a lot of human actions.  For example, some people will go out of their way to try to ridicule others who appear to feel good about themselves.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 18 2008,10:48

Hi Oleg,

You wrote...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's still talking about shortcuts in Minkowski space, Mandelbrot sets, and interconnected photons in spacetime.  And this after pages and pages of conversations both here and at TT!  Get a life, TP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're preaching to the choir, Oleg.

I have long ago learned that I can't let others do my thinking for me.  I need to understand things for myself.

Telling me I am wrong is of no help.

Show me.

Give me a better model I can understand.

If you feel it would be a waste of time, then ignore me.

Otherwise, you are just preaching to the choir.

BTW, let me thank you again for putting me on to the recent interest in Penrose's Twistor Space.  I have been finding lots of good scientific papers on it.  I look forward to reading them in detail when time permits.
Posted by: keiths on Aug. 18 2008,11:16

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 18 2008,08:48)
I have long ago learned that I can't let others do my thinking for me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's possible to think for yourself without refusing to learn from others, TP.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 18 2008,11:25



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

Telling me I am wrong is of no help.

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



Sure it is. If you mistakenly believe something to be true, you have no reason to re-think your position. Knowing that you are wrong means you can get on with figuring out what is right.

Insisting that people give you free tutoring is not on.
Posted by: JAM on Aug. 18 2008,11:52

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 17 2008,16:56)
Hi Jam,
You wrote...
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doing science (something you are afraid to do) involves lots of mistakes. If a biologist gets 1 of 10 experiments to work, she's doing great. If an engineer gets 1 of 10 designs to work, he's fired.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would love to do science but they pay me better for being an engineer.  You see, I have the knack and experience to quick grasp complicated systems and make 9.9 out of 10 designs to work the first time.  And we do it on time and within budget.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All that is consistent with your fear of doing science.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm the one suggesting there is middle ground between the two positions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what? I'm the one pointing out that your characterization of our position is wrong.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for the predictions and experiments surrounding Penrose/Hameroff's Orch OR < here is a link > to a 1998 paper that includes...

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Appendix 2. Testable predictions of the Orch OR model

Here major assumptions (bold) and corresponding testable predictions (numbered) of the Orch OR model are listed:

Neuronal microtubules are directly necessary for consciousness
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


This is just stupid. Neurons can't exist without microtubules. Hell, eukaryotic cells can't exist without microtubules. This is like claiming that the skeleton of an NFL quarterback is the critical mechanism for his reading of pass defenses because an NFL quarterback without bones can't throw a pass to the proper receiver.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1. Synaptic sensitivity and plasticity correlate with cytoskeletal architecture/activities in both pre­synaptic and post­synaptic neuronal cytoplasm...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP, I've already pointed out to you why this is worthless, but you didn't learn.

Microtubules are a SUBSET of the cytoskeleton, so this "prediction" is laughable. Interestingly, I just got an email from a collaborator telling me that the revision of our paper on synaptic plasticity was accepted by what most biologists consider the top biology journal. It involves the cytoskeleton, but not microtubules (the cytoskeleton of dendritic spines is actin-based).

What does evolutionary theory predict about the number and importance of mechanisms involved in synaptic plasticity? What does design predict? Would it use newly-designed parts, or be cobbled together from parts off the shelf?
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 18 2008,11:53



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

Telling me I am wrong is of no help.

Show me.

Give me a better model I can understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did, TP.  At least I tried.  

After our long conversation about Penrose's book at TT I < summarized what you need in order to comprehend it >:


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

Sadly, I must tell you that you don't understand what Penrose is doing and I am not sure that I can help you. I tried above to explain what Penrose did with twistors. However, there is certain prerequisite knowledge that one must possess in order to appreciate Penrose's book or my explanations in the previous posts. One needs, at the very least, to know quantum mechanics at the level of a two-semester undergraduate course: canonical quantization, operators, wave functions, that sort of things. I still don't know whether you have that knowledge. Perhaps you could describe your background.

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


That assessment still stands.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 18 2008,12:01

FYI,

< Here is something > I found during lunch...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I. INTRODUCTION
As is well known, twistor theory is an approach towards
a geometrical quantization of space-time, originally proposed
by Penrose [1]. In the twistor program, the twistor
space is regarded more fundamental than space-time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
VIII. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
We have geometrically constructed a supertwistor theory
based on the SUSY Hopf map. The basic variables
are different from those of Ferber’s original supertwistor;
fermionic momenta are newly introduced by geometrical
reasoning. The new super incidence relation is naturally
derived based on the arguments of the celestial supersphere.
The super space-time matrix becomes superhermitian
and relates the Minkowski superspace and the supertwistor space nonlocally in the sense: a point in
Minkowski superspace is transformed to a supersphere
in the supertwistor space, and a point in the supertwistor
space is transformed to a super light ray in the
Minkowski superspace.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Got to run
Posted by: creeky belly on Aug. 18 2008,14:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I appreciated you taking the time and effort to download the paper I didn't have access to and loading the picture up to imageshack so you could provide it to all.

I suspect it took more than five minutes, but that is all the more reason to thank you for it.

Yes, understanding decoherence is complicated, but I am betting Penrose's E=h/T and suggestion about macro-level decoherence at room temperatures is going to become accepted.  It explains too much (e.g. Buckyballs).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Finding the answer took all of 5 minutes as I explained on the other thread:
1. Find citation in paper.
2. Look up corresponding equation and data in cited paper.

If you read that thread for comprehension, you would have remembered that the decoherence of the Bucky Balls occurred in a VACUUM, not a thermal bath at 300K. We've been over this all before (as documented in the threads I linked to).
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 18 2008,15:51

< Another 2008 paper > I found (when I should have been working)...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 Introduction
Twistor methods were originally introduced by Penrose with the aim of providing a mathematical
framework which could lead to a synthesis of quantum theory and relativity [P].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: olegt on Aug. 18 2008,16:15

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 18 2008,15:51)
< Another 2008 paper > I found (when I should have been working)...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 Introduction
Twistor methods were originally introduced by Penrose with the aim of providing a mathematical
framework which could lead to a synthesis of quantum theory and relativity [P].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Are you trying to make a point, TP?
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 18 2008,16:48

Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 17 2008,18:05)
I had to smile a little at this comment from Joy regarding her recent foray here:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
  Oh, good grief! You may want to fool yourself into believing a gaggle of minor league gangstas are capable of "independent thinking," but don't be attributing any such foolishness to me. My brief appearance was just me busting into their filthy treehouse to yell at them about the trash they threw in the front yard. I've zero tolerance for pasty creeps pitifully trying to make up for substandard man-parts with macho posturing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So let that be a lesson to you, you pasty creeps, or, no doubt, Joy will taunt you a second time.

< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, minor league... And I suppose Joy is Major League?  So major league that she has had her computer hacked repeatedly by people she gets into arguments on the internets with (doubtless because she overpowers her opponants with straight-talking truth and facts) and has barbed wire and dogs protecting her property....

She is a paranoid megalomaniacal bitch with withered lady parts, who knows next to nothing about the relevant issues surrounding the so-called ID/Evolution 'debate.'

She can stay at TT and have the female equivalent of circle jerks with FtK and Julie Thomas.  About all she is good for.
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 18 2008,16:51

Quote (rhmc @ Aug. 17 2008,19:23)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 17 2008,19:15)
Hi dhogaza,

I would rather Nagasaki to have been a desperate bluff than to have been heartlessness on our part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if you're looking for war crimes, look to dresden, hamburg, the fire raids on tokyo and other japanese cities...

plenty of crime to spread around.  the nuclear weapons were just flea bites compared to what was done earlier...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I understand that Curtis LeMay once commented that he was certain that if we had lost the war, he woul dhavce been executed for war crimes (he was the guy behind the fire-bombing of civilians).
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 18 2008,16:58

Quote (keiths @ July 20 2008,16:22)
Shorter TP: "Some of my best friends are PhD types."

Spare us the backpedaling, TP.  Here are three examples of your bigotry against "PhD types", all from the same thread (a fourth, of course, is your very use of the phrase "PhD types" itself):

From < here >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm lucky to get the majority of my terms spelled correctly much less use them properly. Arguing about terminology is something PhD types do when I present them with my working prototype of an invention they said would be impossible to build.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And < here >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now you are sounding like PhD types when engineers put them into embarrassing situations. "When I said that it would take years to do what you did in two weeks I hadn't completely developed the algorithm yet."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And < here >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then with a flourish of PhD babble concerning sets he ended up providing his fully developed conclusion on page 31.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Yeah - I'm sure engineer technicians so frequently embarrass PhD types- you know, those clumsy bookworm egghead types that have no real world experience...

I rented this DVD on the Apollo program - you know, the best engineering minds in the country working with essentially endless funding to meet a common goal - and I really enjoyed watching all the big explosions and failures,and was a bit surprised to hear that every Apollo flight was plagued by all manner of problems.  

But hey,thye don't use fancy words and cut to the chase without going through all the hoops.... Maybe that explains ..... nah....
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 18 2008,17:04

Quote (creeky belly @ Aug. 18 2008,01:55)
This is the general lack of scholarship and hubris which gets the goad of many of the scientists around here. In your mind, you're doing scholarly and revolutionary work; to me, and I suspect others on this board, you come off as anti-intellectual and arrogant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow - that describes this dude < Mark Kennedy > to a T.

He's been making - literally - the exact same arguments for 4 or 5 years, and every time his errorneous claims are corrected, he simply re-terates them and insists that nobody has addressed them.

It is like a requirement or something...
Posted by: skeptic on Aug. 18 2008,17:23

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 18 2008,10:06)
Hi Jeffox,

Thank you for your response and recognition.

Unfortunately, it looks like the troops are circling the wagons again.

Yes, I was aware for the submarine in the desert and was even tempted to mention it in my previous comment because it goes to show how incredably quickly the "Rickover Navy" got things going.

I understand there is also a battleship in the desert somewhere too.  Some of the navy guys had interesting stories about that too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait a minute TP, I thought we only had facilities in Idaho and SC, where is the battleship?  I must be sincerely out of the loop.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 18 2008,18:45

< And yet another paper... >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Abstract
We consider quantum field theory in four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, with the position
coordinates represented by twistors instead of the usual world-vectors. Upon imposing canonical
commutation relations between twistors and dual twistors, quantum theory of fields described by
non-holomorphic functions of twistor variables becomes manifestly non-commutative, with Lorentz
symmetry broken by a time-like vector. We discuss the free field propagation and its impact on the
short- and long-distance behavior of physical amplitudes in perturbation theory. In the ultraviolet
limit, quantum field theories in twistor space are generically less divergent than their commutative
counterparts. Furthermore, there is no infrared–ultraviolet mixing problem.

Twistor theory [1] offers an alternative description of the four-dimensional spacetime in
which spinors are regarded more fundamental than world-vectors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Still at work, will talk later.
Posted by: dhogaza on Aug. 18 2008,19:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I understand that Curtis LeMay once commented that he was certain that if we had lost the war, he woul dhavce been executed for war crimes (he was the guy behind the fire-bombing of civilians).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you're correct.  Of course, the context was one of being unsupportive of trying military people for war crimes.  He saw nothing wrong with the firebombing of Japan - or Coventry.

Strangely, LeMay was one of those who didn't feel that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary, but I suspect the overshadowing of his firebombing campaign may've had something to do with it.

After all, Hiroshima hadn't been bombed because it didn't meet even LeMay's minimal standards for "military importance".  That's how thorough the campaign had been.  A thoroughly firebombed city was of no interest to the a-bomb targeting team, they wanted something intact so they could more accurately measure its destructiveness.
Posted by: creeky belly on Aug. 18 2008,19:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yet another paper...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet another paper with mathematical gymnastics. Did you read it? They create a set of canonical operators which commute locally, but are non-commutative globally. This has the effect, as they say, of fuzzing out the position and momentum measurements as the distance between points grows. Much like Penrose found, it's a fun sandbox for a special set of functions, which may or may not be useful in the long run. And your point is....
Posted by: dhogaza on Aug. 18 2008,20:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hiroshima was somewhat defendable (our lack of confidence the bomb would work and pay back for Pearl Harbor).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was near-total confidence that the uranium gun would work, so much confidence that they didn't bother testing it.  They built one, moved on to the plutonium implosion design.

As for justifying it as payback, having burned over 200,000 Japanese civilians to death in Tokyo alone was more than sufficient to balance the books over about 3,500 military dead and the handful of ships permanently lost, don't you think?

In the Pearl Harbor raid, the Japanese Navy was fastidious in targeting our armed forces only (I'm well aware that such fastidiousness wasn't typical of the Army, but then again, they weren't involved).  Can't say that about the Home Team after LeMay got involved.

Heck, most of those BBs were raised and shelled the hell out of Japanese-held islands in preparation for invasion.  My guess is that these resurrected ships themselves killed more Japanese than our deaths in the Pearl Harbor raid ...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 18 2008,20:10

Quote (slpage @ Aug. 18 2008,16:48)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 17 2008,18:05)
I had to smile a little at this comment from Joy regarding her recent foray here:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
  Oh, good grief! You may want to fool yourself into believing a gaggle of minor league gangstas are capable of "independent thinking," but don't be attributing any such foolishness to me. My brief appearance was just me busting into their filthy treehouse to yell at them about the trash they threw in the front yard. I've zero tolerance for pasty creeps pitifully trying to make up for substandard man-parts with macho posturing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So let that be a lesson to you, you pasty creeps, or, no doubt, Joy will taunt you a second time.

< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, minor league... And I suppose Joy is Major League?  So major league that she has had her computer hacked repeatedly by people she gets into arguments on the internets with (doubtless because she overpowers her opponants with straight-talking truth and facts) and has barbed wire and dogs protecting her property....

She is a paranoid megalomaniacal bitch with withered lady parts, who knows next to nothing about the relevant issues surrounding the so-called ID/Evolution 'debate.'

She can stay at TT and have the female equivalent of circle jerks with FtK and Julie Thomas.  About all she is good for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and the most hilarious part is that she is living in one of the most fundie counties in western NC.  I bet they won't have anything to do with her either, despite the big tent.  I suspect the reason she is jealous of UD is that big tent aptly describes her wardrobe.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 18 2008,23:37

Time to catch up...

Keiths wrote...
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's possible to think for yourself without refusing to learn from others, TP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I learn a lot from others.  Usually by arguing with them.

Wesley wrote...
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Knowing that you are wrong means you can get on with figuring out what is right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Knowing that I am wrong would help, especially if I knew exactly where I was wrong.  However, I don't know I am wrong.  What I know is some people are claiming I am wrong.

JAM wrote...
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interestingly, I just got an email from a collaborator telling me that the revision of our paper on synaptic plasticity was accepted by what most biologists consider the top biology journal. It involves the cytoskeleton, but not microtubules (the cytoskeleton of dendritic spines is actin-based).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations.  I hope it works out well for you.  I mean it.  It wouldn't bother me in the slightest to be wrong about how the cytoskeleton coupled with Quantum Mechanics in support of consciousness.

At one time I got the impression you agreed with the plausibility of QM being involved with consciousness (just via actin, not microtubules).  Is that still the case?

Oleg wrote...
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One needs, at the very least, to know quantum mechanics at the level of a two-semester undergraduate course: canonical quantization, operators, wave functions, that sort of things. I still don't know whether you have that knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have the patience or the time to still through actual classes.  However, I am getting motivated to look for some on-line courses and possibly text-books.  I would like to understand these Twistor String papers better.  Not everyone explains things as clearly as Penrose did in The Road to Reality.

Creeky Belly wrote...
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you read that thread for comprehension, you would have remembered that the decoherence of the Bucky Balls occurred in a VACUUM, not a thermal bath at 300K. We've been over this all before (as documented in the threads I linked to).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You will have to excuse me, but I'm not interested in arguing about the details of decoherence at this specific point in time.  However, I am sure we will get back to it in the future.

Oleg asked...
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you trying to make a point, TP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My point was that "Twistor methods were originally introduced by Penrose with the aim of providing a mathematical framework which could lead to a synthesis of quantum theory and relativity".

In The Road to Reality Penrose was clearly laying the foundation for synthesizing Quantum Mechanics with space-time relativity.  It was the basis behind his term "quanglement", the entanglement of quantum effects via four-dimensional complex geometry.  A geometry where things that "travel" at the speed of light collapse to a single point (e.g. photons entangled at the same point in Twistor space).

Skeptic wrote...
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wait a minute TP, I thought we only had facilities in Idaho and SC, where is the battleship?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, you caught me.  I don't remember the details of conversations I had 25 years ago.  That, or maybe I just made up a stupid falsehood.

You have my permission to believe whichever helps your self esteem more.

Creeky Belly wrote...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yet another paper with mathematical gymnastics. Did you read it? They create a set of canonical operators which commute locally, but are non-commutative globally. This has the effect, as they say, of fuzzing out the position and momentum measurements as the distance between points grows. Much like Penrose found, it's a fun sandbox for a special set of functions, which may or may not be useful in the long run. And your point is....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Penrose is a mathematician whose other "fun sandbox" predicted things like Black Holes.

I hope you are aware of how this thread's discussion involves multiple levels.

The lowest level is deciding whether or not I am a stupid ignoramous lacking any usable skills and incapable of learning any.

"Deciding" is probably not the right term.  The activity is more of an attempt to frame and spin that perception.

The next level of framing is that I am stick-in-the-mud stubborn and will never be persuaded of anything different than my unsupportable preconceptions.

At some point accusations of narcissism set in.  (Keiths has already had accused me of compensating for a "sagging ego").

A more charitable level of framing is recognition that I am earnestly trying to learn, but I have sadly missed the mark.  My interpretations are so completely off that no knowledgeable person would have come to the same mistaken conclusions I have.

Then there is the framing in the face of evidence that maybe there are people out there who share my opinion (e.g. Dr. Hameroff).  But, hey, it’s the internet.  You can find someone supporting just about any crazy idea.  All that means is framing the perceptions of the those people too.

Then there is the framing in the face of evidence that not-so-crazy and very knowledgeable people share some of the ideas (e.g. Sir Roger Penrose).  Well, this tends to require more diplomatic handling, often patronizing.  Something similar to calling them bold ideas requiring further support, etc.   That, coupled with a good sounding statement like “appeals to authority aren't scientific.”.

Then there is the framing in the face of evidence of popular support.  A useful tactic here is to label it “mathematical gymnastics” which may or may not be useful in the long run.

I would be quite content to understand these “mathematical gymnastics”.  Maybe with the LHC the run won’t have to be that long.

BTW, I liked your Einstein's Idiots.  Thank you for linking to it.
Posted by: JAM on Aug. 18 2008,23:54

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 18 2008,23:37)
JAM wrote...
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interestingly, I just got an email from a collaborator telling me that the revision of our paper on synaptic plasticity was accepted by what most biologists consider the top biology journal. It involves the cytoskeleton, but not microtubules (the cytoskeleton of dendritic spines is actin-based).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations.  I hope it works out well for you.  I mean it.  It wouldn't bother me in the slightest to be wrong about how the cytoskeleton coupled with Quantum Mechanics in support of consciousness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The stupid thing about the prediction was the conflation of MTs with the cytoskeleton. You seem to have missed that completely.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At one time I got the impression you agreed with the plausibility of QM being involved with consciousness (just via actin, not microtubules).  Is that still the case?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your "impression" was just wishful thinking. The idea that consciousness can be reduced to QM via MTs is preposterous. Consciousness is much more complex than that. I am ridiculing the idea by pointing out that synaptic plasticity (a property simpler and easier to study than consciousness) is an emergent property as well, involving at least hundreds of different proteins and dozens of other factors.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 19 2008,00:02

emergence:  God's last gap
Posted by: skeptic on Aug. 19 2008,00:27

Sorry you misunderstood me TP, I was actually interested in the possibility that the battleship existed.  Call it a personal interest.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 19 2008,00:33

Hi Skeptic,

Please accept my apologies then.  Sarcasm (or the lack thereof) is difficult to detect on blogs.

I honestly don't remember where it was, if I ever knew.

Maybe someone else knows.
Posted by: skeptic on Aug. 19 2008,01:03

my experience dates from the early 90s so we may have had one before or after but I'd never heard of it, anyway on with the show.
Posted by: keiths on Aug. 19 2008,01:36

Perhaps < this > is what the Navy guys were talking about when they mentioned a battleship in the desert:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From 1942-1945, Alamogordo Army Air Field (now Holowman Air Force Base) served as the training grounds for over 20 different groups, flying primarily B-17s, B-24s, and B-29s. Typically, these groups served at the airfield for about six months, training their personnel before heading to combat in either the Pacific or European Theater. This eroded battleship-shaped object is just that, a battleship mock-up used for high altitude bomber training duing World War II. There are several of these ship-shaped (no pun intended) impressions scattered all of the Nevada Test Site, also a bomber training site during World War II prior to the atomic bomb testing in 1945.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Click here > and zoom out to see what it looks like.
Posted by: jeffox on Aug. 19 2008,01:37

I hadn't heard of it, either.  Not a battleship, anyway.  My 2c.
Posted by: jeffox on Aug. 19 2008,01:38

That makes sense, KeithS.  Thank you!
Posted by: creeky belly on Aug. 19 2008,01:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Penrose is a mathematician whose other "fun sandbox" predicted things like Black Holes.

I hope you are aware of how this thread's discussion involves multiple levels.

The lowest level is deciding whether or not I am a stupid ignoramous lacking any usable skills and incapable of learning any.

"Deciding" is probably not the right term.  The activity is more of an attempt to frame and spin that perception.

The next level of framing is that I am stick-in-the-mud stubborn and will never be persuaded of anything different than my unsupportable preconceptions.

At some point accusations of narcissism set in.  (Keiths has already had accused me of compensating for a "sagging ego").

A more charitable level of framing is recognition that I am earnestly trying to learn, but I have sadly missed the mark.  My interpretations are so completely off that no knowledgeable person would have come to the same mistaken conclusions I have.

Then there is the framing in the face of evidence that maybe there are people out there who share my opinion (e.g. Dr. Hameroff).  But, hey, it’s the internet.  You can find someone supporting just about any crazy idea.  All that means is framing the perceptions of the those people too.

Then there is the framing in the face of evidence that not-so-crazy and very knowledgeable people share some of the ideas (e.g. Sir Roger Penrose).  Well, this tends to require more diplomatic handling, often patronizing.  Something similar to calling them bold ideas requiring further support, etc.   That, coupled with a good sounding statement like “appeals to authority aren't scientific.”.

Then there is the framing in the face of evidence of popular support.  A useful tactic here is to label it “mathematical gymnastics” which may or may not be useful in the long run.

I would be quite content to understand these “mathematical gymnastics”.  Maybe with the LHC the run won’t have to be that long.

BTW, I liked your Einstein's Idiots.  Thank you for linking to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My question isn't about the validity of the paper, it was the point of linking it. What do these particular functions have to do with the idea you are trying to put forward?

To understand these papers you need to understand commutators, groups, quantization, propagators, operators, not to mention general relativity. These are typically taught over 3 years (grad and undergrad education), culminating in quantum field theory.

Based on your own statements, I doubt if you know enough of these subjects to either endorse or reject any of these papers. This is further supported by your "I'll just copy and paste a paper that sounds good" posts with no comment. Stop copying papers and start dissecting them; that's what good scientists do. Stop pretending to simultaneously an authority and a student. You're either one or the other (it's clear you're the latter but act like the former), and it's definitely not my job to teach you.

Returning to the subject at hand, neither you, nor the authors in these papers, connect these constructs to any experiment (save a brief mention of Lorentz invariance, but many theories predict this violation). That's why they are "mathematical gymnastics"; there's no connection to reality.
Posted by: keiths on Aug. 19 2008,05:06

TP,

Your previous comment shows that your presence here has everything to do with assuaging your wounded ego, and little or nothing to do with an honest desire and willingness to learn.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 19 2008,07:23

TP wrote


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

I don't have the patience or the time to still through actual classes.  However, I am getting motivated to look for some on-line courses and possibly text-books.  I would like to understand these Twistor String papers better.  Not everyone explains things as clearly as Penrose did in The Road to Reality.

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


With enough determination you can do it, TP.  MIT puts much of its course material (lecture notes and problem sets) online.  Here are < courses of the physics department >.  Quantum Physics I (< 8.04 >) will get you started and after that, Quantum Physics II (< 8.05 >) will provide a bare minimum of conceptual and technical knowledge to understand Penrose's book.  Don't skimp on homework.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My point was that "Twistor methods were originally introduced by Penrose with the aim of providing a mathematical framework which could lead to a synthesis of quantum theory and relativity".

In The Road to Reality Penrose was clearly laying the foundation for synthesizing Quantum Mechanics with space-time relativity.  It was the basis behind his term "quanglement", the entanglement of quantum effects via four-dimensional complex geometry.  A geometry where things that "travel" at the speed of light collapse to a single point (e.g. photons entangled at the same point in Twistor space).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's still laying the foundation, as are doing string theorists.  creeky belly is absolutely right that the papers you quoted yesterday are mental gymnastics.  These guys are flexing their considerable mathematical muscle, but so far the connection to reality is pretty minimal.  

As I tried to convey to you on many occasions, quantum entanglement is not the only nonclassical aspect of quantum physics.  You don't need entangled particles to see that: a single particle with spin 1/2, the simplest quantum system, exhibits inherently undeterministic properties (see < Stern-Gerlach experiment >).  Therefore your program of reducing the quantum aspects to the geometry of Minkowski space is doomed from the start.  Penrose has no such intention: he quantizes his twistors using the textbook procedure of canonical quantization, which works the same for everything from the simple harmonic oscillator to the electromagnetic field.  Quantum physics is not born from geometry, it is married to it.
Posted by: slpage on Aug. 19 2008,08:09

Quote (dhogaza @ Aug. 18 2008,20:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hiroshima was somewhat defendable (our lack of confidence the bomb would work and pay back for Pearl Harbor).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was near-total confidence that the uranium gun would work, so much confidence that they didn't bother testing it.  They built one, moved on to the plutonium implosion design.

As for justifying it as payback, having burned over 200,000 Japanese civilians to death in Tokyo alone was more than sufficient to balance the books over about 3,500 military dead and the handful of ships permanently lost, don't you think?

In the Pearl Harbor raid, the Japanese Navy was fastidious in targeting our armed forces only (I'm well aware that such fastidiousness wasn't typical of the Army, but then again, they weren't involved).  Can't say that about the Home Team after LeMay got involved.

Heck, most of those BBs were raised and shelled the hell out of Japanese-held islands in preparation for invasion.  My guess is that these resurrected ships themselves killed more Japanese than our deaths in the Pearl Harbor raid ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And water boarding?  Well, that is a war crime.
Or was until we started doing it...
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 19 2008,11:41

Joy < lectures > Zachriel on the nitty-gritty of publishing in Nature:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reference [3] refers to a letter ('letter', not research) published in Nature Genetics in 2005 and written by 11 duly authoritative scientists insisting that these ultraconserved elements are "selectively constrained"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, maybe in the early 20th century that was the case, but today that's simply not true.  Letters in Nature Genetics, like in any other journal of the Nature Publishing Group, are short research papers subject to the same stringent peer review as regular articles.  An excerpt from the Nature < guide for authors and referees >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Letters include received/accepted dates. They may be accompanied by supplementary information. Letters are peer reviewed, and authors must provide a competing financial interests statement before publication.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't know about biology, but in physics there are quite a few journals publishing exclusively letter-length articles: Physical Review Letters, Europhysics Letters, Applied Physics Letters, Physics Letters, Modern Physics Letters etc.  Needless to say, all of them are peer-reviewed, although the level of stringency varies: it's pretty hard to get a letter into PRL, while MPL will publish just about anything.  

Judging by its impact factor of 25.5, the competition in Nature Genetics is cut-throat.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 19 2008,15:07

Hi Oleg and Creeky Belly,

Just to let you know, I have reacted to both of your suggestions there is more to this than just simple geometry (if complexified four dimensional geometry can be considered "simple").

In fact, I specifically re-read Penrose's Twistor description with this is mind back when Oleg got a copy of The Road to Reality.

Even if I don't fully understand the details, I recognize the bigger significance to Penrose's Twistor Space is quantization.

I hear you, Oleg, "Quantum physics is not born from geometry, it is married to it."

And, I won't skimp on the homework.  Which is one of the reasons I was saddened that you didn't keep The Road to Reality, I was hoping to get help on some of the exercises Penrose provided for his  readers.

And thanks to the forum moderators for tolerating this off-topic wandering.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Aug. 19 2008,16:30

The suggestion was made by my esteemed colleague that we need a smiley to denote comments so stupid it's not even worth bothering to explain why.

I concur.  Let's get it back to Telic Thoughts.



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< bar open shitter >, by yeled
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA:  I need to be doing homework, and inane distractions are not helpful.  Please attempt, for my sake, to minimize the OT stuff.  Thanks all, I'd appreciate it.


Posted by: JAM on Aug. 25 2008,16:05

Hey, TP!

Just to give you a better idea as to how your hero Hameroff is either misrepresenting or misinformed about modern neuroscience and cell biology, here are some howlers from him at:

< http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/ultimatecomputing/index.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Synaptic membrane proteins including ion channels and receptors, cytoskeletal protein structures which expel neurotransmitter vesicles, organelles including mitochondria, and enzymes required for the synthesis and metabolism of transmitters are manufactured only in the cell bodies of neurons where biochemical machinery exists for protein synthesis and assembly (Golgi apparatus and ribosomes).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See how he wrote "only," TP? This is false, and has been known to be false since 1996, when dendritic protein synthesis was first demonstrated. That was 12 frickin' years ago, man. Since then, active scientists have found convincing evidence for axonal protein synthesis as well.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These materials or their precursors are then moved through the axon (or dendrite) to the nerve terminal by a cytoskeletal mechanism similar to a conveyer belt or bucket brigade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, it's not similar.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Time lapse photography of neurons in cell culture...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, we can, but this was first shown in extruded squid axoplasm. The guy doesn't even know the basic history.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
show mitochondria (large organelles which produce chemical energy in the form of ATP) floating down axons like barges on a river.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, wrong. They are being transported--they aren't floating at all.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recent technology such as video enhanced contrast microscopy (Allen, 1987)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



1987 is "recent" for this guy, TP!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... Thus the plasticity of a synapse, its efficacy, readiness and threshold which appear to regulate learning and memory in neural nets over time all depend on axoplasmic transport.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Except that dendritic and axonal protein synthesis constitute huge exceptions to this dogma.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... The fastest move at a rate of 400 millimeters per day (about 500 nanometers per second), the slowest barely one millimeter per day. The mechanical parts of the system are microtubules and contractile proteins attached to specific sites on microtubule walls. These contractile proteins (dynein or kinesin) utilize chemical energy in the form of ATP hydrolysis to contract in orchestrated sequences of bucket brigade activity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Note how he completely ignores the actin cytoskeleton and its motors, which are responsible for the slow axonal transport. Howcum, TP?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is not understood is the mechanism by which microtubules orchestrate the cooperative sequential activities of the attached contractile proteins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is where we go from inexcusable ignorance to laughable woo. This is analogous to saying that we don't understand the mechanism by which roads orchestrate traffic. The answer is that they don't, and there's no evidence that microtubules play any significant role in orchestrating kinesin/dynein traffic.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The main stream of axoplasmic transport can be stopped by drugs such as colchicine, which depolymerizes microtubules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Demolishing roads stops traffic, but that doesn't support a claim that the road is "orchestrating" traffic, does it?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These trophic feedback mechanisms create dynamic neurons capable of changing shape and function as an adaptation to ongoing experience without excessive loss of old information. Synapses, dendritic spines, dendritic branch patterns and membrane proteins are continually changing, yet the memories they contain are somehow maintained by the ever present and ever-changing cytoskeleton.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is just plain dishonest, stating his hypothesis as a fact. All the data we now have point to changes in synaptic plasticity as the mechanism underlying learning and memory. While changes in the actin cytoskeleton are clearly a part of that in dendritic spines, there aren't any data supporting his claim (his hypothesis falsely presented as fact) that MTs are the central mechanism.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Aug. 25 2008,22:15

Hi Jam.

Did you notice...
"...this electronic edition was derived from the original 1987 print edition with permission from Elsevier Science Publishing ... the main body of this text should be essentially identical to the original."

Yes, 1987 research was recent in 1987.  It is also understandable why 1996 research might be overlooked 21 frickin' years ago.
Posted by: JAM on Aug. 25 2008,23:34

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 25 2008,22:15)
Hi Jam.

Did you notice...
"...this electronic edition was derived from the original 1987 print edition with permission from Elsevier Science Publishing ... the main body of this text should be essentially identical to the original."

Yes, 1987 research was recent in 1987.  It is also understandable why 1996 research might be overlooked 21 frickin' years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TP,

I noticed that. What it shows is that nothing has happened since then. It's hooey.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Aug. 27 2008,06:31

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 16 2008,15:22)
Is the assumption of randomness really necessary? Would a system of variation that produced all possible alleles in sequential order have different evolutionary consequenses than one that produced them in random order?

Just asking. :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
MidwifeToad in a later message: The question though, is does it matter? As long as the variation generator produces all possible values for a given string.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sort of.  Consider the human genome, which has about three billion base pairs.  At 2 bits per base pair, that's a six billion bit number.  It would take monstrously too long to go through all of the possible arrangements of all those base pairs.  The 14 odd billion years of our universe's history would be nothing compared to going through all of the combinations of the human genome sequentially.  And there are longer genomes.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Aug. 28 2008,00:24

Let me go into this topic a little bit more because it always flummoxes anti-evolutionists and most evolutionists aren't too clear on some of the points.

1) There are about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome.  Since there are four possible base pairs, it takes two bits to describe which one is at any particular place.  Therefore, there are about six billion bits of information in human DNA.

2) Two to the six billionth power is such a shockingly huge number that no calculator can calculate it.  It is far, far greater than the total number of particles in the universe.  It spits on Dembski's Universal Probability Bound of 1 in 10 to the 150th power.

3) Because of this, many ID creationists and ordinary creationists believe that the odds of getting any particular human DNA string are one in two to the six billionth power.

4) People who listen to Dembski are especially liable to believe that #3 above is correct.

5) However, people who listen to Dembski are, generally, tards.

6) In real life, we don't try to construct the human genome from scratch in one try, so the 1 in two to the six billionth figure is wrong.

7) Real evolution works generally by zapping one tiny part of the genome*, leaving all of the rest of the DNA intact and thus presumably working, since it enabled the parent(s) to function well enough to reproduce.

8) This means that the one in two to the six billionth figure and Dembski's Universal Probability Bound are useless, along with any changes Dembski may make to his UPB.  (He's apparently been raising it lately.)

9) In accordance with #8 above, any enormous number ginned up by a creationist is crap.  This is certain to a degree way, way, way inside the UPB.  (Roughly about 1 in 1 to the 0th power.)

10) Instead, when a single point mutation occurs, we are concerned with how the five billion, 999 million, 999 thousand, 998 bits of known good DNA will work with the two bits that have changed.

11) Generally speaking, they will work pretty well.  Most mutations are neutral.

12) If they don't work well, the offspring dies, usually before it is even born.  Throughout human history, about 80-90 percent of all humans born have died before reproducing.  A baby born with a bad mutation is just one more.

13) When they do work well, shazam!  Evolution has occurred.

14) PAYLOAD: Instead of going through all the possible permutations of a six billion bit number, evolution changes one or two base pairs at a time.  Since there are three billion base pairs in the human genome and approximately 6.6 billion humans on earth as of July '08, on average every single base pair in the human genome gets tweaked at least twice every generation if humans average only a single mutation each time they reproduce.

15) So much for the Universal Probability Bound and all the other big numbers the creationists throw around.

* There are other mutations that work on groups of DNA, such as gene duplications, but we can ignore them here.  They just make our point a little more convincing.




Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 28 2008,07:51

I had in mind something a bit less drastic than all members of a population shifting their alleles like synchronized swimmers, but I see your point.

I guess my point is that a pseudo random algorithm would work as well as a theoretically perfect random one.

I'm pretty sure there are ID advocates hoping to demonstrate some day that some mutations anticipate need, or at least respond to environmental stress by producing targeted change. A non-theistic teleology, if you will.

Don't shoot me. I'm just trying to figure out what they're thinking about, if anything.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 28 2008,09:50



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

2) Two to the six billionth power is such a shockingly huge number that no calculator can calculate it.  It is far, far greater than the total number of particles in the universe.  It spits on Dembski's Universal Probability Bound of 1 in 10 to the 150th power.

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



You apparently haven't met the < Finite Improbability Calculator >.



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

2 ^ 6000000000 = 10 ^ 1806179973.9839

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


Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 28 2008,14:26


Posted by: Texas Teach on Aug. 28 2008,17:04

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 28 2008,00:24)
Let me go into this topic a little bit more because it always flummoxes anti-evolutionists and most evolutionists aren't too clear on some of the points.

[snip total brilliance]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If this doesn't get POTW, there is no justice in the universe.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Aug. 28 2008,17:56

Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 28 2008,18:04)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 28 2008,00:24)
Let me go into this topic a little bit more because it always flummoxes anti-evolutionists and most evolutionists aren't too clear on some of the points.

[snip total brilliance]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If this doesn't get POTW, there is no justice in the universe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is, in fact, justice in the universe. Sometimes, it's just a little slow because it's trying to score an A in each of its college classes.

:D
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 28 2008,22:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PAYLOAD: Instead of going through all the possible permutations of a six billion bit number, evolution changes one or two base pairs at a time.  Since there are three billion base pairs in the human genome and approximately 6.6 billion humans on earth as of July '08, on average every single base pair in the human genome gets tweaked at least twice every generation if humans average only a single mutation each time they reproduce.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, if evolution had actually compared all the possible permutations to see which ones of all of them were better, doctors would likely have a lot less work than they do.

Henry
Posted by: CeilingCat on Aug. 29 2008,02:31

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 28 2008,09:50)
 

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

2) Two to the six billionth power is such a shockingly huge number that no calculator can calculate it.  It is far, far greater than the total number of particles in the universe.  It spits on Dembski's Universal Probability Bound of 1 in 10 to the 150th power.

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



You apparently haven't met the < Finite Improbability Calculator >.

 

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

2 ^ 6000000000 = 10 ^ 1806179973.9839

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


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


Wesley, that puts a whole new slant on things.  6 billion bits translated into decimal is only a 1 with 1,806,179,974 zeros after it (approximately).

If I remember right, the Bible runs to around 4 million characters, so using DaveScot's trusty Microsoft calculator, we discover that you could write that decimal number down in only 451 and a half Bibles.  Waterloo!
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 29 2008,05:03

Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 28 2008,23:56)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 28 2008,18:04)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 28 2008,00:24)
Let me go into this topic a little bit more because it always flummoxes anti-evolutionists and most evolutionists aren't too clear on some of the points.

[snip total brilliance]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If this doesn't get POTW, there is no justice in the universe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is, in fact, justice in the universe. Sometimes, it's just a little slow because it's trying to score an A in each of its college classes.

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there fuck as like justice in the universe! *I've* never got a POTW damn you!

But the important thing is I'm not bitter.

;-)

Louis
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Sep. 04 2008,07:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >:
In fact, during Darwin's time, the link between fins and limbs seemed impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep.  Back then, the predominant Creationist view was that the animals with fins and limbs were created according to God's Plan.  Now we know - through the exacting and mathematical rigor of ID - that the link between fins and limbs is only possible because it was part of the Designer's Plan (not that we know the Designer's Plan, just that there are fins and limbs - so they must have been part of the Plan).  Yay! ID Science!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 08 2008,15:47

Bilbo wandered off the TT reservation long enough to provide some fabulous entertainment on a comment thread < here >.

It takes a while to get into this, but starting about the 55th comment or so Bilbo toddles into a trap that JAM/Smokey set for him, and also displays near FtK/AFDave/Joy-like ignorance of basic molecular biology. His confusion of "nonsense mutation" with "nonsense DNA" is spectacularly funny, but it could be an in joke amongst us biologists...

At any rate, it is a classic foray of the underinformed (is he an engineer?) into biological research areas where he has no business pontificating.

I've archived this comment thread for those days when I really need a good laugh!
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 13 2008,16:38

Bradford started a hilarious thread on an < anthropic (multiverse) explanation for the Higgs phenomenon >.  Choice voodoo from Thought Provoker:


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

The only reason I can see to even question this logic is due to the long presumed view that everything is made up of solid particles i.e. materialistic.

I echo Bradford's hint that a guest host post at Telic Thoughts might be in order.

Questioning the presumed materialistic viewpoint is one of the key arguments behind the ID debate, both as a scientific exploration and as a political/religious movement.

I chuckle when people accuse me of being a materialist. I have come to believe there is no such thing as solid matter. I tend to embrace Sir Roger Penrose's quantum interpretation (Objective Reduction) which is a Copenhagen derivation.

BTW, have you read Penrose's The Road to Reality? I think it is quite good.

This quantum interpretation logically leads to the Penrose/Hameroff Orch OR model of consciousness which provides some support of a scientific ID hypothesis.

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


The Road to Reality is a nice book but it requires a certain level of knowledge (at least two semesters of quantum mechanics) that neither TP nor his correspondent possesses.  

TP is totally out to lunch on "solid particles."  A particle is a mathematical abstraction.  It means that an object is modeled as a single point.  A point has no size and no shape, while the tendency to retain shape is the defining characteristic of a solid!  We don't think of electrons as solid spheres, we picture them as points.  (String theorists have a different model, but that's another story.)  

As far as experiments show, electrons are point-like down to the smallest distances we can probe.  Protons aren't: scattering experiments indicate the presence of 3 point-like quarks within a proton (plus gluons).  So we model a proton as a point particle on length scales above 10^{-15} m.  On shorter length scales it's a fuzzy sphere made of 3 quarks exchanging gluons with each other and photons with outside electrical charges.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 13 2008,16:52

Hi Oleg,

While I appreciate you offering my comment increased visibility, I would like to point out I wasn't responding to Bradford's post, but Island's post on another blog.  Here is the paragraph I was referencing...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The two equations, E = mc^2 and E^2 = m^2 c^4 …are only different if there is a physical meaning to the negative mass and negative energy values, where the second equation allows for both positive and negative mass-energy solutions. The expression arises from the fact that the magnitude squared of the momentum four-vector is given by, m^2 c^2 = p^2 - E^2 / c^2 . In the case of a body at rest, p=0 , which leads to, m^2 = E^2 / c^4. The concept of negative mass arises by analogy with electric charges, where the formula for the energy of a relativistic particle, E^2 = m^2 c^4 - p^2 c^2 derives that a particle with a certain positive energy but no momentum could theoretically have a positive or negative mass!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



from < this link >

I haven't completely verified what Island was saying here.  I would be interested in your opinion as to what, if anything, is clearly in error.

P.S. You also wrote "String theorists have a different model, but that's another story.".  I presume you would also agree the < Twistor String Threory > is also another story.

Of course, I expect you to continue to suggest its all mathematical abstractions. So when did Penrose's Black Holes move from mathematical abstractions to reality?

Or is that transition still occuring?
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 13 2008,17:11

Hi TP, nice of you to drop by.  

There is nothing mysterious about negative-mass solutions in physics.  Dirac's solution was to fill all states with negative energy with electrons (Dirac sea).  Hitting an electron out of a negative-energy state leaves a hole in the Dirac sea, which behaves like a particle with a positive mass and a positive charge---a positron.  

If you think this is a speculation, it's not.  A similar story happens in semiconductors such as silicon or germanium.  They have a Fermi sea of electrons.  Electrons with energies above the Fermi-sea level behave as electrons in a vacuum (albeit with a different mass, which may also depend on the direction of motion).  Electrons below the Fermi-sea level act like particles with a negative (and again direction-dependent) mass.  Knocking out an electron from below the sea level creates a positively charged hole.  The holes are charge carriers in p-type semiconductors, so this is for real.

P. S. When I call something a mathematical abstraction it doesn't mean that I am poo-pooing it.  This week I discussed in my general physics class (wait for it) the particle model.  A particle is a mathematical abstraction.  We use such abstractions in physics.  We find them useful.  They help us simplify physical models and make equations solvable.  Hurray for mathematical abstractions!  

In the same vein, we have mathematical models of black holes: Schwarzschild black hole (simplest), Kerr black hole (rotating), Reissner-Nordström black hole (electrically charged).  These are abstractions, just like a point particle.  They may capture some, or even most, features of a real black hole, but usually there are some subtleties left out.  And yes, we have good observational evidence that black holes exist.

When I remarked at one point in the past that Penrose's math is "just math," I meant it in a different sense.  Unlike Dirac, he has new math, but he has no new physics.  Penrose compares himself in the book to Hamilton, who reformulated classical mechanics in terms of canonical variables (coordinates and momenta).  Hamilton's theory contained no new physical principles, but it helped a hundred years later in the formulation of quantum mechanics: quantization was first done in terms of canonical variables.  Likewise, Penrose thinks that his math, while not particularly useful to physics at the current stage, may be useful later when quantum gravity is ultimately developed.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 13 2008,21:02

Hi Oleg,

I have a BSEE so I know something about P-type and N-type semiconductors and why transitors and diodes work the way they do.

I also suspect my training is why I am generally willing to accept mathematical abstractions as reality.  Power equals voltage times current.  Voltage is current times resistance.  Ergo, power is the current squared times resistance.

This is as real to me as a blown 1/4 watt resistor.
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 14 2008,00:05

Doug puts up a sensible < question >:


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

Joy, Island or anyone that can answer this.
Why does CERN have the ability to accelerate particles fast enough to produce 7TeV?
I thought they were guessing that the Higgs could have been discovered in the range of GeVs…. but now they have an accelerator that goes past the 1TeV they originally assumed would have been needed to discover the Higgs boson.
It looks like the thinking went: at the most 1TeV, then more than likely less, then in the range of 115GeV-165GeV…. now with a machine that can surpass the original 1TeV.

Just kind of confusing.

So, does their guess of > than 1TeV mean that Fermilab is inadequate?

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


Joy responds as usual, making 4 errors in a short comment.  (i) She's wrong on the energy of individual protons (7 TeV) and that of pairs (14 TeV).  (ii) She confuses Tevatron at Fermilab (protons at 1 TeV) with RHIC at Brookhaven (heavy-ion nuclei at 100 GeV).  (iii) There's nothing wrong with the Standard Model at the GeV level.  (iv) A more accurate model, if it is required, will look like the Standard Model at and below the 100-GeV level.

And most interestingly, she has no answer for Doug, apart from "because they do".  Why even bother?  

Doug's question has a simple answer.  7 TeV is the energy of a proton. At that energy a proton looks like a bunch of independent particles, rather than a blob of matter.  Collisions of interest involve one quark from each of the incident protons.  The 3 quarks inside a proton carry a fraction of the 7 TeV: they share it not only with one another but also with gluons, which are quite numerous.  As a result, a quark carries only a small fraction of the 7 TeV.  

The quarks emit W and Z bosons which combine to produce a Higgs.  Since the quarks remain in the picture, the bosons receive only a fraction of the quark energy.  

That's why out of the 14 TeV less than 1 TeV goes to the formation of a Higgs.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Sep. 14 2008,12:34

Oleg,

Would you object to my copying the last part of your comment on Telic Thoughts so Doug can see the answer?

Thanks
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 14 2008,13:19

Sure, TP.  You might want to add < this reference > to a Wikipedia article showing two quarks emitting W or Z bosons that combine into a Higgs.
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 14 2008,14:24

It's instructive to compare TP's position on the crackpot trajectory with island01's.

island01 < writes >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My story is that of your typical crackpot who made a simple observation about the highly efficient manner that we humans tend to increase entropy, so I started studying physics, (about 20 years ago, now), to see what was known and how this stacked up to the paradigm shifting worldview that falls from my new understanding of nature.  I hit the fundamentals very hard and sometimes sounded a lot like every other crackpot that you see on “usenet”, I’m sure, but this “inventive” tendency slowly diminished as I read these dumb books that I paid ungodly amounts of money for, that Baez and others always recommended.  Add to that those many too many hours of painful tutorials that included the kind of math that draws blood while leaving permanent scars on a guy like me, and I finally began to get a clue.  I started studying gravity like every other good amateur student of physics, following along as best as I could with all of the great conversation that was going on in the sci.physics.research group, and interjecting my thoughts occasionally in a somewhat less than crackpotish manner that actually made it past the moderators for a change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 15 2008,14:45

Highly efficient manner of increasing entropy????

I could have sworn that increases of entropy were a result of a lack of efficiency?  :p

Henry
Posted by: Jkrebs on Sep. 15 2008,20:19

I just dropped into this thread somewhat accidentally, and found this by Ceiling Cat:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley, that puts a whole new slant on things.  6 billion bits translated into decimal is only a 1 with 1,806,179,974 zeros after it (approximately).

If I remember right, the Bible runs to around 4 million characters, so using DaveScot's trusty Microsoft calculator, we discover that you could write that decimal number down in only 451 and a half Bibles.  Waterloo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's not right. The number 1,806,179,974 ÷ 4,000,000 = approximately 451, but the number 1,806,179,974 is not at all the same as 10 ^ 1,806,179,974.  In fact, 1,806,179,974 is only 1.8 x 10^9, so it's just a bit smaller than 10 ^ 1,806,179,974.

Also you don't need Wesley's fabulous calculator (which is very handy for other things at times) to figure out that 2 ^ 6 billion = 10 ^ 1.8 billion (approximately), because the log of 2 is about 0.3, and 0.3 x 6 billion = 1.8 billion.

Over and out.
Posted by: Rob R. on Sep. 15 2008,20:57

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 14 2008,13:19)
Sure, TP.  You might want to add < this reference > to a Wikipedia article showing two quarks emitting W or Z bosons that combine into a Higgs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Oleg,

Have you been banned from Telic Thoughts?  I was under the impression that you weren't, assuming that's true, why not post your comments there?

For what it's worth, thank you for the explanation; whether here or there, just curious.
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 15 2008,21:38

Hi Rob,

No, I'm not banned.  I simply promised Mike Gene not to darken his doorstep: he was getting all worked up about my presence at TT.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 15 2008,21:43

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2008,21:38)
Hi Rob,

No, I'm not banned.  I simply promised Mike Gene not to darken his doorstep: he was getting all worked up about my presence at TT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, real scientists seem to bother those guys. They prefer to listen to the likes of Bilbo and Joy, who are unconstrained by the bounds of reality or honest experimentation...
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 06 2008,23:55

Ooo, it appears I was silently banned from Telic Thoughts. Not for anything in particular I said, I haven't commented over there in months. But at some point, in my absence, I was surreptititously banned.

It's an ID blog, so I'm not the least bit surprised. In fact it was a little weird when they weren't banning me for disagreeing with them. That has now been remedied.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,00:12

My apologies. The error messages made it appear that my account was invalid, when they should have said "Wrong password sucka"

:D
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 12 2008,09:54

Quote (Violettaext @ Oct. 12 2008,07:10)
In 2006, she was the runner-up in the Miss Paraguay beauty pageant and Miss Bikini Universe contest. Leryn became an Internet sensation this summer, thanks to her athletic good looks, and it looks like her newfound notoriety has helped boost her modeling career.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I take issue with this. Leryn's modeling career and success with the javelin both result from a third factor. Propelling a javelin such that it strikes the ground with the needed distance and pitching moment requires that one marshal, then impart angular momentum with optimum, non-linear dynamics that are now only being mathematically modeled. The characteristics of Leryn's breasts that account for her success as a model (best observed by plotting slope against horizontal extension) also endow her with a unique combination of core stability and core dynamics, rendering her uniquely capable of transferring force from the ground, through her core and into the body of javelin.

I would have thought this was obvious.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2008,23:15

Quote (PiterDante @ Nov. 15 2008,23:04)
Quote (Zachriel @ June 07 2008,06:27)
< does extagen work > dieters need more help < truth about enzyte >


sexual health< maxoderm > success in its effectiveness to control  < does extenze pills work >
Find Out The T
ruth. Actual User Testimonials

< vivaxa >   been realized after careful   < semenax >
mer Advocate, Phil Kaplan

< avlimil > male enhancement  < does hoodia pills work >

Respected Weight Loss and Fitness Consu  < truth about enzyte >

< extenze >  enhancement reviews    < semenax >


summa bitta< does extenze pills work >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< does extagen work > dieters need more help < truth about enzyte >


sexual health< maxoderm > success in its effectiveness to control  < does extenze pills work >
Find Out The T
ruth. Actual User Testimonials

< vivaxa >   been realized after careful   < semenax >
mer Advocate, Phil Kaplan

< avlimil > male enhancement  < does hoodia pills work >

Respected Weight Loss and Fitness Consu  < truth about enzyte >

< extenze >  enhancement reviews    < semenax >


summa bitta< does extenze pills work >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey, richtard is back!  hey buddy, missed ya!
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 21 2008,20:58

Just thought I'd point out that Don Provan has been doing some good work at Telic Thoughts, such as on the < Thomas Nagel on Education and ID > thread. I've only seen him seem to wobble on the tightrope once—but like a true Scotsman showman, that may have been to just keep up the suspense.


Posted by: Rob R. on Nov. 21 2008,23:23

Wow, Z, you're easily impressed.  ToE that line brave soldier *wipes tear*

In other (TelicThoughts) news:  < New blogger, Nullasalus, is welcomed to TT. >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 28 2008,11:57

Nelson Alonso has a post up at Telic Thoughts providing a response a little over < eight years after my answer to some obvious errors of his >.

I've put another response in the comments in my thread. The last few paragraphs of Nelson's TT post didn't seem to be apropos of anything, so I don't make any response to those.

At least the extreme verbal abusiveness was missing from this latest outing of Nelson's.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 04 2008,10:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< The Pixie Again >: Until recently, I had thought that Behe was using the concept of ID to argue against evolution, and thus for design. It is only when reading some recent threads here that I came to realise that all Behe was saying was that IC proves there is an indiect evolutionary route ... I wondered; where did I get my misunderstanding?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very nice post by The Pixie Again. He used the Google.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< The Pixie Again >: Hmm, now to my reading, that does sound as though the people at the IDEA Center have the same misunderstanding as me. They seem to be under the clearly mistaken view that IC in some way refutes evolution... Then I came across < an article at ARN >. Surely the good people at ARN know what Behe really means. And by the people at ARN, specifically I mean the author of that article, a gentleman called "Micheal J. Behe". You might imagine he would know what Micheal J. Behe was trying to prove with IC. Would you not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, maybe not. The < CSI > is not definitive.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 05 2008,11:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  don provan Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I have a story in my head. I think it's from the old, original Route 66 TV series. A family living in the middle of nowhere has nothing to their names but a ramshackle little house and a car up on blocks out back in the weeds. The car's engine just bearly runs, and there's little reason to think it could actually move the car. But we'll never know, because the car's wheels have no tires and don't touch the ground. Besides, the car is so dilapidated that even if it did move, it would fall apart before it got to the road out front.

The family's life is desperate and empty, but they go out and get in that car every Saturday night, start up the engine, and spend a happy evening pretending that they're going somewhere.

Hearing that Dembski has abandoned EF is like hearing that their engine has rusted away.

Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I just had to < share. >
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 16 2008,21:00

Not quite sure what to make of Telic Thoughts. I thought Rabbit threads were considered open threads, but apparently, they're some sort of unique personal domain. I'm not really sure.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: It's a shame you monkeys can't resist the urge to grab a handful anytime you see the letters I and D together in a sentence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: You sit and think about how far you can fling a pawful of crap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Normally, I ignore that sort of behavior. It only encourages and dilutes the reading value of a thread. But because he repeated his behavior, I thought I would respond. I found a Rabbit thread, and posted what I thought was a reasonable reply to remind chunkdz that he was off-topic.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: The bad experience you had at the zoo as a kid is decidedly off-topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interestingly, Guts sent my comment to the Memory Hole.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: Zachriel, don't use my threads, open or otherwise, to post complaints or insult others. Your post was once again thrown in the memory hole.

< Zachriel >: Let's see, chunkdz accuses me and others of being feces-flinging monkeys. Instead of derailing the thread, I post my reply in an open thread. So, you hole my comments. Sure, that makes sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chunkdz continues unabated ...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Finally a critic who doesn't just fling poo at the Dover School Board. Oleg flings his poo at Theoretical Physics too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Yes! Every great poo flinger is convinced that his poo is absolutely the best poo on the planet. Yours is undoubtedly of the finest consistency and texture. Please continue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: All I know is when you put a mirror in front of a drooling, angry chimp it makes him freak out and fling poo. It took you all of 1 post to submerge yourself in a knee-jerk torrent of poo flinging and stereotyping.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Summing up...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: You're embarrassing yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 16 2008,23:31

chunkdz makes < Joy > look like a fokking sooper scholar.

oleg says we have an idea of how much dark matter there is in the universe because of the results of indirect measurement methods that imply this quantity from theory.

joy says in effect "DO YOU WORK FOR THE ALIENS THAT ARE PERSICUTING MY FAMILY AND FOLLOW US TO EARTH FARE AND TO THE MARION FLEA MARKET YOU BASTARD?"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
oleg to Bradford:

we already know that the answer is correct. We know how much dark matter exists in the Universe!

There you have it in a nutshell, Bradford. We know how much invisible closet monsters exist because we know exactly how many invisible closet monsters it takes to balance our equations. We need invisible closet monsters because without them, our equations don't balance. And our equations must balance because we know what gravity is and what it does, and there has to be about 95% more matter (that has to be invisible closet monsters because we can't see it or detect it by any means) in our material universe for our cool theories about gravity and what it does to work. Duh.

That's simple enough for anyone to understand. Is it science? Why, yes it must be. Because we make the rules up as we go along.

I must say that's some really impressive sleight of mind there, oleg. You don't happen to be a well-paid coverup expert for nuclear meltdowns and/or blown supercollider superconductors in your spare time, do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what a frikking tard
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 17 2008,18:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: It fits staggeringly well huh Zach. So does your banning. Go play in a puddle. It beats crying foul.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Banned! Maybe it was when I quoted Bisson and then Shakespeare.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bisson: They're made out of < meat >.

MikeGene: I’m wondering what type of world view leads someone to degrade their fellow human beings as meat.

< HAMLET >: A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a
king, and cat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.


KING CLAUDIUS: What dost you mean by this?

HAMLET: Nothing but to show you how a king may go a
progress through the guts of a beggar.

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


Or maybe it was citing Douglas Adams.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Just because the universe is compatible with human life doesn't mean the universe was designed for human life. That's < puddle-logic >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is rather as if you 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!'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bradford: No, it's an attempt to identify contingencies and account for the observed outcome as contrasted with a perhaps almost infinite number of contrary possibilities. Someone has to win the lottery but when the same individual repeatedly wins it all but anti-telicians would begin to suspect design.

Zachriel: You haven't won the lottery repeatedly. You've won one out of one and have no idea of the mechanism by which numbers are drawn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 17 2008,18:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: You left out a few thousand events not dictated by constants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. You blocked me from posting. My followup comment was lost in the ether.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Then those finely tuned forces of nature evident after the BB had to be followed inevitably by galaxy formations allowing for stars and solar systems that would give rise to life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given the physical constants, most scientists believe that the formation of stars and planets, including liquid water rich in organic macromolecules, are inevitable.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: And of course we just know that a self-replicating nucleic acid replicated itself all the way to a cell which evolved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once replication begins, then evolution is known to be capable of generating additional complexity. The origin of life is a bit more problematic, but most scientists believe life is inevitable given the appropriate conditions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: I sense dogma and an unwillingness to consider alternatives that don't fit the preconceived idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am more than willing to consider alternatives, but teleology has been scientifically unfruitful, while the ID Movement has been enthralled by fallacious arguments.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: What we'd like to do is keep an open mind so that when if one sees a series of very unlikely events based not on deterministic outcomes like water flowing downhill, but on events emerging from contingencies whose results do not follow inevitably from predictable laws, then one could distinguish between erosion and Mt. Rushmore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the whole point of the puddle-analogy, Bradford. The puddle is unaware of why every detail of the hole seems to be such a perfect fit. Measure the CSI! It's a staggeringly good fit! Better than Mount Rushmore!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: But if philosophical naturalism is a revered idol obviously the mind will be closed to anything other than it is because it it happened according to nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not a philosophical naturalist.
Posted by: keiths on Dec. 17 2008,19:03

Typical of Mike Gene to see it as degrading to acknowledge that humans are made up of meat.  Mike -- the problem is not that Zachriel has a low opinion of humans, it's that you have a low opinion of meat. 

And of course Bradford is an ass.

ETA:  That Hamlet quote was spot on.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 17 2008,19:06

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 17 2008,19:03)
And of course Bradford is an ass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That and Zach has been grinding them into dust by dismantiling their arguments for a long time now and they must be getting sick of it.

I almost feel sorry for them.

Almost, but not quite. Keep it up Zach!

EDIT: Banned? The cowards!
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 17 2008,19:10

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 17 2008,19:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: It fits staggeringly well huh Zach. So does your banning. Go play in a puddle. It beats crying foul.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Banned! Maybe it was when I quoted Bisson and then Shakespeare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was wondering when that would happen. You showed them to be ignoramuses every day for long stretches of months. But in the end, they are an ID site, and they do not tolerate criticism well. I just think it's hilarious that a group of creationist laymen think that by sitting around blogging they'll somehow provoke a scientific revolution. They must not have the slightest idea how science works.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 18 2008,06:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: Humans don't cease being noble because they happen to be featherless bipeds.

< MikeGene >: Agreed, just as they don’t cease being noble because they happen to be wingless homeotherms. But notice how you have suddenly abandoned your original description of humans as ‘meat’ and replaced it with something that sounds more cute – 'featherless bipeds.' Why did you do this? Because you know that the term meat, when applied to humans, does not convey nobility. On the contrary, it is a degrading term, as in ‘meathead’ or ‘piece of meat.’ You know I am right because you tried to switch metaphors midstream.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you are not right, MikeGene. I wanted to pick a different categorization to show that it is irrelevant to any value you or I or anyone else might put on people. I thought "mammals", "eukaryotes", "vertebrates", but settled on "featherless bipeds". I could have said "a mosquito's ready meal", "a cuddly sack of protoplasm", or "smarter than the average eutherian" for the same effect.

I chose "noble" because that is Hamlet's description.

< HAMLET >: What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me,
what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not
me: no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling
you seem to say so.

Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 18 2008,07:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< MikeGene >: I just watched the whole video you linked to and it clearly confirms my point - the term ‘meat’ is meant in a denigrating fashion. One alien is disgusted with the idea that “meat” thinks and other is incredulous, then amused. It turns out the aliens want nothing to do with humans because they are only meat. The video shots of human behavior are meant to reinforce this image. ‘Humans as meat’ is a direct attack on the notion that humans have any nobility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's called perspective. When medical students cut up their first human cadaver, they usually can't help either giggling or wretching. But they gain perspective, sometimes even learning to love the humanity of the dead meat they cut and stitch. While a mosquito looks at a sleeping child as food, an alien might have trouble appreciating the beauty of a naked ape.

< >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< MikeGene >: They’re just meat, as you say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say "just meat". Bisson's story depends on our appreciation of humanity for its irony. As does Shakespeare's Hamlet.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< MikeGene >: I did some googling that also confirmed something else. It turns out that Terry Bisson and his meat story is very popular among atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Among science fiction fans of all stripes. Bisson has won both the Nebula and Hugo awards. Science fiction is about perspective, a way of seeing humanity from a new and independent vantage.

<

Let That Be Your Last Battlefield. >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 18 2008,07:07

I thought ID folk weren't hung up on atheism.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 18 2008,08:23

I meant to respond to this quite some time ago. From < Uncommonly Dense Thread 2 >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< stevestory >: I was pondering why UD is so addictive the other day... So why does the UD thread have 50 million pages, while, for instance, the Telic Thoughts thread barely exists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stevestory proposes an explanation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< stevestory >: It's because Dembski is a jerk. ID people everywhere make ridiculous, comically defective and ignorant arguments, but there's something a little unseemly in laughing at a person for being stupid. But if a person is stupid and mean, the meanness makes them more acceptable for abuse. So while you can find the same absurdity at UD, TT, or EN&V, Dembski's 'petulant 13-year-old' behavior causes us to be more interested in laughing at him. And of course Dembski, being a jerk, puts another jerk in charge, Davetard, for the occasions when Dembski's not around to be a jerk in person, and so UD is extra-jerky and the UD thread here goes through the roof.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, there is that.

But I think a significant difference is the banning behavior at Uncommon Descent. Consider the hundreds of posts on < The BlogCzar Years > just to track the bannings and other moderator atrocities. I started frequenting AtBC when I was thrice banned on Uncommon Descent.

With respect to Telic Thoughts, their moderation policy is more relaxed, so if you have something to say, you can usually say it there. But when banned, AtBC offers a welcome refuge.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are not allowed to comment on this thread. You are welcome to comment in others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I note my current ban only applies to the one thread, but I've also been having troubles commenting on open threads.

The puddle-analogy was on-topic and continues to be discussed. Someone please let Telic Thoughts know that I have responded to < Dark Matter Can Enlighten Minds > here.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 18 2008,10:24

To visitors from Telic Thoughts < Dark Matter Can Enlighten Minds >, my replies can be found beginning on the < previous page >. (Thanks, olegt, for the < public service announcement >.)
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 18 2008,10:27

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 18 2008,08:07)
I thought ID folk weren't hung up on atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THINKIN'--Ur Doin it Rong
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 18 2008,11:38

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 18 2008,10:24)
To visitors from Telic Thoughts < Dark Matter Can Enlighten Minds >, my replies can be found beginning on the < previous page >. (Thanks, olegt, for the < public service announcement >.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it looks like olegt's public service announcement has disappeared. And it's not in the Memory Hole.

Imagine that.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 18 2008,11:42

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 18 2008,12:38)
Well, it looks like olegt's public service announcement has disappeared. And it's not in the Memory Hole.

Imagine that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IDers, deleting criticism from their echo chambers?


Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 18 2008,12:22

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 18 2008,11:42)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 18 2008,12:38)
Well, it looks like olegt's public service announcement has disappeared. And it's not in the Memory Hole.

Imagine that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IDers, deleting criticism from their echo chambers?


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


I'm shocked, shocked.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 18 2008,14:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< don provan >: Do you really not get the puddle analogy? The puddle always fits its location. That fact doesn't tell the puddle anything about how the location came into existence. You keep acting like he's making a silly point, but then you keep proving his point by listing things that are exactly like the things the puddle would list as "proof" that the hole it's in was made especially for it.

< Bradford >: These are arrogant assumptions. We know why water flows downhill and can describe effects of gravity and observe a hole. Determinism all the way. Everything explicable.

< don provan >: You have to imagine yourself as the puddle. This is a logical point about limits of the point of view of the puddle. It asks you to consider whether your point of view has similar limits. My God, man, you've completely misunderstood if you think it has anything to do with water or gravity or anything else about us observing the puddle. That's the whole point: we know that the puddle's wrong about the hole being made to fit it, but the puddle's overlooking explanations other than intelligent design.

< Bradford >: Why? I'm not the puddle and am in a position to investigate how the puddle was formed.

< don provan >: Bradford, I want to treat you with as much respect as possible, but your inability to even begin to grasp this analogy is making it hard. You are the puddle. That's the point. You act as if you have no understanding of analogies at all.

< Bradford >: The analogy is a philosophical reformulation. It just exists. You're falsely imputing purpose to an existential condition. The problem with this position is you know not the complete causal trail leading from a preexisting universe to life on earth and are unable to specify contingencies that could have produced alternative outcomes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That compares with anything on Uncommon Descent.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: If the gaps are this cavernous inserting philosophical naturalism into the gaps and asserting an ateleological process is arrogant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford stumbles right past the answer.

It's right there, Bradford. Look!

The puddle might be in a natural hole, a tire track, or a swimming pool. But the fact that the puddle fits his hole staggeringly well is not *evidence* that can distinguish between the possibilities. The puddle's reasoning is fallacious.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Joy >: Deal is, the analogy doesn't work. In fact, it's positively asinine. A hole has no awareness, and neither does the water in a hole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently, Joy doesn't understand analogies either. Wonder what she thinks of the laughing lions, councils of mice and musical grasshoppers in Aesop's Fables.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Dec. 18 2008,14:45

It buuurns, it buuurns! Is it possible to fake being that obtuse in order to deny a point against one's position? Because that is pants-on-head stupid.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 18 2008,14:59

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 16 2008,21:00)
{snip}

Chunkdz continues unabated ...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Finally a critic who doesn't just fling poo at the Dover School Board. Oleg flings his poo at Theoretical Physics too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Yes! Every great poo flinger is convinced that his poo is absolutely the best poo on the planet. Yours is undoubtedly of the finest consistency and texture. Please continue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: All I know is when you put a mirror in front of a drooling, angry chimp it makes him freak out and fling poo. It took you all of 1 post to submerge yourself in a knee-jerk torrent of poo flinging and stereotyping.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Summing up...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: You're embarrassing yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


chunkdz adds a touch of irony.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< don provan >: I want to treat you with as much respect as possible

< chunkdz >: Treating our fellow man with respect is a personal choice we make Don, not something we are compelled to do. It depends entirely upon you, not upon those you might choose to deride.

Got that, moron? :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 18 2008,15:03

holy crap.

They really are as stupid as people parody them. How can you parody that? No matter how ridiculous the caricature, it's still accurate.
Posted by: keiths on Dec. 18 2008,15:47

Quote (dnmlthr @ Dec. 18 2008,12:45)
It buuurns, it buuurns! Is it possible to fake being that obtuse in order to deny a point against one's position? Because that is pants-on-head stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But dnmlthr, we don't wear our pants on our heads.  We wear them on our legs.

Anyway, pants can't be stupid, and neither can the legs in them.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 18 2008,17:24

has anyone ever suggested...

chunkdz = Dave Tard?

is this possible?
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 19 2008,10:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: "Quantum indeterminacy" is nothing more than an informational gap to us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no scientific support for that statement.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: You don't actually believe that quantum events are unchained from a deterministic cause and effect, do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Violations of < Bell's Inequality > suggest there are no hidden variables, assuming locality and realism. Naďve notions of cause and effect which depend on these assumptions may not be valid or applicable.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Quantum Indeterminacy >: Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent *necessary* incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 19 2008,11:15

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 19 2008,11:57)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: "Quantum indeterminacy" is nothing more than an informational gap to us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no scientific support for that statement.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


..., said Zachriel as if that made the least bit of difference.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 19 2008,13:19

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 19 2008,11:15)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 19 2008,11:57)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: "Quantum indeterminacy" is nothing more than an informational gap to us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no scientific support for that statement.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


..., said Zachriel as if that made the least bit of difference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lou pulls a dart from his quiver,
Pierces Zachriel straight through the quibble.



Posted by: Frostman on Dec. 20 2008,18:53

This just in: Joy has < magic powers >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not just being able to find 4-leaf clovers in fields of clover without hardly trying. I also mess with electricity in a meaningful way. Street lights flick off when I pass. Sometimes in a line. Sometimes they flick back on as far behind my trajectory as they flick off ahead. And I can't wear a watch. Within hours it starts keeping screwy time, stops altogether, or starts running backwards. I've a box full of various types of watches people have given me over the years, in the box because not a one of 'em can keep decent time. Not even the wind-ups, not even the pocket-watches (they take longer to mess up, though).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh… and I can fry the electrical wiring in a car or truck just by sitting in it, though me actually turning the key can do it faster.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When asked why she didn't take the Randi challenge,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd take Randi's money if I thought he wouldn't define my 'ability' out of existence after the fact so as not to pay me. [...] I'm quite sure synesthesia would disqualify me from the Randi running.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm ... four-leaf clovers ... keeping your magic powers hidden from scrutiny ... Joy, are you a leprechaun?

Posted by: khan on Dec. 20 2008,18:58

Quote (Frostman @ Dec. 20 2008,19:53)
This just in: Joy has < magic powers >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not just being able to find 4-leaf clovers in fields of clover without hardly trying. I also mess with electricity in a meaningful way. Street lights flick off when I pass. Sometimes in a line. Sometimes they flick back on as far behind my trajectory as they flick off ahead. And I can't wear a watch. Within hours it starts keeping screwy time, stops altogether, or starts running backwards. I've a box full of various types of watches people have given me over the years, in the box because not a one of 'em can keep decent time. Not even the wind-ups, not even the pocket-watches (they take longer to mess up, though).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh… and I can fry the electrical wiring in a car or truck just by sitting in it, though me actually turning the key can do it faster.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When asked why she didn't take the Randi challenge,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd take Randi's money if I thought he wouldn't define my 'ability' out of existence after the fact so as not to pay me. [...] I'm quite sure synesthesia would disqualify me from the Randi running.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm ... four-leaf clovers ... keeping your magic powers hidden from scrutiny ... Joy, are you a leprechaun?

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


I've always been good at spotting 4-leaf clovers, father also was good at such.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 20 2008,19:41

I've never had much luck with watches, but being an electrician, I had a nasty tendency to get them hung on live wires, so that might have something to do with that.

Hope your wrist is feeling better, Khan.
Posted by: khan on Dec. 20 2008,20:03

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 20 2008,20:41)
I've never had much luck with watches, but being an electrician, I had a nasty tendency to get them hung on live wires, so that might have something to do with that.

Hope your wrist is feeling better, Khan.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Almost back to human.
Posted by: jeffox on Dec. 21 2008,13:13

Too bad those "magical powers" of hers can't keep those nasty nuclear mafiosos away.

You can't take anything she writes seriously.

The only thing magical about Joy is her incredible level of TARD.  :)
Posted by: silverspoon on Dec. 21 2008,13:33

Quote (jeffox @ Dec. 21 2008,13:13)
Too bad those "magical powers" of hers can't keep those nasty nuclear mafiosos away.

You can't take anything she writes seriously.

The only thing magical about Joy is her incredible level of TARD.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be careful what you say. Joy might figure out the flickering street lights are how we track her.
Posted by: jeffox on Dec. 21 2008,13:42

Silverspoon wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Be careful what you say. Joy might figure out the flickering street lights are how we track her.

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



Ya ya, the funny thing is that here, in west-central Wisconsin, all of the streetlamps on my street were off last night.  I could attribute this to Joy's "powers" except that it snowed six inches yesterday and I talked to a neighbor who watched somebody accidently drive into the light control box for this street.  :)  The city should be out fixing it today, I figure.

Or it coulda been that gol-darned nuclear mafia.  :p

Say, I just thought, maybe those streetlights go out for Joy out of empathy of her dim-bulbedness.  :O   :)
Posted by: JAM on Dec. 23 2008,01:07

I B banned agin (as Stinky)! Imagine that!
Posted by: keiths on Dec. 23 2008,02:28

Quote (JAM @ Dec. 22 2008,23:07)
I B banned agin (as Stinky)! Imagine that!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky, Stinky?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 23 2008,09:29

Mechanical watches can be magnetized. "Antimagnetic" watches were a big deal before everyone started wearing quartz movements.

I had a college friend, a polio survivor, who had a steel rod fusing his spine. He could not keep a watch running. Even expensive Swiss watches would become magnetized by the motion of his arms swinging.

So what bionic parts can we assume are present in someone who stops watches? Or could it be the same force that stops clocks?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 23 2008,11:19

it may be the enormous charge of the particle stupiditron, never observed but inferred from many experiments, that is causing Joy to rumble the street lights and shitty watches.  From her blog history I have come to suspect that her entire corpuscular composition is derived from stupiditrons.  surely such a stalwart spokestard for inquiry infused with intellectual integrity will donate her body to science.  hopefully sooner rather than later, inquiring minds need to know.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 23 2008,12:55

Seen on a thread about Scoffing.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Todd Berkebile >: That's just one of the many faults of our poorly designed brains.

< Joy >: Speak for your own brain, Todd! Mine is designed just fine, thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 23 2008,12:59

< Can some people extinguish streetlamps by means of their bodily emanations? >
Posted by: jeffox on Dec. 23 2008,13:37

'Ras wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From her blog history I have come to suspect that her entire corpuscular composition is derived from stupiditrons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It could be their interactions with the dark tardicles, also.  My 2c.  :p
Posted by: JAM on Dec. 25 2008,12:56

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 23 2008,02:28)
Quote (JAM @ Dec. 22 2008,23:07)
I B banned agin (as Stinky)! Imagine that!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky, Stinky?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://telicthoughts.com/design-detection/#comment-212094 >

< http://telicthoughts.com/re-thin....-212019 >
Posted by: KCdgw on Jan. 04 2009,15:31

< From Joy: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unicycles have no "function," they exist purely for entertainment/stunt purposes - though they do qualify as machines. They are NOT useful in any other application, including the primary function of all other wheeled vehicles (such as a bicycle), which is getting a person/load from point A to point B with a minimum of effort. A ball has no "function," though humans use them as toys, for exercise, to juggle (entertainment), for sports and games.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL.

KC
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 04 2009,15:59

Quote (KCdgw @ Jan. 04 2009,13:31)
< From Joy: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unicycles have no "function," they exist purely for entertainment/stunt purposes - though they do qualify as machines. They are NOT useful in any other application, including the primary function of all other wheeled vehicles (such as a bicycle), which is getting a person/load from point A to point B with a minimum of effort. A ball has no "function," though humans use them as toys, for exercise, to juggle (entertainment), for sports and games.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL.

KC
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just imagine what it's like to be Joy.
Posted by: Reed on Jan. 04 2009,16:50

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 04 2009,13:59)
 
Quote (KCdgw @ Jan. 04 2009,13:31)
< From Joy: >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unicycles have no "function," they exist purely for entertainment/stunt purposes - though they do qualify as machines. They are NOT useful in any other application, including the primary function of all other wheeled vehicles (such as a bicycle), which is getting a person/load from point A to point B with a minimum of effort. A ball has no "function," though humans use them as toys, for exercise, to juggle (entertainment), for sports and games.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL.

KC
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just imagine what it's like to be Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Without even getting into entertainment being a function, I'm gonna take a wild guess Joy's never done this < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N4xmcHeajQ >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 04 2009,16:54

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 04 2009,16:59)
Quote (KCdgw @ Jan. 04 2009,13:31)
< From Joy: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unicycles have no "function," they exist purely for entertainment/stunt purposes - though they do qualify as machines. They are NOT useful in any other application, including the primary function of all other wheeled vehicles (such as a bicycle), which is getting a person/load from point A to point B with a minimum of effort. A ball has no "function," though humans use them as toys, for exercise, to juggle (entertainment), for sports and games.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL.

KC
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just imagine what it's like to be Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy has no function. She exists purely for entertainment/stunt purposes.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 04 2009,17:49

I use my tv for entertainment purposes. I guess it has no function.

with this kind of brilliant reasoning, kinda hard to understand why ID never went anywhere.
Posted by: bystander on Jan. 04 2009,17:50

You can see the same thing at UD. It doesn't matter how lame, they have to defend one of their own (I don't see them thinking that Fuller is one of their own).

Behe said that to be IC that removal of any part will stop the system functioning as anything. not it has to have the same function, not that it has to function perfectly, but it has to stop functioning.

By saying that the Bicycle is IC, they are admitting that IC systems can evolve.

They want to have their cake and eat it.
Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 03 2009,16:03

Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 05 2008,08:34)
 
Quote (slpage @ Aug. 05 2008,07:40)
     
Quote (dogdidit @ July 24 2008,07:49)
The End of Days. Apocalypse. Supper's Ready (for you aging Genesis fans).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'm not that aging, but I saw them in Albany last September.  I had to sit throught their post-1980 top-40 garbage, but the handful of old gems they played - anad played well - was worth it.
It killed me to see hundreds of thirty-somethings get up and leave during their last encore song - the Carpet Crawlers...
Losers...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A fan? Cool!! Pre- or post-Gabriel departure? :)

I first saw them at the Whiskey-a-Go-Go in Hollywood is nineteen-mumbledy-something. Peter Gabriel in a giant tetrahedral papier-mache head, bouncing around to Apocalypse in 9/8 time. I was so-o-o-o-o-o stoned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I saw them for the first time at the Santa Monica Civic, 1973, Selling England By the Pound tour with Gabriel. Fabulous.

The best post-Gabriel show for me was Berkeley Community Theatre, ~1976. They had King Crimson's Bill Bruford on drums. The drum duels between Bruford and Collins on the instrumental parts of  "The Cinema Show"  and "Supper's Ready" brought down the house.  

KC


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 09 2009,08:04

Vastly amusing thread over at TT where they say why they are too scared to leave their little comfort zone and openly debate at ATBC:
< http://telicthoughts.com/eastern....omments >

Joy
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is nothing there that could be considered remotely interesting to anyone over the psychological age of 9. And there's not a single topic that would interest a genuine 9-year old for longer than a day or two. There's only a few insults, epithets and cuss words they don't already know by that age.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fess up Olegt. This is why you come to the oasis known as Telic Thoughts. You have to get away from the swamp and the insects that infest it even if it is temporarily. I understand why someone as smart as you would tire of the incesssant low brow gossip of the little old ladies. And as you said you're a reasonable man right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Willam Wallace
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AtBC is the hangout for mostly junior members of the PT Mafia. Panda's Thumb is the tabloid outlet for NCSE propaganda. Wes threatened to ban me for merely mentioning an infamous blog post written and published by PZ Myer's daughter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The type of critics you refer to know that group behavior that is nasty, gossipy and insulting is a better inhibitor of free expression than outright banning. It inhibits rational discourse by discouraging the very people most interested in discussing ideas as opposed to bashing. Yet, as you note, they do whine and feign innocense for actions which have led to the deplorable lack of civil exchanges about issues discussed at TT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


William Wallace:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL, thanks for reminding me, that sticky bathroom cruiser line was funny–and true, judging by the former NCSE Propaganda Director's habbit of propagandizing for Darwin and his bathroom graffiti fetish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was more complaining about the lack of intellectual honesty, or intellectual capacity. And it's not as though I brought name calling to AtBC. But I realized the futility, and left.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And finally, a classic moment from Joy
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's non-existent. For a hundred years scientists have known that everything they thought they knew is wrong, and they haven't managed to come up with anything better, always whining about can't, can't, can't (and how much better and smarter they are than anybody else). Y'all are as alone in the dark as the rest of us, you just like to pretend otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One wonders who Joy thinks built the technology she uses daily...OK, different topic but the disdain for scientists generally is obvious. I doubt there are few people so "in the dark" as Joy....
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 14 2009,22:20

< Mike Gene is back. >

This is an exchange with MikeGene on one of the open threads.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< don provan >: We use science every day in ways as mundane as the way we use mathematics to make change.

< MikeGene >: You are confirming my point by rationalizing your desire to water down the meaning of science.

< Zachriel >: I must have missed it somewhere. What do you mean by "the meaning of science"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Instead of answering my simple question, MikeGene starts a series of challenges. First, he asks me for my definition of science. I provide a < methodological definition > from my blog. I ask again for the definition of science he believes is being watered down. He notes my newfound interest in the definition of science, even though I had just provided him a link to my blog on the topic from 2005. I ask my question again. Then he says I have to respond to Fishman's opinion on the Dover decision. I told him I didn't know Fishman's opinion, but I tell him what I think of the Dover decision anyway. I ask my question again. Then he says I have to tell him what I think of a NAS publication, which I had to find the scroll for in the library. After answering his question, I asked again for his definition. He calls me a New Atheist. I didn't bother to correct him. He suggests I respond to don provan's comment. I do. Then I ask again for his definition. He says I have to respond to some hypothetical about a sockpuppet. I answer that query and use it as an opportunity to elaborate on theory as the unifying logical structure of science. Once again, I asked my question. He notes that I have discovered that scientists form a community and communicate their discoveries to one another through a process of "publication" and that objectivity depends on independent verification of observations. I remind him that I have posted on the subject before. So I ask my question again.



I think once I meet his latest challenge and dance the Mambo with an elephant on tiptoes, he'll answer the question. I think we're making progress. I really do.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 15 2009,05:24

I regret not having saved the threads where I engaged Mike Gene at ARN, it must have been at least ten years ago. IIRC, I asked him about ID research to which he replied that he did not consider that science (as commonly defined?). Or something like that. He also said that he was busy developing tools for ID research.  It is of course impossible for me to recall exactly what was said; but the above is at least the impression that I am left with.

Seems to me he’s made little progress.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 15 2009,05:55

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 15 2009,05:24)
Seems to me he’s made little progress.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Untrue. Books have been sold to the credulous in the meanwhile.

If people like Mike don't realise that is their reason for doing what they do at first, they soon realise when their "research" comes to nothing. All that's left at that point is the fact that "hey, well the book sold!"
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 15 2009,08:50

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2009,05:55)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 15 2009,05:24)
Seems to me he’s made little progress.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Untrue. Books have been sold to the credulous in the meanwhile.

If people like Mike don't realise that is their reason for doing what they do at first, they soon realise when their "research" comes to nothing. All that's left at that point is the fact that "hey, well the book sold!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You gotta wonder how many books, though. I wanted to read teh Dezign Matricks, but I didn't want to pay for it. So I ordered it through interlibrary loan at KSU. Usually our ILL dept. can get a book within 24-48 hours, and usually it is from another research library. It took almost two weeks for them to get me a copy of DM, and it was from a public library in Issaquah, Washington.

Perhaps Mike has reappeared at TT because his dreams of retirement, based on book royalties, have been quashed, and he needs to drum up more business now...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 15 2009,09:09

< Amazon.com Sales Rank: #422,369 in Books >
How many a month does that equate to, anybody know? Enough to buy a beer?

Dembski appears to be in the 50,000 rank range with a couple of his latest.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 15 2009,09:23

<
Graph Explains What Amazon Sales Ranks Mean >
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 15 2009,09:27

<
Inside the Amazon Sales Rank >
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 15 2009,09:28

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2009,09:09)
< Amazon.com Sales Rank: #422,369 in Books >
How many a month does that equate to, anybody know? Enough to buy a beer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps, but not enough to drown your sorrows in.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 15 2009,09:40

I fully expect Mike to have some sort of announcement coming up then on a topic that will only be able to be fully appreciated if you've read his book.

As, IIRC, it's funny but "Mike Gene" is a pseudonym. Probably somebody who realised that there's gold in tham there tard-hills and does not really believe a word of it.

Likely he read < Dracula comic books > as a child.
Posted by: FrankH on Feb. 15 2009,11:35

I can't believe that they, the contributors of "Telic Threads", really believe all of that crap.

Does anyone really know why their blinders are so tight as to restrict blood flow to their brain?



Knowledge is Power
Power Corrupts
Study hard and become EVIL!
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 16 2009,01:26

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 15 2009,08:50)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2009,05:55)
     
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 15 2009,05:24)
Seems to me he’s made little progress.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(snip)

Perhaps Mike has reappeared at TT because his dreams of retirement, based on book royalties, have been quashed, and he needs to drum up more business now...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I also notice that Mike Gene's < IDthink > page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 16 2009,06:27

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 15 2009,08:50)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2009,05:55)
         
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 15 2009,05:24)
Seems to me he’s made little progress.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(snip)

Perhaps Mike has reappeared at TT because his dreams of retirement, based on book royalties, have been quashed, and he needs to drum up more business now...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I also notice that Mike Gene's < IDthink > page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Mike Gene >:

Mike Gene's New Blog

Sometime over the Christmas holidays, the original Design Matrix blog was hacked and can no longer be accessed. Unfortunately, it looks likely that all the postings from that blog have been lost. idthink.net was also affected but Mike saved all the postings from it and plans to re-post them soon.

But Mike is taking the lemons dealt to him, and making lemonade by starting < The Design Matrix blog > anew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< January 4, 2009 by Michael >:

Starting Over

The original blog for The Design Matrix was hacked and, as of now, it looks like it is lost. So alas, I start over.  The good news is that I can now activate the comments section, but I have the system set so that I have to approve comments before they are posted.

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


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 16 2009,07:02

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's < IDthink > page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then there's this < bit of hilarity > (my emphasis)  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Description:  Arbor Vitae Press is a small, independent publisher dedicated to the production and distribution of high quality books addressing major topics and issues of our times. We are committed to showcasing the works of both new and published authors who provide fresh, insightful and thought provoking commentary on analyses of important contemporary and controversial issues that are consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Gunthernacus on Feb. 16 2009,07:10

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 16 2009,07:27)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< January 4, 2009 by Michael >:

Starting Over

The original blog for The Design Matrix was hacked and, as of now, it looks like it is lost. So alas, I start over.  The good news is that I can now activate the comments section, but I have the system set so that I have to approve comments before they are posted.

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


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


I read about the "hacking" in the comments at TT - maybe as much as a week after it had happened.  It is my opinion that it wasn't hacking, but a final step in cutting ties to the TT crew.  As transparent as Mike Gene can be, I think even he has gotten embarrassed of Bradford and the gang.  The first thing I did was to try to go to MG's ID Think website.  So I went to the TT links list, but all the links to MG had been taken down.  I thought that was odd - not only to be worried about broken links, but to have already decided that it was beyond repair and to just scrap it.  I thought it was odd, but not too suspicious - the clincher for me was that there wasn't even one rant post (much less half a dozen spread across two or three blogs) about getting hacked.  Mike Gene passing up an opportunity to whine about poor treatment of Mike Gene?  My design detector's needle jumped on that one, for sure.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 16 2009,07:18

What a pathetic blog.

What pathetic posts.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Surprisingly, despite its simplicity, very little is known about Placozoa. But what we have been discovering recently is very interesting……
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is that the royal "we" Mike? Are you getting your hands dirty with actual research?

No, thought not.

< http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/placozoa/ >
Posted by: slpage on Feb. 16 2009,09:56

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's < IDthink > page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then there's this < bit of hilarity > (my emphasis)  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Description:  Arbor Vitae Press is a small, independent publisher dedicated to the production and distribution of high quality books addressing major topics and issues of our times. We are committed to showcasing the works of both new and published authors who provide fresh, insightful and thought provoking commentary on analyses of important contemporary and controversial issues that are consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


And yet we are told that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Gene especially was always so adamant about his non-religiosity.  Whatever...
Posted by: slpage on Feb. 16 2009,09:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 16 2009,07:18)
What a pathetic blog.

What pathetic posts.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Surprisingly, despite its simplicity, very little is known about Placozoa. But what we have been discovering recently is very interesting……
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is that the royal "we" Mike? Are you getting your hands dirty with actual research?

No, thought not.

< http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/placozoa/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I'd be curious to see what sort of research is done at the van Andel institute.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 16 2009,10:08

Quote (slpage @ Feb. 16 2009,09:56)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's < IDthink > page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then there's this < bit of hilarity > (my emphasis)      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Description:  Arbor Vitae Press is a small, independent publisher dedicated to the production and distribution of high quality books addressing major topics and issues of our times. We are committed to showcasing the works of both new and published authors who provide fresh, insightful and thought provoking commentary on analyses of important contemporary and controversial issues that are consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


And yet we are told that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Gene especially was always so adamant about his non-religiosity.  Whatever...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's even more amusing is that Gene's book seems to be the only thing ever published by Arbor Vitae Press. A search on their ISBN (978-0-9786314) yields only this book.  Is it a vanity press with a single vain author? Maybe our resident librarian/witch can enlighten us on this...
Posted by: dheddle on Feb. 16 2009,10:32

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2009,09:09)
< Amazon.com Sales Rank: #422,369 in Books >
How many a month does that equate to, anybody know? Enough to buy a beer?

Dembski appears to be in the 50,000 rank range with a couple of his latest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, < I'd kill for such numbers! >
Posted by: noncarborundum on Feb. 16 2009,10:44

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,10:08)
 
Quote (slpage @ Feb. 16 2009,09:56)
     
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
     
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's < IDthink > page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then there's this < bit of hilarity > (my emphasis)          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Description:  Arbor Vitae Press is a small, independent publisher dedicated to the production and distribution of high quality books addressing major topics and issues of our times. We are committed to showcasing the works of both new and published authors who provide fresh, insightful and thought provoking commentary on analyses of important contemporary and controversial issues that are consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


And yet we are told that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Gene especially was always so adamant about his non-religiosity.  Whatever...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's even more amusing is that Gene's book seems to be the only thing ever published by Arbor Vitae Press. A search on their ISBN (978-0-9786314) yields only this book.  Is it a vanity press with a single vain author? Maybe our resident librarian/witch can enlighten us on this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, there is < this >.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Hawk's Mewl a 'significant selection of poems' will be to published in London in May by Arbor Vitae Press. Number one in the Parhelion Poetry Series.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It appears that the book can't actually be purchased, though, at least not through the normal outlets.  Also this may be < a different Arbor Vitae >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wood, Jonathan
e-mail: thratheewoodz@hotmail.com
snail: BM Spellbound, London WC1N 3XX
Interests: produces irregular catalogues of interesting and obscure second-hand stock. Proprietor of the Arbor Vitae Press and publishes 'Through the Woods', an idiosyncratic journal of weird fiction, poetry and discourse specialising in lovelorn reveries, obscurantism and cultural timeslips.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or maybe not.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 16 2009,10:47

Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 16 2009,16:32)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2009,09:09)
< Amazon.com Sales Rank: #422,369 in Books >
How many a month does that equate to, anybody know? Enough to buy a beer?

Dembski appears to be in the 50,000 rank range with a couple of his latest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, < I'd kill for such numbers! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heddle,

You forgot to add "buy my book".

Louis
Posted by: dheddle on Feb. 16 2009,13:39

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 16 2009,10:47)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 16 2009,16:32)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2009,09:09)
< Amazon.com Sales Rank: #422,369 in Books >
How many a month does that equate to, anybody know? Enough to buy a beer?

Dembski appears to be in the 50,000 rank range with a couple of his latest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, < I'd kill for such numbers! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heddle,

You forgot to add "buy my book".

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No I wouldn't ask anyone to shell out hard-cold cash for a book with such miserable numbers. There must be a reason why I am stuck in seven figures. But I do have some of my free author's copies left if you want one.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 16 2009,15:21

Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 16 2009,19:39)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 16 2009,10:47)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 16 2009,16:32)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2009,09:09)
< Amazon.com Sales Rank: #422,369 in Books >
How many a month does that equate to, anybody know? Enough to buy a beer?

Dembski appears to be in the 50,000 rank range with a couple of his latest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, < I'd kill for such numbers! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heddle,

You forgot to add "buy my book".

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No I wouldn't ask anyone to shell out hard-cold cash for a book with such miserable numbers. There must be a reason why I am stuck in seven figures. But I do have some of my free author's copies left if you want one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL I'll buy one if I want to read it, although I'm flattered by the offer. Thanks very much. I'm not above putting a few bucks in your pocket after you went to all the effort of writing it. Gotta help that sales rank.

The "buy the book" was a joke btw.* The three reviews I saw on Amazon were very good, and in which you were not in any way taken apart by a grad student for making terrible claims about HIV**. There is no way for you to be a good IDCist if you aren't going to do the basics.***

Louis

*You need a blog farm and loads more mentions of your book to hit an O'Leary.

**You need to make vastly dumber claims (esp about HIV) for ERV to destroy you like she did Behe.

***I know you are not an IDCist.
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 16 2009,20:25

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,10:08)
Quote (slpage @ Feb. 16 2009,09:56)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's < IDthink > page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then there's this < bit of hilarity > (my emphasis)      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Description:  Arbor Vitae Press is a small, independent publisher dedicated to the production and distribution of high quality books addressing major topics and issues of our times. We are committed to showcasing the works of both new and published authors who provide fresh, insightful and thought provoking commentary on analyses of important contemporary and controversial issues that are consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


And yet we are told that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Gene especially was always so adamant about his non-religiosity.  Whatever...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's even more amusing is that Gene's book seems to be the only thing ever published by Arbor Vitae Press. A search on their ISBN (978-0-9786314) yields only this book.  Is it a vanity press with a single vain author? Maybe our resident librarian/witch can enlighten us on this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not a librarian, but I am reasonably sure that Arborvitae Publishing only planned to publish one book: The Design Matrix.  The web site of this publisher is down but you can access its old pages via Wayback Machine: < web.archive.org/web/*/http://arborvitaepress.com >
The web site was created shortly before the intended release of the book (Fall 2006) and folded shortly after the actual release (November 2007).
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 17 2009,14:41

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 16 2009,20:25)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,10:08)
 
Quote (slpage @ Feb. 16 2009,09:56)
     
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
     
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's < IDthink > page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then there's this < bit of hilarity > (my emphasis)          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Description:  Arbor Vitae Press is a small, independent publisher dedicated to the production and distribution of high quality books addressing major topics and issues of our times. We are committed to showcasing the works of both new and published authors who provide fresh, insightful and thought provoking commentary on analyses of important contemporary and controversial issues that are consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


And yet we are told that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Gene especially was always so adamant about his non-religiosity.  Whatever...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's even more amusing is that Gene's book seems to be the only thing ever published by Arbor Vitae Press. A search on their ISBN (978-0-9786314) yields only this book.  Is it a vanity press with a single vain author? Maybe our resident librarian/witch can enlighten us on this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not a librarian, but I am reasonably sure that Arborvitae Publishing only planned to publish one book: The Design Matrix.  The web site of this publisher is down but you can access its old pages via Wayback Machine: < web.archive.org/web/*/http://arborvitaepress.com >
The web site was created shortly before the intended release of the book (Fall 2006) and folded shortly after the actual release (November 2007).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Bradford > had this to say about Arbor Vitae:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#  Bradford Says:
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm

A correction. The AVP site is down but the publisher had more on its plate than the one book. Why would anyone think otherwise unless it is about bashing?

Comment by Bradford — January 22, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet here's what i get from < here: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Books listed by ISBN
Arbor Vitae Press
year of publication ISBN author(s) title
2007 978-0-9786314-0-6 Mike Gene The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues


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

And that's all, folks.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 17 2009,14:53

I stand corrected.  Apparently AVP did publish one other book, "The Hawk's Mewl" poetry by Nigel Humphrey.

< Jonathan Wood > is/was the proprietor of AVP:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wood, Jonathan
e-mail: thratheewoodz@hotmail.com
snail: BM Spellbound, London WC1N 3XX
Interests: produces irregular catalogues of interesting and obscure second-hand stock. Proprietor of the Arbor Vitae Press and publishes 'Through the Woods', an idiosyncratic journal of weird fiction, poetry and discourse specialising in lovelorn reveries, obscurantism and cultural timeslips.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An appropriate description of "Design Matrix"?
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 17 2009,16:15

sledgehammer, that is another one-man publisher, based in London.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 17 2009,20:18

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 17 2009,16:15)
sledgehammer, that is another one-man publisher, based in London.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I found it on yer internets, so it must be true!
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 26 2009,06:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 6:44 pm        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A bar over a symbol also means "average" or "mean". Thus Heddle is a mean atheist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're making that up Raevmo. It means he is a good student of theology. What was your GPA?

Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Raevmo Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 6:55 pm Bradford:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're making that up Raevmo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No I'm not. A bar over a symbol is standard notation for arithmetic mean.

Comment by Raevmo — February 25, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Bradford Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 6:59 pm      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Raevmo: No I'm not. A bar over a symbol is < standard notation > for arithmetic mean.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm playing around.

Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

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

Riiight!
< Link >
Posted by: slpage on Feb. 26 2009,14:39

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 16 2009,20:25)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,10:08)
Quote (slpage @ Feb. 16 2009,09:56)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's < IDthink > page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then there's this < bit of hilarity > (my emphasis)        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Description:  Arbor Vitae Press is a small, independent publisher dedicated to the production and distribution of high quality books addressing major topics and issues of our times. We are committed to showcasing the works of both new and published authors who provide fresh, insightful and thought provoking commentary on analyses of important contemporary and controversial issues that are consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


And yet we are told that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Gene especially was always so adamant about his non-religiosity.  Whatever...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's even more amusing is that Gene's book seems to be the only thing ever published by Arbor Vitae Press. A search on their ISBN (978-0-9786314) yields only this book.  Is it a vanity press with a single vain author? Maybe our resident librarian/witch can enlighten us on this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not a librarian, but I am reasonably sure that Arborvitae Publishing only planned to publish one book: The Design Matrix.  The web site of this publisher is down but you can access its old pages via Wayback Machine: < web.archive.org/web/*/http://arborvitaepress.com >
The web site was created shortly before the intended release of the book (Fall 2006) and folded shortly after the actual release (November 2007).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds a lot like the 'publisher' of ReMine's book..

Where the 'publisher' just happened to use the same email address that ReMine did...
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 26 2009,16:22

Quote (slpage @ Feb. 26 2009,14:39)
Sounds a lot like the 'publisher' of ReMine's book..

Where the 'publisher' just happened to use the same email address that ReMine did...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it's not hard to figure out who the publisher of ReMine's book is. < Saint Paul Science > lists a < Minnesota address >, so one can find some information about it at the MN Secretary of State < web site >.  The agent name is, not surprisingly, Walter J. ReMine.

MikeGene, in contrast, does not leave such obvious clues.  Arborvitae Publishing listed no physical address.  Nonetheless, those of you familiar with MikeGene's history can figure this one out.  I'll leave it as homework.  ;)
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 26 2009,19:22

From the Puddle Logic Revisited thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Yes, quite a lot of hooting and flinging of poo which thrills you monkeys so. Now that you have succesfully defended Douglas Adams from my vicious frontal assault you may now go back to picking lice from your fur. You may eat them if you like. They are crunchy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Lol! This from the drooling bonobo who entered the discussion with a false accusation, an intentional misquote, two strawmen, two ad homs, and a bigoted generalization. All this in one big wet putrid steaming post that didn't even hit the bottom of the cage before you flung it.

You may now go back to chewing your toenails.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meanwhile, my comment concerning how the puddle might detect design by calculating the CSI of its hole was sent off to the Memory Hole. So much for puddle logic.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 27 2009,04:14

Read < that thread > and watch chumpdz's composure gradually unravel as he realizes -- but cannot bring himself to admit -- that he has completely failed to grasp the significance of the puddle analogy.

Good tard, seasoned with desperation and a pinch of denial.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 27 2009,04:14

I love the < Puddle Logic Thread: >      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The first thing I notice about Doug’s puddle is it’s not very bright. In fact, it’s downright stupid. It’s as if Adams assumes that something so simple as a puddle should naturally have the intellect of a simpleton.

But this is one really stupid puddle.

Doug’s puddle is dumber than the dumbest caveman.

Adams has cast the blind, stupid puddle as the buffoon in his miniature farce.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Um... chunkdz, Adams was using the puddle analogy to talk about religious believers.

Like you.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Feb. 27 2009,07:58

I always thought the point of the puddle analogy was that the puddle thought the universe was made to suit it, when in fact it was the other way round. I just quickly looked at the puddle thread but I did not see anyone bring this up.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 10 2009,11:17

My review of The Design Matrix, aka pulling rabbits our of your teleological tushie, is available for viewing at < Amazon.com >. So far it looks like the teleologists don't appreciate it too much...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 10 2009,12:13

I'm confused. The Martian face is designed?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 10 2009,17:49

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 10 2009,11:17)
My review of The Design Matrix, aka pulling rabbits our of your teleological tushie, is available for viewing at < Amazon.com >. So far it looks like the teleologists don't appreciate it too much...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great stuff. Chapter 4 I think is what alot of it is about at UD, esp with people like Kariosfocus.

I have to wonder what they would say if asked "in that case, what would life look like if not designed? What sort of encoding would not look designed, but evolved?"

In another review "the professor" notes of "Mike Gene":
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The author, a friend has informed me, is a professor at an Ivy league university and uses a pseudonym to avoid repercussions for questioning orthodox Neo-Darwinism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, prof knows somebody know knows Mike? O'Rlly?

I believe I've commented on the professor in the past, his < review > selection look like how I imagine Dr Dr Dr Debmski's would when he got his "how to be anon on amazon" finally sorted out (if you don't know, he got caught reviewing his own book IIRC, or similar).

He has a 43% approval rating. Not sure if that's good or not tbh. Check out his reviews! It's Dembski!

Anybody know of a typo he consistently makes? Or another tell he has that we might be able to use the EF on?  :D
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 10 2009,19:36

I thought "the professor" was supposed to be Jerry Bergman?
Posted by: jeffox on Mar. 10 2009,20:47

Wes wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I thought "the professor" was supposed to be Jerry Bergman?

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



Last I heard, "the professor" took off on a three hour cruise.



:)     :)      :)      :)       :)
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 10 2009,20:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Jean >: Which is why Zachriel always sounds like a Discovery Channel documentary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not quite. What is happening is that the comments go through a Jovian De-Snarkification™ field. This is similar to the parental controls we've seen in comments by certain ID proponents, whereby they have to add dashes to naughty words, s-ex, mod-el, g-rrl. Only with De-Snarkification™, we use quotes in order to attribute it to others—bypassing the field.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before: "Your argument is no better than mouldy underwear and cheetos-crumbs. The concentration of TARD threatens to create a blacktard massive enough to swallow the planet. If you had actual evidence, you would have provided it already you tard-head. Your mother was a tardster and your father smelt of < tardleberries >!"

Field-Effect: "
Your argument is no better than mouldy underwear and cheetos-crumbs. The concentration of TARD threatens to create a blackhole massive enough to swallow the Solar System. If you had actual evidence, you would have provided it already you block-head. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of < elderberries >!"

After: Do you have a reliable cite to evidence supporting The Argument Regarding Design?

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


Now, a lot of people think that De-Snarkification™ is something like an electric or gravitational field, and they are correct, in part. But unlike a gravitational field which is controlled by cranks (like Uncommon Descent), angels individually filter each particle of Snark from non-Snark.

< >

It's not a perfect system, though. Not only does Snark occasionally get passed through the field, but it has the odd effect of putting most everything in the first-person plural. We find that rather droll.
Posted by: silverspoon on Mar. 10 2009,21:01

Quote (jeffox @ Mar. 10 2009,20:47)
Wes wrote:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I thought "the professor" was supposed to be Jerry Bergman?

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



Last I heard, "the professor" took off on a three hour cruise.



:)     :)      :)      :)       :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You owe me a beer & the paper towel I used wiping off my screen.
Posted by: jeffox on Mar. 10 2009,21:09

Silverspoon wrote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You owe me a beer & the paper towel I used wiping off my screen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hit me up any time you're in the upper midwest.

Sometimes my jokes actually work.    :)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 13 2009,20:16

Mike Gene/Julie Thomas has responded to my review at his/her < DM blog >, and some of the usual suspects have joined the fray. It's a lot of fun; come on over and join in if you have nothing better to do!
Posted by: Principia on Mar. 14 2009,09:33

His whole resolution argument is itself dependent on subjectivity.  If you keep zooming in at ever higher resolution of a mountain sculpture, you'll just be seeing surfaces with lots of cracks and defects.  Consider being an ant on Mars crawling on that structure.  Could you tell if it's designed?  Zoom in further and all you see are crystals.  Zoom in further and you see atomic nuclei.

At what level of resolution do you stop?  Well, until you design-meter goes off apparently.  

One way to get around his "assumption" argument is to ask simply: How do you construct a design-meter?  Suppose you want to codify His design-sensing algorithm into a computer.  What information is required?  It's quite obvious:
1) You need knowledge of human designs
2) You need knowledge of human minds and their design techniques

You can't get around this subjectivity.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 14 2009,09:49

Quote (Principia @ Mar. 14 2009,17:33)
His whole resolution argument is itself dependent on subjectivity.  If you keep zooming in at ever higher resolution of a mountain sculpture, you'll just be seeing surfaces with lots of cracks and defects.  Consider being an ant on Mars crawling on that structure.  Could you tell if it's designed?  Zoom in further and all you see are crystals.  Zoom in further and you see atomic nuclei.

At what level of resolution do you stop?  Well, until you design-meter goes off apparently.  

One way to get around his "assumption" argument is to ask simply: How do you construct a design-meter?  Suppose you want to codify His design-sensing algorithm into a computer.  What information is required?  It's quite obvious:
1) You need knowledge of human designs
2) You need knowledge of human minds and their design techniques

You can't get around this subjectivity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot you need the designers .....manual.


Posted by: tsig on Mar. 14 2009,09:50

Quote (Principia @ Mar. 14 2009,09:33)
His whole resolution argument is itself dependent on subjectivity.  If you keep zooming in at ever higher resolution of a mountain sculpture, you'll just be seeing surfaces with lots of cracks and defects.  Consider being an ant on Mars crawling on that structure.  Could you tell if it's designed?  Zoom in further and all you see are crystals.  Zoom in further and you see atomic nuclei.

At what level of resolution do you stop?  Well, until you design-meter goes off apparently.  

One way to get around his "assumption" argument is to ask simply: How do you construct a design-meter?  Suppose you want to codify His design-sensing algorithm into a computer.  What information is required?  It's quite obvious:
1) You need knowledge of human designs
2) You need knowledge of human minds and their design techniques

You can't get around this subjectivity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The DI will keep looking for whatever it is they're looking for and will tell us what it is when they find it.

Although we can now but see thru a glass darkly the outline coming thru looks a lot like christ.
Posted by: Freelurker on Mar. 14 2009,12:44

tsig,
There are plenty of areas in which to disagree with Mike Gene, but I've never seen any indication that he is connected with the DI. In fact, he heartily agreed with the Dover decision.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 14 2009,15:24

Quote (Freelurker @ Mar. 14 2009,12:44)
tsig,
There are plenty of areas in which to disagree with Mike Gene, but I've never seen any indication that he is connected with the DI. In fact, he heartily agreed with the Dover decision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly Mike/Julie is not part of the DI, and does try to distance himself from that big tent, even going so far as to admit that ID is not science (yet). But he is still a huckster, trying to make a living from bad theology/worse science. So even if he is not affiliated with that band of thieves, he's not really any different.

And Telic Thoughts is inhabited by a batch of loonies and bullies just as bad as those at UD.
Posted by: Freelurker on Mar. 14 2009,17:18

I see an important difference between someone who is apolitically "thinking telic thoughts" and someone who is trying to use the power of government to teach their sectarian beliefs to my kids.

Your mileage may vary ...

ETA: I'm not a fan of Mike Gene; I'm just trying to be fair.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 14 2009,17:43

I heart the nookyular mafia conspiracy you get from Joy.  but the rest of it is just not the same level of tard you get from UD.  confused people are not as funny as those who are dead certain absolutely wrong about a material point and refuse to acknowledge it.  

albie looks like you touched a nerve!  kudos
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 14 2009,18:42

Freelurker

You make a good point; at least Genie isn't actively trying to get tard into the public schools. He's still a conclusion-begging sanctimonious wanker who hides his theological bias with a smokescreen of sciency-sounding blather, and apparently thinks that analogies are evidence. Nevertheless, on a scale of lying jackals where Dembski or Wells or West score a perfect 11, I guess I'd only give him a 7 or 8.

Ras is also making a good point. Bradford and Bilbo and Joy are the equal of any fool at UD, but UD wins by the sheer weight of the numbers (even if half of them are probably sockpuppets!).

I stand corrected. Thanks for the insights.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 25 2009,20:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: ID critics boring?? I think they're hours of fun for the whole family!


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


What! No angels? No music of the spheres!
Posted by: keiths on Mar. 26 2009,01:05

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 25 2009,18:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: ID critics boring?? I think they're hours of fun for the whole family!


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



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


That's chunk's way of saying that he loves you, Zachriel.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 26 2009,06:57

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 26 2009,01:05)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 25 2009,18:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: ID critics boring?? I think they're hours of fun for the whole family!


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



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


That's chunk's way of saying that he loves you, Zachriel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They seem to be having an identity crisis. The hot thread is "Is ID Boring?"
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 27 2009,13:27

Hi Zachriel,

My immeadiate reaction when I first saw this was to notice the lack of Zeus' Thunderbolts.

And the "pink unicorns" should be "invisible pink unicorns".

I suspect this was lifted from somewhere else and Chuckdz simply put your name on the top.  It isn't very tailored to your comments.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 27 2009,13:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The hot thread is "Is ID Boring?"

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



Scientifically: Yes. Comedically: No.
Posted by: ERV on Mar. 30 2009,21:20

Occasionally I Google 'Behe HIV' to make sure Behe isnt trying to sneak around and talk shit about my buggie-boo again.

This time, I found < this post. >

Bradford-- Ill tell you the same thing I tell everyone.  I seriously have a stock letter for this in Gmail:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thank you for your sexual interest in ERV.  Im sorry, but due to the large volume of marriage proposals I receive daily, I can only send personalized responses to letters that include pictures,  preferably nudes.  Thanks again!  And remember, if you can dream it, you can do it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 30 2009,21:48

Hi ERV (Abbie),

I doubt Bradford makes a habit of checking AtBC.

I would find it amusing if you replied directly on Telic Thoughts.

Barring that, would you mind if I pointed out (and linked to) your comment on TT?
Posted by: ERV on Mar. 31 2009,08:10

Do whatever you want, man.  Its the internet :)
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 31 2009,08:35

Thank you Abbie.  I posted the link.
Posted by: slpage on Mar. 31 2009,09:41

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 14 2009,18:42)
Freelurker

You make a good point; at least Genie isn't actively trying to get tard into the public schools. He's still a conclusion-begging sanctimonious wanker who hides his theological bias with a smokescreen of sciency-sounding blather, and apparently thinks that analogies are evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice review.  I took note of this:

Gene relates an anecdote that, according to him, shows that ID inferences are not scientific dead ends; they can act as a "research guide". This is his "prediction" that proofreading also occurs during transcription. He predicted it from a teleological standpoint, and it turned out to be experimentally verifiable.

My jaw dropped.  

He relayed this anecdote years and years ago on ARN, before I was banned for the third time.  I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.

Why?

As I had written then, Gene's 'prediction' was written about after a discussion on translational proofreading had occurred on ARN.  When he talked about his 'telic prediction' being borne out by (other people's) research, I noted that when doing a search on Pubmed for 'proofreading', the paper he cited came up.  It also came up searching 'translation proofreading' and any other combination of relevant terms.  I asserted that he had simply seen that paper during the course of the previous discussions, and either purposefully or maybe subconsciously used it to formulate a "prediction" to impress the rubes.

Other than 'Nyuh-uh!', he never really had any sort of explanation for how it just happened to occur to him after a discussion on translational proofreading...
I am too cynical to think the two were unconnected.

That he put that in his book is just...  wow...


As for "He's still a conclusion-begging sanctimonious wanker who hides his theological bias with a smokescreen of sciency-sounding blather, and apparently thinks that analogies are evidence."  

I'm happy that I am not the only one who has concluded this...
Posted by: Tom Ames on Mar. 31 2009,13:34

The casual way in which Bradford equates violence against men with "luvin'" towards women is pretty disturbing.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Abbie needs lots of luvin.

   Pixie: I am curious; would you say that if Abbie was a guy?

He needs his butt kicked. Yes, I do treat people differently based on their gender.

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



I'm guessing that the "luvin'" that Bradford imagines in this circumstance is not something that would be particularly pleasant for the victim.

I suspect that Abbie is plenty tough, but some of these folks are borderline psychopaths. Be safe, Abbie, and take care when meeting any of these people in person.
Posted by: AmandaHuginKiss on Mar. 31 2009,16:21

I just ventured over to Telic thoughts. What an echo chamber.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on April 03 2009,02:48

so i finally read that.  through tyler's blog.  anyway i just want to point out that as gay as bradford is in denial about being, chunkdz is even gayer.  of course there is nothing wrong with that yaddy yaddy yaddy the point is the repression in the tards.

seriously read that homo-erotica over there about nick and wes and the dawk and i dont know what all.  that dude is seeeeeeriously typing with one hand.  yuk.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 11 2009,10:11

Salvador Cordova:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is hard to imagine that someone like Bush could successfully keep a lid on a conspiracy to blow up the WTC..I was approached by President Bush to plant explosives in the WTC, but I refused. I'm coming forward now because Obama is in power...I [] buy that large numbers of Americans under Bush would [] receive such orders from a[] US president to carry out terrorism against innocent women and children in their own country.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
Posted by: olegt on April 14 2009,19:29

Bilbo has  a running series of imaginary dialogs between Mike Gene and Michael Behe.  They're quite, umm, entertaining.  

< Imaginary conversation between Michael Behe and Mike Gene >.
< Behe and Gene discuss the Evolution of the Flagellum >.

An excerpt:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Behe: Speaking of rabbits, why exactly are you wearing that bunny suit, Mike?

MG: Bilbo's idea. And I assume that's why you're in a white lab coat?

Behe: Ditto. Well, the sooner we get this over with, the sooner Bilbo will let me go back to Lehigh and you to your…uh…hole in the ground. Where should we start?

MG: Why don't we start with what we both agree on regarding evolution and ID? We both accept the notion of common descent, natural selection, and that at least some events in biological history are random.

Behe: Yes, and we both believe that the origin of life was a designed event.

MG: Well, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I suspect the OOL was a designed event. And I incorporate that into my working hypothesis of front-loaded evolution.

Behe: Yes, we might begin to part company rather early. Perhaps by looking at the chart (opposite the Title page and on p.218) I include in my book, The Edge of Evolution, we can get an idea of where our views come close and where they diverge. I think evidence of ID begins with the Laws of Nature and works its way down through the origin of life, and at least to the origin of Classes in the Taxonomic categories.

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



Enjoy!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 14 2009,19:37

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 03 2009,02:48)
so i finally read that.  through tyler's blog.  anyway i just want to point out that as gay as bradford is in denial about being, chunkdz is even gayer.  of course there is nothing wrong with that yaddy yaddy yaddy the point is the repression in the tards.

seriously read that homo-erotica over there about nick and wes and the dawk and i dont know what all.  that dude is seeeeeeriously typing with one hand.  yuk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm. Got a link?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on April 14 2009,21:47

well i forget.  

< this  was where it started >

< this > is the sort of isht i was talking about



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nick briefly remembered the weekend in San Simeon with Wesley. The feelings were similar but Wes seemed like a child now. Like some old children's TV show that Nick could barely recall. But here was a real man. Even when The Dawk didn't speak his very presence was burning a memory into Nicks mind fast and hot. Nick tried to hide his discomfort by taking long gulps of coffee. Where was the damn waitress?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< more homoerotic pseudo fiction >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nick's phone vibrated. It was a text from Abbie.

"a bunch of us getting s#!tfaced after the lecture. wanna go?"

Nick had planned on going to The Dawk's booksigning. But that was before he met the man. Now he had lost the desire. How could he line up at the trough like all those stupid sycophants now that he had shared this moment with the man?

"They just want a signature. A piece of his fame, a trophy for enduring 3 hours in line for a superficial encounter." Nick said to himself.

"I've experienced the man. Connected with him."

Everything about The Dawk was exciting. His hair, his spritely European charm, his manner of dress, the way he asked the waitress for marmalade. Every electron in Nick's body was energized into a higher valence. But oh, that mind! That amazing glorious mind that seemed to understand Nick from the first email he ever returned. God, how he loved that mind.

Vic was babbling about frogs or something. Nick texted back an expedient "ok" to Abbie. He had to go to the bathroom right now.

Just as he was about to ask Vic to save his seat The Dawk turned to him.
"Do you know where the WC is?" Richard said to Nick.

Nick's head was glistening. His face was growing red again. What the hell was the WC?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i don't know if i wanna know what all that b.s. is about.  whatchoo think wesley?
Posted by: k.e.. on April 14 2009,23:02

gawwwwwwd it reads like  a Barbara Cartland panty ripper for  late middle aged hairy chested mega church preachers in *PINK*  studded leather.


Posted by: Zachriel on April 22 2009,21:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: Teaching about constellations, how they were once thought to represent cosmic forces, and how we now think they are due to the happenstance of stellar movements, is standard for basic astronomy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: And reference to there being design or purpose in nature is extraneous to the science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: It's perfectly reasonable to talk about constellations, their history, and our current scientific knowledge concerning their patterns. For instance, we know that if we take an interstellar voyage, the constellations will lose their apparent shapes.

We have resolved it to this simple issue. You will convince exactly those readers who think that it is unreasonable to discuss the scientific evidence that stars are not *purposefully arranged* into shapes of lions and fishes, but due to the haphazard movement of distant stars and the propensity of the human mind to discern order.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At this point, nullasalus loses his cool.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: Zach, I'm calling you out here: You're a liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must have hit a nerve.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 22 2009,23:22

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 14 2009,21:47)
well i forget.  

< this  was where it started >

< this > is the sort of isht i was talking about

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nick briefly remembered the weekend in San Simeon with Wesley. The feelings were similar but Wes seemed like a child now. Like some old children's TV show that Nick could barely recall. But here was a real man. Even when The Dawk didn't speak his very presence was burning a memory into Nicks mind fast and hot. Nick tried to hide his discomfort by taking long gulps of coffee. Where was the damn waitress?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< more homoerotic pseudo fiction >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nick's phone vibrated. It was a text from Abbie.

"a bunch of us getting s#!tfaced after the lecture. wanna go?"

Nick had planned on going to The Dawk's booksigning. But that was before he met the man. Now he had lost the desire. How could he line up at the trough like all those stupid sycophants now that he had shared this moment with the man?

"They just want a signature. A piece of his fame, a trophy for enduring 3 hours in line for a superficial encounter." Nick said to himself.

"I've experienced the man. Connected with him."

Everything about The Dawk was exciting. His hair, his spritely European charm, his manner of dress, the way he asked the waitress for marmalade. Every electron in Nick's body was energized into a higher valence. But oh, that mind! That amazing glorious mind that seemed to understand Nick from the first email he ever returned. God, how he loved that mind.

Vic was babbling about frogs or something. Nick texted back an expedient "ok" to Abbie. He had to go to the bathroom right now.

Just as he was about to ask Vic to save his seat The Dawk turned to him.
"Do you know where the WC is?" Richard said to Nick.

Nick's head was glistening. His face was growing red again. What the hell was the WC?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i don't know if i wanna know what all that b.s. is about.  whatchoo think wesley?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the link and samples. I think that puts paid to any pretense TT might have had about any relative advantage in "tone".

I hear Penthouse used to pay $0.25/word for stuff published in the "Letters" section. I wonder if C. had a prior career.

I find it satisfying enough to dwell upon the actual faults of religious antievolutionists.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on April 23 2009,13:13

< Sally C > is still plugging away for Uncle Walty:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A possibility, one which most ignore, is that Comets may have emerged from the Earth in an explosion. This is no less fantastic a theory than some of the mainstream theories of the origin of the moon. < Collision Hypothesis >.

The fact that Earth-like substances, like Olivine are found in comets suggests an Earth borne origin of comets.

An Earth borne origin of comets would be a better explanation of the living matter (or remants thereof) found in meteorites and comets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A link to Harvard for the collision hypothesis - but no link to Uncle Walty?  Don't be ashamed, Sally, no one could think less of you.

Bonus: < fifth monarchy man > shows ID to be a robust science stopper:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Couldn't a skilled designer make lighting appear random and spontaneous or to look at it another way could not a motivated observer refuse to acknowledge the design in lighting and deceive himself into believing it does not exist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fmm is quite the blowtard.  So the "skilled designer" makes lightening appear random and spontaneous, but I'm deceiving myself if I fall for it.

Hats off, and a cold beer, to Zachriel for his tireless efforts deep in the tard mines.

Posted by: Richardthughes on April 23 2009,13:51

Collision Hypothesis:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
review proceeds by advancing 10 propositions that the author believes embody the most important issues confronting the theory. These propositions may or may not be true, but they form a framework for asking the right questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems fair enough. Could it be a captured planetoid? Heddle?
Posted by: dheddle on April 23 2009,14:32

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 23 2009,13:51)
Collision Hypothesis:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
review proceeds by advancing 10 propositions that the author believes embody the most important issues confronting the theory. These propositions may or may not be true, but they form a framework for asking the right questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems fair enough. Could it be a captured planetoid? Heddle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are we talking about the moon's formation? I like the impact theory. The simulations seem to work--but so far it lacks definitive proof, as far as I know.

(Being a nuclear physicist, and nuclei be ~10^-15 m, and the moon being of the order 10^6 m, it's 21 OOM out of my comfort zone. So I feel qualified to comment as though I'm an expert.)
Posted by: Zachriel on April 23 2009,15:08

Quote (Zachriel @ April 22 2009,21:29)
At this point, nullasalus loses his cool.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: Zach, I'm calling you out here: You're a liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must have hit a nerve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nullasalus seems to have banned me from the thread, < Rob Sheldon's Take on Intelligent Design >. Yup, hit a nerve alright.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on April 23 2009,17:52

Quote (k.e.. @ April 14 2009,23:02)
gawwwwwwd it reads like  a Barbara Cartland panty ripper for  late middle aged hairy chested mega church preachers in *PINK*  studded leather.


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


wes

yes yes but consider that the epic failures of great tards everywhere provide us with some fantastic for entertainment.  in this case, if all parties were good faith blah blah it wouldn't have got you this comment from ke  


whodathunk that was the price of your tireless efforts for good science education, you get repressed homo culture warriors with spartacan man crushes.
Posted by: JAM on April 25 2009,11:08

Zachriel,

I admire your patience with AnagoraxasRules, who is desperately trying to poke holes in the famed Lederberg experiment without bothering to try to understand it first.

Have you considered pointing out that he/she could do the experiment for him/herself? The response might be amusing.

FYI, the classic paper is available here:
< http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/63/3/399 >
Posted by: Raevmo on April 29 2009,13:34

Bradford:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, I do not think Bin Laden is a hypocrite. I think he really believes what he professes and acts on those beliefs. I'm not sure who I find more dangerous or distasteful- Bin Laden or a congressmen interested solely in advancing his political career.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Link >
Posted by: Raevmo on April 29 2009,13:40

Because, you see, Bin Laden is a religious man with a moral compass, while many congressmen are closet atheists pretending to be religious. Clearly Bin Laden has the moral high ground.

Unbelievable.
Posted by: JJS P.Eng. on April 30 2009,23:19

Good evening Raevmo.

With all due respect, you missed the point Bradford was trying to make. Bin Laden's values and his actions are aligned while the hypothetical congressman looking to advance his career does not (says one thing, does another). Bradford clearly does not approve of Bin Laden's values and actions.

I just wanted to point that out, and to see what my avatar looks like.  :D
Posted by: JJS P.Eng. on April 30 2009,23:22

hmmmm, not bad.

BTW, greetings y'all. This place ain't so bad, scary, swampy, etc.  :p
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 01 2009,03:21

Quote (JJS P.Eng. @ April 30 2009,18:22)
hmmmm, not bad.

BTW, greetings y'all. This place ain't so bad, scary, swampy, etc.  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi JJ

Just for the record (a tiny issue but the thin end of the wedge maybe)


[QUOTE]Alan Fox Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
hrun Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

No. As I said earlier I don't care about your preferences.

I'm done.

<embarrassed>

Comment by Alan Fox — April 30, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

Alan Fox Says:
May 1st, 2009 at 4:10 am
Funny! The smiley I put in my previous post seems to have morphed. I do hope nobody is indulging in creative editing. That I consider to be the lowest form of internet dishonesty.

;) is what I posted.

Click to Edit
Comment by Alan Fox — May 1, 2009 @ 4:10 am
Posted by: Raevmo on May 01 2009,04:40

Hi JJS,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With all due respect, you missed the point Bradford was trying to make. Bin Laden's values and his actions are aligned while the hypothetical congressman looking to advance his career does not (says one thing, does another). Bradford clearly does not approve of Bin Laden's values and actions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I disagree. According to Bradford this hypothetical (atheist) congressman might be as dangerous as Bin Laden. That's just plain nuts. I think Bradford has some issues concerning his atheist father (as he regularly brings up) that distort his views in a rather unhealthy way. Some professional help might be in order, with all due respect.

BTW, I would have posted this at TT if Bradford hadn't banned me from several relevant threads.

Alan: I'm fairly certain Chunkdz edited your smiley. Nothing seems too low for him.
Posted by: JJS P.Eng. on May 01 2009,11:47

Good day Raevmo.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I disagree. According to Bradford this hypothetical (atheist) congressman might be as dangerous as Bin Laden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I believe a better description is "I prefer the devil I know to the devil I don't".

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, I would have posted this at TT if Bradford hadn't banned me from several relevant threads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bradford has the right to ban who he wants from any thread of his, just like I and the rest of the contributers do at TT. Is it really so hard to be nice to Bradford every now and then? Can't you guys play nice? :p
Posted by: JJS P.Eng. on May 01 2009,11:51

Good day Alan.

And I saw the winky emoticon, too. In my limited experience with TT, glitches with the comments do and can happen.

However, if for whatever reason someone "tampered" with your emoticon, I'm sure you'll get over it quickly.  ;)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 01 2009,12:04

Quote (JJS P.Eng. @ May 01 2009,11:47)

Bradford has the right to ban who he wants from any thread of his, just like I and the rest of the contributers do at TT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that says alot about TT. Allow just so much freedom but once the winds start to blow against them, bannation.
Pathetic.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is it really so hard to be nice to Bradford every now and then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't you ask Bradford to join in this thread so we can be nice directly to him?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can't you guys play nice? :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When you start playing fair, perhaps.

And
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe a better description is "I prefer the devil I know to the devil I don't".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, exactly, are you saying here? That you are more scared of an hypothetical (atheist) congressman then Bin Laden? That you would perfer that atheists were imprisoned and Bin Laden should remain free?

What?
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 01 2009,12:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, if for whatever reason someone "tampered" with your emoticon, I'm sure you'll get over it quickly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As I said, a tiny issue. However, tampering with other people's comments without any indication that it has been done is tawdry behaviour. I don't think UD ever sank that low, though maybe someone will correct me if I have overlooked an incident.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 01 2009,12:34

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 01 2009,12:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, if for whatever reason someone "tampered" with your emoticon, I'm sure you'll get over it quickly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As I said, a tiny issue. However, tampering with other people's comments without any indication that it has been done is tawdry behaviour. I don't think UD ever sank that low, though maybe someone will correct me if I have overlooked an incident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


probably because they haven't thought of it yet.

JJS welcome.  I suspect you might find this forum a bit more entertaining than TT.  Unless of course you are entertained by deleting posts and banning posters.  then you will get bored rather quickly.
Posted by: keiths on May 01 2009,14:43

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 01 2009,10:32)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, if for whatever reason someone "tampered" with your emoticon, I'm sure you'll get over it quickly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As I said, a tiny issue. However, tampering with other people's comments without any indication that it has been done is tawdry behaviour. I don't think UD ever sank that low, though maybe someone will correct me if I have overlooked an incident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O ye of little faith! Of course UD has sunk that low.

And the sinker was none other than Barry Arrington, who < chose to tamper with an inconvenient post > from my sock 'Karl Pfluger', and to cover it up by deleting my comments protesting the tampering.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 04 2009,11:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: The enhanced interrogation debate is not a legal issue for me although the legal implications are obvious. It is a moral issue. There is a long tradition in the USA of placing moral values above legal ones. It includes Thoreau and more recently Dr. Martin Luther King. I would hope to have the courage to place human life ahead of treaty strictures if put into a position wherein a choice was necessary.

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


Bradford just cited King to support torture!!!!????!!!!
Posted by: keiths on May 04 2009,11:50

Quote (Zachriel @ May 04 2009,09:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: The enhanced interrogation debate is not a legal issue for me although the legal implications are obvious. It is a moral issue. There is a long tradition in the USA of placing moral values above legal ones. It includes Thoreau and more recently Dr. Martin Luther King. I would hope to have the courage to place human life ahead of treaty strictures if put into a position wherein a choice was necessary.

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


Bradford just cited King to support torture!!!!????!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford's head is a very scary place.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 04 2009,12:05

Quote (keiths @ May 04 2009,11:50)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 04 2009,09:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: The enhanced interrogation debate is not a legal issue for me although the legal implications are obvious. It is a moral issue. There is a long tradition in the USA of placing moral values above legal ones. It includes Thoreau and more recently Dr. Martin Luther King. I would hope to have the courage to place human life ahead of treaty strictures if put into a position wherein a choice was necessary.

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


Bradford just cited King to support torture!!!!????!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford's head is a very scary place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It takes "courage" to torture prisoners.
Posted by: Joy on May 07 2009,20:48

Well, I've gotta say I'm only slightly surprised that anyone in real life actually believes the sort of shit Beck, O'Reilly, et al. spew on the teevee. I don't watch teevee. Bradford's head is indeed in a very scary place, from what I can tell. The peanut gallery is even worse off, from all indications. Luckily they're chickenhawks, talk big but only when hiding behind a keyboard. Much like those on this wetland side of the equatorial belt...

I used to believe they were the underdogs. Their human and Constitutional rights at issue against actually politically powerful bullies like you. Now all I see are schoolyard bullies on all sides, overeager wannabe mind-tyrants that aren't merely pitiful for being so damned sociologically dumb. Some of them might be dangerous if I cared that much. Fortunately, I don't.

Meanwhile, the actual actually politically powerful bullies march on, unseen and unnoticed by practically all. I don't believe in magic - I know too many magicians. At this point I don't believe in evolution either, because if it meant anything we'd have evolved past this shit by now. A pox on both your houses - think I'll go prune the vineyard instead...
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 07 2009,20:53

Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,20:48)
Well, I've gotta say I'm only slightly surprised that anyone in real life actually believes the sort of shit Beck, O'Reilly, et al. spew on the teevee. I don't watch teevee. Bradford's head is indeed in a very scary place, from what I can tell. The peanut gallery is even worse off, from all indications. Luckily they're chickenhawks, talk big but only when hiding behind a keyboard. Much like those on this wetland side of the equatorial belt...

I used to believe they were the underdogs. Their human and Constitutional rights at issue against actually politically powerful bullies like you. Now all I see are schoolyard bullies on all sides, overeager wannabe mind-tyrants that aren't merely pitiful for being so damned sociologically dumb. Some of them might be dangerous if I cared that much. Fortunately, I don't.

Meanwhile, the actual actually politically powerful bullies march on, unseen and unnoticed by practically all. I don't believe in magic - I know too many magicians. At this point I don't believe in evolution either, because if it meant anything we'd have evolved past this shit by now. A pox on both your houses - think I'll go prune the vineyard instead...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this Joy from Telic Tards?

edited.
Posted by: Joy on May 07 2009,21:06

"Telcic Tards?" What the hell are those? Some kind of fruit?

Yeah, it's me. Please don't call me a 'tard, it's a totally uncalled-for insult. Only insult I've lobbed is to pronounce a pox on your house as well as theirs. Sue Shakespeare if it bothers you, I didn't notice your Mama is fat. [grumble, grumble]
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 07 2009,21:15

Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,21:06)
"Telcic Tards?" What the hell are those? Some kind of fruit?

Yeah, it's me. Please don't call me a 'tard, it's a totally uncalled-for insult. Only insult I've lobbed is to pronounce a pox on your house as well as theirs. Sue Shakespeare if it bothers you, I didn't notice your Mama is fat. [grumble, grumble]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Relax, Joy. It's an acronym for The Argument Regarding Design.

Welcome.

Are you big on government cover-ups and such like?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 07 2009,21:17

joy what happens now?

what with your new found synthetic understanding and zen like negation of the quest for knowledge and such stuff as that?

have you transcended TT?

i told you if you went to Old Fort Mountain Music thar at the old fire department even oncet hit would change yer perspective.  get that little feller with the drawed up arm to sing you some of them sweet tenors he does on stage with anyone that'll have him (that'd be most) and off stage with the ones that don't.  him a tapin' it with one of them radio shack cassette tape recorders precariously balanced up 'ar in front of them dusty speakers behind that little old lady selling homemade cookies and cups of coffee.

probly though you are just trolling the internet and aint even tried to go yet.  pffft

more things in heaven and earth than academic debate, pseudoscientifically cloaked religious agendas and nuclear mafia conspiracies, horatio.  CSI or no, beans burst forth from wetted ground
Posted by: Joy on May 07 2009,21:25

Beware, Erasmus honey. I know the Mountain Music folks very well, thanks. Play a mean banjo myself, come to think of it! Everything's just hunky dory until somebody loses an eye (usually for saying the wrong thing to the wrong picker)... don't be impugning any issues my way personally, or I'll sic' our entire 2.5 person police force on you!

And exactly what am I supposed to take from your cryptic reference, pray tell?
Posted by: Joy on May 07 2009,21:54

Richard asked:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Are you big on government cover-ups and such like?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Only when there's a big gub'ment cover-up and such like. They've been known to happen, though you might not have been around (or aware) for the last really cool ones. Something about a hotel in D.C. and a third-rate burglary, some "freedom fighter" torture experts in Central America, and the utter demise of the U.S. Savings and Loan industry (which was the last time they robbed us blind)... never mind. We all know such things never occur, right?

Don't worry about it. I won't bring any such crazy shit up unless it fits the subject, I promise. You'll be glad to know the right wingers don't like me any better than you do.

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"...and nuclear mafia conspiracies, horatio."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You mean < like this one >?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 07 2009,22:10

i just want to hear more about this
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Instead, he began publishing a skateboarding magazine with his wife Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



do tell.  

giggle  unless the old fort scene has melded with black mountain and montford I betcha you keep the crystal stuff under wraps.  there are lots of dirt worshippers in those parts but they hide under jesus' garment hems.  or at least the symbol of it

annyhows

regarding homer simpson and uncle sam

i already blame the guvmint honey laying one more sin at their feet isn't gonna hurt my feelings.  although if they had to put a smoking hole somewhere PA is probably about right.  my only complaint is that this didn't stop Watts Bar.  

if TVA goes nookyular they will make more stupid mistakes as they have done recently.  lets say everything you say is true about coverups, etc.

so what.

what is next?

srsly.  take your 15 minutes of moral and ethical outrage.  when you come back I wish to hear why you expected any different
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 07 2009,22:13

I like you Joy.

Who, out of Carlson, Lou CFD, 'Ras and Deadman would you most like to make out with? It's for a peer reviewed article I'm thinking about.
Posted by: Joy on May 07 2009,22:21

Thanks, Richard. One question - does this Erasmus fellow speak English? I find it very hard to follow his gist...

...and I don't know what anyone but Lou really looks like (if his current pic is any help, sort of cute), so I can't say who I'd rather make out with. I'm an eye person, if that helps. Don't care what color.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 07 2009,22:25

Your an eye person? You want Ras then! everyone else has eyes, but he has only one. When he says he'll keep an eye out for you, he means it. Ras speaks, erm... from the heart. Whatever dialect that is.


Pleased you're good for a giggle, Joy. You're a good addition. You may even get a PoTW.

edited
Posted by: Joy on May 07 2009,22:30

SkatesEast, Erasmus. A truly serious amount of fun, about as much as is allowed by law and still manage to make some money. DogTown had the cover, those guys could flat fly! All we could do was be amazed, though hubby actually could do downhill slalom on his hands. Really. Got us all sorts of cool places in Joisey...

What's next? Gee... I dunno. Maybe I'll run for Mayor or something. Or not. Maybe I'll just tend the garden and orchard and vineyard. I am building a solar food dryer this year. Got really sick of canning in August. We don't have AC here on the mountain...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 07 2009,22:39

Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,22:21)
Thanks, Richard. One question - does this Erasmus fellow speak English? I find it very hard to follow his gist...

...and I don't know what anyone but Lou really looks like (if his current pic is any help, sort of cute), so I can't say who I'd rather make out with. I'm an eye person, if that helps. Don't care what color.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i speaks the language of love, shugga

but not at the 221 flea market.  where that can get you 3 baby goats, an indentured servant or gonorrhea.  or all three.  

you're not my type though i am scared of clowns.  mostly because of the simpsons but partly because of It and partly because of Mr Bills Show on WLOS

your neck of the woods is heating up.  saw spruce pine made CNN the other day.  jobs gone with the plant shutting down.  shoulda had you on there growing arugula?  

they also failed to mention that if you beat the volunteer firemen and the illegal migrant workers into the patch you can still make a few bucks digging ramps ands galax.  or rock hounding.  how do you contribute to the local economy my dear?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 07 2009,22:40

OMG. I does rockhounding. I has redneck?
Posted by: Joy on May 07 2009,22:47

What's a PoTW?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 07 2009,22:50

Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,22:47)
What's a PoTW?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll know when you get one.  ;)
Posted by: Joy on May 07 2009,22:55

If you've got any excess Mexicans, do send 'em my way, Erasmus. I'm really lucky if I can get my own kids and grandkids to weed the crops during growing season! Have plenty of room for tents, I won't turn 'em in or anything. Heck, I'll even cook 'em dinner and make lemonade and iced sun tea just like I do for the local VFD when the springtime fires come along. Burned the whole bottomland this year, closest it's ever gotten!

Contribute to the local economy? We indeed do, in a good many ways. Just love this place on the planet, of all places on the planet I've ever lived (and I was born where Mount Punatubo is now). Chose it on purpose. If you're gonna live in Florida, live at the beach (which we did). If you're gonna live in NC, live on a mountain. And we do. You got a problem with that?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 07 2009,22:57

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,22:40)
OMG. I does rockhounding. I has redneck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hanging around park benches begging for crack rocks... not the same thing

so much

you can haz neck annyway
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 07 2009,23:00

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 07 2009,22:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,22:40)
OMG. I does rockhounding. I has redneck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hanging around park benches begging for crack rocks... not the same thing

so much

you can haz neck annyway
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Suck my ametrine, Ras.  :angry:
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 07 2009,23:03

Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,22:55)
If you've got any excess Mexicans, do send 'em my way, Erasmus. I'm really lucky if I can get my own kids and grandkids to weed the crops during growing season! Have plenty of room for tents, I won't turn 'em in or anything. Heck, I'll even cook 'em dinner and make lemonade and iced sun tea just like I do for the local VFD when the springtime fires come along. Burned the whole bottomland this year, closest it's ever gotten!

Contribute to the local economy? We indeed do, in a good many ways. Just love this place on the planet, of all places on the planet I've ever lived (and I was born where Mount Punatubo is now). Chose it on purpose. If you're gonna live in Florida, live at the beach (which we did). If you're gonna live in NC, live on a mountain. And we do. You got a problem with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


my problems run far deeper than you joy.  i couldn't care less to pick some kinda fight with you.  i am sure i can negate your negations

but i do remain curious as to how exactly all these back to the lander types manage to pay the bills.  i guess nookular mafia pays off?  endowed?  there are certainly an innumerable host of trust fund chakra seekers who followed the magnetic aura spectral lines to the area bounded by 77 26 40 and 81.  you tell me why.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 07 2009,23:06

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,23:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 07 2009,22:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,22:40)
OMG. I does rockhounding. I has redneck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hanging around park benches begging for crack rocks... not the same thing

so much

you can haz neck annyway
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Suck my ametrine, Ras.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i knew a cherokee indian gal once that came out of the likker store in bryson with a half gallon of travelers club and said "I'm gonna drink from here to Bolivia"

and by god she meant every word of what she meant by that too.

if you are drinking pour some out for lannadell.  livers like that don't last forever
Posted by: Joy on May 07 2009,23:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you tell me why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why? WHY???!!! My goodness, 'ras. Richard tells me you're a Pirate. Aaaarrr, matey. We be here before ye. Did you bring rum?

A host of hippies camping on the lawn is, like, my worst nightmare. We actually did stop off at The Farm on our way from Boston to Oklahoma in '81. Very strange place, though I sure didn't blame the Gaskins for that. I got to plant a full half-acre of sweet potatoes, I'd lay odds all of them died. Then they tried to make me do salad for dinner. They had no IDEA of my non-cooking skills, prob'ly sickened enough of 'em to warm the cockles of your teeny heart for sure!

We make our money however we can. Made really good money with the clown empire in Florida until #1 son died ugly. Suddenly the 'team' wasn't so popular, nobody wanted a sad clown. So we came here. Still clown, still use clowning as job experience whenever we're looking. Often, because jobs are always temporary here. We chose the place. Making it work is the secondary consideration.

Is that good enough for you?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 07 2009,23:34

sure joy.  unlike some I am satisfied with pathetic levels of detail.  if i remember right there is no love lost there so perhaps that will amuse you.  i am sorry to hear of your sadnesses.

we have ours too you know

it is often the case that our youth cannot afford their birthright.  this makes me question how it is that the field is traded for pottage.  i don't deny that this may or may not be literal.  but i like most of the rest of us moved off sommer's in hopes of someday returning.  we hope that when we do we don't have to tear down a bunch of yurts

but

i knew some baptists that did clown things back in the late 80s.  what a bunch of weird people.  you'd probly say they ain't real clowns.  depending on what you meant by that you could be right
Posted by: Joy on May 07 2009,23:49

What's a "yurt?"
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 07 2009,23:54

really?




banjo:  finger picks, or not so much?
Posted by: Joy on May 08 2009,00:08

Oh, truly cool. Had a friend in the Canyon who lived in a teepee (sp?) and sold beads to the In'juns. But I could actually live in that thing! Steppes Mongolian, right?

Answer: picks if I've got 'em. Fingernails if not. That's serious Tony Trishka pickin' versus claw-hammer old timey. Ever heard of the "Sons of Ralph?" How about the "Honky Dreads?" Derek Trucks? ...depends entirely on who I'm jammin' with.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 08 2009,07:29

Bradford wins another argument!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: This is the last time I'll do this. After that it's the ban option.

You are not allowed to comment on this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I directly answered your question, Bradford. You have repeatedly refused to answer mine. It's not that hard to say that there are some things you would not allow even if the circumstances were dire.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: The waterboarding of children is totally unrealistic. They are not terrorists and would not be entrusted with the type of information used by a major terrorist organization.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is simply incorrect. Enhanced interrogation of children to find their parents or to coerce their parents into talking is a common tactic of brutal regimes. It was a tactic used by the Americans at Abu Ghraib.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: In spite of specifying repeatedly that my focus is waterboarding and then only under extreme circumstances you substitute the term torture instead of using the term waterboarding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, that's precisely what I did. I want to know whether you would put limits on enhanced interrogation. Do you think it is right to torture someone if it saves lives?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Of course you'll claim the reason is that international law defines waterboarding blah, blah, blah.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had hoped to discuss these issues, but I can't even get a simple question answered.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: I favor burning people with cigarette butts, pulling nails out etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact, I have tried to clarify your position suggesting that there are things you wouldn't countenance even if it would save many lives, that your original stated position (the minimization of suffering) is not your complete position.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Your Saddam Hussein analogy falls far short of the standard i set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was a simple question. Should Saddam, or like leaders, be tried and punished for waterboarding American prisoners in order to get information to protect his country from bombing raids.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: The path to lessened suffering would not entail propping up mass murderers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even Saddam claimed justification for torturing people who would kill him and plunge the nation into civil war.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: You're done with this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an open thread. I can't be off-topic. The measured response is to just drop the discussion.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 08 2009,08:38

Whaddaya know. I had posted a link to my previous comment here on another open thread at Telic Thoughts. But it disappeared! I know it posted because it was showing as a recent comment. I'm posting it again.

-

< Bradford wins another argument! >

-

{It's there. I wonder how long it will last.}
Posted by: Zachriel on May 08 2009,08:49

Quote (Zachriel @ May 08 2009,08:38)
Whaddaya know. I had posted a link to my previous comment here on another open thread at Telic Thoughts. But it disappeared! I know it posted because it was showing as a recent comment. I'm posting it again.

-

< Bradford wins another argument! >

-

{It's there. I wonder how long it will last.}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was quick.

I thought the official policy was to send errant comments to the Rabbit Hole. Bradford banned me from the thread, finds my comment worth responding to, but doesn't afford me an opportunity to make my own response.
Posted by: olegt on May 08 2009,08:50

It's gone again.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 08 2009,08:51

I updated my Telic Thoughts profile. My new home page:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y144218 >
Posted by: Zachriel on May 08 2009,08:59

Heh. Now I can't post to the < Open Thread: Basket Kittens > thread either.

It apparently doesn't update my home page on existing comments, but I tested it on < Open Thread: Pets > and it shows my new home page correctly.
Posted by: KCdgw on May 08 2009,09:16

Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,22:55)
If you've got any excess Mexicans, do send 'em my way, Erasmus. I'm really lucky if I can get my own kids and grandkids to weed the crops during growing season! Have plenty of room for tents, I won't turn 'em in or anything. Heck, I'll even cook 'em dinner and make lemonade and iced sun tea just like I do for the local VFD when the springtime fires come along. Burned the whole bottomland this year, closest it's ever gotten!

Contribute to the local economy? We indeed do, in a good many ways. Just love this place on the planet, of all places on the planet I've ever lived (and I was born where Mount Punatubo is now). Chose it on purpose. If you're gonna live in Florida, live at the beach (which we did). If you're gonna live in NC, live on a mountain. And we do. You got a problem with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Joy,

I think my daughter goes to school near you: Warren Wilson College, in Swannanoa. Its a gorgeous part of the country, to be sure.

KC
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 08 2009,09:35

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 07 2009,23:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,23:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 07 2009,22:57)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,22:40)
OMG. I does rockhounding. I has redneck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hanging around park benches begging for crack rocks... not the same thing

so much

you can haz neck annyway
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Suck my ametrine, Ras.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i knew a cherokee indian gal once that came out of the likker store in bryson with a half gallon of travelers club and said "I'm gonna drink from here to Bolivia"

and by god she meant every word of what she meant by that too.

if you are drinking pour some out for lannadell.  livers like that don't last forever
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


rich did you get this or what.  

its a bit of a quadruple entendre.  that might be asking a bit much for someone who is not a native speaker
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 08 2009,09:54

Oh. Native's tongues and all that.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 08 2009,10:33

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2009,09:54)
Oh. Native's tongues and all that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i just wikied your ametrine and it was all genetic entropy from there
Posted by: Joy on May 08 2009,10:56

Hi, KCdgw. Yeah, WW is a cool school. Have had many students from there and Montreat volunteer for various youth programs on the redneck side of the divide. Have strong community service requirements, and many opportunities in an officially "depressed region."

What's her major?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 08 2009,10:57

Admit it, Joy, you're quite enjoying 'the swamp'  ;)
Posted by: Joy on May 08 2009,12:05

You haven't gotten around to cussing or calling me names yet, but that doesn't lend a false sense of security. Besides, I'm rather fond of snakes and large spiders. Not big on 'gators, though.

Just came by to blow off steam per the ridiculous riverdancing of the teabagger contingent (I can only take so much of that). They're just now figuring out that their so long hoped-for theocracy ended up a train wreck, and aren't sure who to blame. Can't blame Frat-Boy and The Dick because that would mean they got suckered by Satan's Own Cyborg. Proving yet again that Evil occasionally does accomplish something good in the end.

God works in mysterious ways, after all.
Posted by: keiths on May 08 2009,12:56

Welcome to the Swamp, Joy.  Have you missed me?
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 08 2009,13:16

Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,23:21)
Thanks, Richard. One question - does this Erasmus fellow speak English? I find it very hard to follow his gist...

...and I don't know what anyone but Lou really looks like (if his current pic is any help, sort of cute), so I can't say who I'd rather make out with. I'm an eye person, if that helps. Don't care what color.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, Joy. Very kind of you to say so.

I'm tempted to award you a PotW just for that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 08 2009,13:26

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2009,13:16)
Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,23:21)
Thanks, Richard. One question - does this Erasmus fellow speak English? I find it very hard to follow his gist...

...and I don't know what anyone but Lou really looks like (if his current pic is any help, sort of cute), so I can't say who I'd rather make out with. I'm an eye person, if that helps. Don't care what color.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, Joy. Very kind of you to say so.

I'm tempted to award you a PotW just for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded, you handsome devil!
Posted by: k.e.. on May 08 2009,13:30

Quote (Joy @ May 08 2009,20:05)
You haven't gotten around to cussing or calling me names yet, but that doesn't lend a false sense of security. Besides, I'm rather fond of snakes and large spiders. Not big on 'gators, though.

Just came by to blow off steam per the ridiculous riverdancing of the teabagger contingent (I can only take so much of that). They're just now figuring out that their so long hoped-for theocracy ended up a train wreck, and aren't sure who to blame. Can't blame Frat-Boy and The Dick because that would mean they got suckered by Satan's Own Cyborg. Proving yet again that Evil occasionally does accomplish something good in the end.

God works in mysterious ways, after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh well!!!
Let me perform that service for you.
What do you like to be cussed and called?


And train wreck?

Please tell me it aint so, I'll have nothing to complain about.
Posted by: Joy on May 08 2009,14:15

Naw, didn't miss you much, keiths. Been busy lately doing other things. Checked in at Teliville only to find the usual suspects spinning like tops trying to justify torture of POWs their daddies executed war criminals for after the Big One. Holey hypocrisy, Batman! I do tend to expect a little ideological consistency even when dealing with the chewy chunks of degradation.

Lou - It's probably the goatee.

k.e. - yeah, train wreck. Of the off-the-rails and straight through the municipal building sort that'll go down in history as... something hysterical, at least.
Posted by: keiths on May 08 2009,15:21

Yeah, I can't honestly say I've missed you, either, Joy. Nevertheless, welcome to the Swamp.

Quote (Joy @ Aug 17 2008,13:06)
The Swamp is where the teenage hoodlums from II go when they finally get kicked out of their mother's basement. It is not a place for adults.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did Mommy kick you out, Joy?  How old are you again?
Posted by: KCdgw on May 08 2009,15:40

Quote (Joy @ May 08 2009,10:56)
Hi, KCdgw. Yeah, WW is a cool school. Have had many students from there and Montreat volunteer for various youth programs on the redneck side of the divide. Have strong community service requirements, and many opportunities in an officially "depressed region."

What's her major?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Philosophy/History

KC
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 08 2009,15:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2009,14:26)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2009,13:16)
Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,23:21)
Thanks, Richard. One question - does this Erasmus fellow speak English? I find it very hard to follow his gist...

...and I don't know what anyone but Lou really looks like (if his current pic is any help, sort of cute), so I can't say who I'd rather make out with. I'm an eye person, if that helps. Don't care what color.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, Joy. Very kind of you to say so.

I'm tempted to award you a PotW just for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded, you handsome devil!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can be such a charmer, Rich! :)
Posted by: khan on May 08 2009,16:00

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2009,16:40)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2009,14:26)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2009,13:16)
 
Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,23:21)
Thanks, Richard. One question - does this Erasmus fellow speak English? I find it very hard to follow his gist...

...and I don't know what anyone but Lou really looks like (if his current pic is any help, sort of cute), so I can't say who I'd rather make out with. I'm an eye person, if that helps. Don't care what color.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, Joy. Very kind of you to say so.

I'm tempted to award you a PotW just for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded, you handsome devil!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can be such a charmer, Rich! :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do we have a consensus?
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 08 2009,16:07

Quote (khan @ May 08 2009,16:00)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2009,16:40)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2009,14:26)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2009,13:16)
   
Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,23:21)
Thanks, Richard. One question - does this Erasmus fellow speak English? I find it very hard to follow his gist...

...and I don't know what anyone but Lou really looks like (if his current pic is any help, sort of cute), so I can't say who I'd rather make out with. I'm an eye person, if that helps. Don't care what color.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, Joy. Very kind of you to say so.

I'm tempted to award you a PotW just for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded, you handsome devil!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can be such a charmer, Rich! :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do we have a consensus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Consensus? Is that the word for a gathering of homos?

EDIT: I always that it was a gaggle.
Posted by: dheddle on May 08 2009,16:09

Quote (khan @ May 08 2009,16:00)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2009,16:40)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2009,14:26)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2009,13:16)
     
Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,23:21)
Thanks, Richard. One question - does this Erasmus fellow speak English? I find it very hard to follow his gist...

...and I don't know what anyone but Lou really looks like (if his current pic is any help, sort of cute), so I can't say who I'd rather make out with. I'm an eye person, if that helps. Don't care what color.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, Joy. Very kind of you to say so.

I'm tempted to award you a PotW just for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded, you handsome devil!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can be such a charmer, Rich! :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do we have a consensus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Lou FCD certainly rocks my world. As a bonus, he looks like a NASCAR fan.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 08 2009,16:15

Quote (dheddle @ May 08 2009,16:09)
Quote (khan @ May 08 2009,16:00)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2009,16:40)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2009,14:26)
     
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2009,13:16)
     
Quote (Joy @ May 07 2009,23:21)
Thanks, Richard. One question - does this Erasmus fellow speak English? I find it very hard to follow his gist...

...and I don't know what anyone but Lou really looks like (if his current pic is any help, sort of cute), so I can't say who I'd rather make out with. I'm an eye person, if that helps. Don't care what color.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you, Joy. Very kind of you to say so.

I'm tempted to award you a PotW just for that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded, you handsome devil!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can be such a charmer, Rich! :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do we have a consensus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Lou FCD certainly rocks my world. As a bonus, he looks like a NASCAR fan.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too many teeth, surely?
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 08 2009,16:22

Quote (dheddle @ May 08 2009,17:09)
As a bonus, he looks like a NASCAR fan.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What did I do to deserve that???
Posted by: Joy on May 08 2009,16:23

Naw, keiths. Just bored. I'd go mow the lawn but it's too wet. I'd prep the tomato bed, but that looks a whole lot like work. Could play the top nine of the disc course, but I lost my driver somewhere in the Chasm of Despair last weekend and don't care to climb down the mountain to look for it. Could'a gone to LEAF, but naked mud-hippies are boring too. Guess I could go coyote hunting in the bottomland if push comes to shove, but think I'll just plant squash instead.

Nice to see you haven't lost your charm.
Posted by: dheddle on May 08 2009,16:25

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2009,16:15)

*snip*
Too many teeth, surely?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I only see the top ones-- I think he only has half his choppers-- which makes him an average NASCAR fan. (What am I saying?)
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 08 2009,16:29

NASCAR question - why are only rubbish cars allowed in NASCAR?

Will you take me to a NASCAR event, uncle Dave? Can I take my camera on a mullet safari?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on May 08 2009,16:30

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 07 2009,23:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,23:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 07 2009,22:57)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,22:40)
OMG. I does rockhounding. I has redneck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hanging around park benches begging for crack rocks... not the same thing

so much

you can haz neck annyway
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Suck my ametrine, Ras.  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i knew a cherokee indian gal once that came out of the likker store in bryson with a half gallon of travelers club and said "I'm gonna drink from here to Bolivia"

and by god she meant every word of what she meant by that too.

if you are drinking pour some out for lannadell.  livers like that don't last forever
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The sign said "Drink Canada Dry"/and I think I'm gonna try...
Posted by: dheddle on May 08 2009,16:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2009,16:29)
NASCAR question - why are only rubbish cars allowed in NASCAR?

Will you take me to a NASCAR event, uncle Dave? Can I take my camera on a mullet safari?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


NASCAR cars are rubbish! Why many of 'em are GM's, and GM is practically owned by President Obama!  And they have clutches and gear shifts cause real men drive 'em, not like those girly euro drivers/cars that use *snicker* gender-challenged paddle shifters.

I'm taking da boyz to the Charlotte race May 24. You are welcome to join us.
Posted by: dheddle on May 08 2009,17:02

Speaking of NASCAR, do you guys know I write a famous < NASCAR web-comic > that violates many copyrights and gets and amazing 7-10 hits per day? That's 7 to 10, not 710.)
Posted by: Thought Provoker on May 08 2009,17:05

Joy is posting in "the swamp"?!?!

Has anyone checked the temperature of hell recently?

:O

At any rate, it's nice to see people getting along.

Now, I have to decide how to react to Fifth Monarchy Man declaring that I am "an IDer".
Posted by: Joy on May 08 2009,17:34

Went ahead and finished the 'mater bed and planted those puppies. Got the eggplants in too, we'll see how that works out. Went ahead and picked the new rush of asparagus and the ripe strawberries. Probably ought to pot up some of that mint, see if anybody's dumb enough to buy it at the tailgate market. Then pulled 8 gazillion more morning glory starts. Leeks, onions (red and white, bunching and bulb), carrots and celeriac doing well, peanuts in need of more mulch, potatoes getting eaten by some bug that doesn't know they're poison. Typical. Should probably just grow 'em in the compost, they like it fine in there.

Now I'm bored again. Hell's experiencing blackberry winter at the present time, TP.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 08 2009,19:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then pulled 8 gazillion more morning glory starts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I suspect "Morning Glory" means different things to us. Congratulation on pulling 8 million of them.

< http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A12219374 >
Posted by: dheddle on May 08 2009,19:40

Giving a dreaded 8:00 pm on last-day-of-finals E&M final as we speak. My students do not look like happy campers. I, on the other hand, enjoy browsing while they are trying to remember Faraday's Law.
Posted by: olegt on May 08 2009,19:42

David,

Isn't giving an exam at 8 pm on Friday against the law?
Posted by: Joy on May 08 2009,19:43

LOL!!! Yep. Mine are just extremely pesky invasive vines that are worse than kudzu (but prettier). Grow about a foot a day, swallow things whole. And no, I don't mean that thing...
Posted by: dheddle on May 08 2009,19:44

Quote (olegt @ May 08 2009,19:42)
David,

Isn't giving an exam at 8 pm on Friday against the law?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it ain't, it should be.

But this is Virginia. We have classes on Labor Day.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 08 2009,20:15

Quote (dheddle @ May 08 2009,19:40)
Giving a dreaded 8:00 pm on last-day-of-finals E&M final as we speak. My students do not look like happy campers. I, on the other hand, enjoy browsing while they are trying to remember Faraday's Law.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapp_Brannigan#Brannigan.27s_Law >

better law.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 08 2009,21:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley Elsberry wrote: "I hear Penthouse used to pay $0.25/word for stuff published in the "Letters" section. I wonder if Chunkdz had a prior career."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi Wesley. The story of Nick and The Dawk was not even the least bit erotic. It is the story of a star-struck grad student and his brush with superstardom.

At first I wondered why you might assume otherwise. But after poking around your web forum I am beginning to understand why you and your friend's minds might immediately go to the homoerotic gutter - you're already there! :)

Anyhow sorry if I offended you by using your name, and please know that any perceived homoeroticism is unintended, and exists only in the eye of the beholder.

-Chunkdz
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 08 2009,22:00

Quote (chunkdz @ May 08 2009,21:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley Elsberry wrote: "I hear Penthouse used to pay $0.25/word for stuff published in the "Letters" section. I wonder if Chunkdz had a prior career."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi Wesley. The story of Nick and The Dawk was not even the least bit erotic. It is the story of a star-struck grad student and his brush with superstardom.

At first I wondered why you might assume otherwise. But after poking around your web forum I am beginning to understand why you and your friend's minds might immediately go to the homoerotic gutter - you're already there! :)

Anyhow sorry if I offended you by using your name, and please know that any perceived homoeroticism is unintended, and exists only in the eye of the beholder.

-Chunkdz
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy Moly, it's Ted Haggard 2!
Posted by: k.e.. on May 09 2009,00:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 09 2009,06:00)
 
Quote (chunkdz @ May 08 2009,21:37)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley Elsberry wrote: "I hear Penthouse used to pay $0.25/word for stuff published in the "Letters" section. I wonder if Chunkdz had a prior career."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi Wesley. The story of Nick and The Dawk was not even the least bit erotic. It is the story of a star-struck grad student and his brush with superstardom.

At first I wondered why you might assume otherwise. But after poking around your web forum I am beginning to understand why you and your friend's minds might immediately go to the homoerotic gutter - you're already there! :)

Anyhow sorry if I offended you by using your name, and please know that any perceived homoeroticism is unintended, and exists only in the eye of the beholder.

-Chunkdz
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy Moly, it's Ted Haggard 2!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only less talented.

But probably blowing more dick.
And wishing for some decent marmite drilling.

How do you feel about gay marriage Chuck baby?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 09 2009,05:28

Quote (chunkdz @ May 08 2009,21:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley Elsberry wrote: "I hear Penthouse used to pay $0.25/word for stuff published in the "Letters" section. I wonder if Chunkdz had a prior career."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi Wesley. The story of Nick and The Dawk was not even the least bit erotic. It is the story of a star-struck grad student and his brush with superstardom.

At first I wondered why you might assume otherwise. But after poking around your web forum I am beginning to understand why you and your friend's minds might immediately go to the homoerotic gutter - you're already there! :)

Anyhow sorry if I offended you by using your name, and please know that any perceived homoeroticism is unintended, and exists only in the eye of the beholder.

-Chunkdz
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see C. is still managing to emit content-free prose. So I guess C. has got nothing when it comes to the rest of what I said:



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

Thanks for the link and samples. I think that puts paid to any pretense TT might have had about any relative advantage in "tone".

I hear Penthouse used to pay $0.25/word for stuff published in the "Letters" section. I wonder if C. had a prior career.

I find it satisfying enough to dwell upon the actual faults of religious antievolutionists.

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



C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way. I don't have to fictionalize anything to be able to point that out.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 09 2009,06:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Consensus? Is that the word for a gathering of homos?

EDIT: I always that it was a gaggle.


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



It's a Pride of gays, silly rabbit.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 12 2009,12:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley: I see C. is still managing to emit content-free prose. So I guess C. has got nothing when it comes to the rest of what I said:

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


Not true. As for Telic Thoughts "advantage of tone": Telic Thoughts is indisputably friendlier than either of your sites (ATBC and Panda's Thumb). I don't recall any TT'er ever using the vulgar language that prevails at the websites that you spawned and/or maintain.

As for the "faults of religious antievolutionists", your stereotype label doesn't apply to me. Try again.

And as for you chastising me for being "nasty"...I doubt if I am the only one who is struck by the hilarious irony of this. Especially given that you, Wesley Elsberry, run two of the most vulgar and nasty websites under the pretense of "science education".

What an academic joke you are, Wesley. You pretend to be some kind of "voice of reason", yet it is you who foments and supports the filthiest rhetoric and sleazy namecalling on your filthy and sleazy websites. I submit to you that only a person who has abandoned reason could possibly characterize my story as "nastiest possible", yet give a complete pass to your sycophantic minions sexual slurs and foul language.

Hypocrite is too mild a word for you Wesley. But I am willing to give you a chance. Go ahead and offer a similar criticism to one of your little henchmen. Take them to task for their "nastiness".

I predict you won't because you are just a simpleton culture warrior, and your only purpose is to score points for your side.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 12 2009,12:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
K.E: "But probably blowing more dick.
And wishing for some decent marmite drilling.

How do you feel about gay marriage Chuck baby?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm charmed and flattered, but taken.

I'd love to stay and chat, but today is my 17th wedding anniversary and I really don't want to spend it chatting online with gay atheists.

  :)
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 12 2009,13:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Anyhow sorry if I offended you by using your name, and please know that any perceived homoeroticism is unintended, and exists only in the eye of the beholder.

-Chunkdz"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quote (chunkdz @ May 12 2009,12:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
K.E: "But probably blowing more dick.
And wishing for some decent marmite drilling.

How do you feel about gay marriage Chuck baby?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm charmed and flattered, but taken.

I'd love to stay and chat, but today is my 17th wedding anniversary and I really don't want to spend it chatting online with gay atheists.

  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least you were able to express your man-crush here before you had to leave.
Posted by: JohnW on May 12 2009,13:25

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 12 2009,11:04)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Anyhow sorry if I offended you by using your name, and please know that any perceived homoeroticism is unintended, and exists only in the eye of the beholder.

-Chunkdz"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quote (chunkdz @ May 12 2009,12:42)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
K.E: "But probably blowing more dick.
And wishing for some decent marmite drilling.

How do you feel about gay marriage Chuck baby?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm charmed and flattered, but taken.

I'd love to stay and chat, but today is my 17th wedding anniversary and I really don't want to spend it chatting online with gay atheists.

  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least you were able to express your man-crush here before you had to leave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The spirit is willing,
The flesh is weak.
You homos disgust me,
Same time next week?

Posted by: carlsonjok on May 12 2009,13:44

Quote (chunkdz @ May 12 2009,12:38)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley: I see C. is still managing to emit content-free prose. So I guess C. has got nothing when it comes to the rest of what I said:

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


What an academic joke you are, Wesley. You pretend to be some kind of "voice of reason", yet it is you who foments and supports the filthiest rhetoric and sleazy namecalling on your filthy and sleazy websites. I submit to you that only a person who has abandoned reason could possibly characterize my story as "nastiest possible", yet give a complete pass to your sycophantic minions sexual slurs and foul language.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I, for one, thank Wesley for his commitment to the First Amendment.  So, Chunky, why do you hate America?
   

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

Hypocrite is too mild a word for you Wesley. But I am willing to give you a chance. Go ahead and offer a similar criticism to one of your little henchmen. Take them to task for their "nastiness".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True story*.  Back about a year ago, someone created bpsdb.org (Blogging about Pseudo-Scientific Douche Bags) for aggregating blog posts about the various psuedo-sciences and their purveyors.  Wesley specifically asked for an option that dropped "Douche Bags" in order to stay at his preferred level of discourse. No one will argue that Wes has strong positions on science education, nor that he advocates for them with intensity. I will dispute your implication about his tone.  I find that he conducts himself with an equanimity that alot of folks could stand to emulate.  I appreciate his attempts to maintain a specific tone level in his personal writings. But, I also appreciate his unwillingness to impose, by fiat, the same level of tone on the participants here. Censorship is unbecoming and speaks more to the character of the censor than the person(s) being censored.
   

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

I predict you won't because you are just a simpleton culture warrior, and your only purpose is to score points for your side.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, Wes? When was the last time you performed some sort of scientific experimentation or analysis?

Chunkdz, same question to you.

*EDIT: I should add that this is only one example where I have seen Wes chose a higher level of tone.  It was just one that was easy to illustrate in 25 words or less.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 12 2009,15:15

Quote (Joy @ May 08 2009,17:34)
Went ahead and finished the 'mater bed and planted those puppies. Got the eggplants in too, we'll see how that works out. Went ahead and picked the new rush of asparagus and the ripe strawberries. Probably ought to pot up some of that mint, see if anybody's dumb enough to buy it at the tailgate market. Then pulled 8 gazillion more morning glory starts. Leeks, onions (red and white, bunching and bulb), carrots and celeriac doing well, peanuts in need of more mulch, potatoes getting eaten by some bug that doesn't know they're poison. Typical. Should probably just grow 'em in the compost, they like it fine in there.

Now I'm bored again. Hell's experiencing blackberry winter at the present time, TP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


joy i hope you aren't offended if i say that you are much more delightful here in the swamp than elsewhere.  why, we could get along just fine i reckon.  unless you start playing pete seeger tunes.  

now, i am going to read the rest of the thread which i already know has been polluted by some really gay dumbossity.  or really dumb gayossity.  not sure which
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 12 2009,15:24

oh now i see the rest of the story.

drunkchz is a bit nervous about it still.  well son you can't change a buzzard, you can give it a wig, you can give it fake tits, you can sew a scuba tank to its back, but its still a buzzard.  you can even marry it to a bluebird for 17 years but its still a buzzard.

and you are still in denial about manlust.  

i think you will find that folks here will tolerate your homo-ossity far more than at the culture war dungeon you prefer to soil.  we need more of you fellers around here, i always said.  i could use your back for an ashtray, for instance.  and since your mouth isn't doing anything but dripping excrement we might as well plant something in it like a ficus or one of joy's mater bushes.  

hell you could share some more of what is undoubtedly hundreds of volumes of your homo-erotica written about whatever culture war figures you happen to have a mancrush on at the moment.  how about rush limbaugh satisfying the entire new york city fire department and still having enough stamina to man handle barney frank then marry carrie prejean?
Posted by: Gunthernacus on May 12 2009,17:13

As is typical at TT, they are hashing out the scientific implications of ID by talking about the mean, nasty Dawkins. Here is one from chunkerz that is quite the < blue-veined projection >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyone who was REALLY interested in studying and understanding child abuse and religion would have hundreds upon hundreds of scientific studies at his disposal. How many studies has Dawkins cited to support his assertion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess spunkerz and the other IDists are not REALLY interested in studying and understanding ID, then.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 12 2009,18:50

rofl

a throbbing projection, huh

anyone know the backstory on just why exactly spunk does not equal DT?
Posted by: Joy on May 12 2009,20:57

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
joy i hope you aren't offended if i say that you are much more delightful here in the swamp than elsewhere.  why, we could get along just fine i reckon.  unless you start playing pete seeger tunes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're gonna hate this... I met Pete Seeger once during a layover at the Dallas airport in 1971. The Navy had flown me to Orlando (back when it was just a backwater with an airport that consisted of a few quonset huts) because hubby was getting a medal at boot camp graduation. We had four hours to kill in Dallas, not a quarter between us and couldn't even afford a soda to split.

Pete saw us sitting there looking bored (hubby in dress whites, it was a military hop), told us to follow him. He took us upstairs to the USO for sandwiches, drinks, pinball and pool. Didn't stay because he was on his way elsewhere, but it was really quite cool.

You'll be pleased to know that never caused me to buy any of his records or anything. My entire contribution to the folk/country art consisted of Mom's cousin John's stuff. Her maiden name was Cash...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 12 2009,21:21

well hell yer right in the middle of everythang huh

no matter how many philanthropic acts Pete Seeger performed, they are all overshadowed by the pure black evil that is "Coyote".  may i never hear it again.

ahh hell i can't help myself.  just like visiting UD or TT I can't avoid looking at the trainwrecks

giggle

i'm sure you've seen the old TV show that Cash had?  i can't remember the name, was black and white.  he was very hopped up then.  twitching spasmodically the whole time.  they had to get the camera off'n of him every chance they could because he looked like a marionette controlled by Kairosfocus.

anyway he had Pete Seeger on as a guest for one episode that I simply can never forget, just like the twin towers and the muppet movie it is forever burned on my memory.  Pete Seeger sang whatever Coyote with his 49 fret banjo.  

wonder if its' on the youtube...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 12 2009,21:27

musta had it backwards.  pete seegers show, johnny cash was a guest.  a very very very twitchy anxious strung out guest.  rest holds.  although there was some fabulous music on that show, none of it was played by pete seeger.

they are on youtube btw.

spin us a yarn about yer momma and her cousin?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 12 2009,23:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not true. As for Telic Thoughts "advantage of tone": Telic Thoughts is indisputably friendlier than either of your sites (ATBC and Panda's Thumb). I don't recall any TT'er ever using the vulgar language that prevails at the websites that you spawned and/or maintain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I dispute that, as will the many who've had their posts 'meddled with'.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for the "faults of religious antievolutionists", your stereotype label doesn't apply to me. Try again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



TARD - that's the one.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And as for you chastising me for being "nasty"...I doubt if I am the only one who is struck by the hilarious irony of this. Especially given that you, Wesley Elsberry, run two of the most vulgar and nasty websites under the pretense of "science education".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You using 'irony' when you mean 'hypocrisy' is ironic. Or meta-ironic. And Tu Quoque is a fallacy.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What an academic joke you are, Wesley. You pretend to be some kind of "voice of reason", yet it is you who foments and supports the filthiest rhetoric and sleazy namecalling on your filthy and sleazy websites. I submit to you that only a person who has abandoned reason could possibly characterize my story as "nastiest possible", yet give a complete pass to your sycophantic minions sexual slurs and foul language.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Check - if you think this is sleazy, you must be new to teh interwebs, or your mum has one wicked locked-down browser for you.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hypocrite is too mild a word for you Wesley. But I am willing to give you a chance. Go ahead and offer a similar criticism to one of your little henchmen. Take them to task for their "nastiness".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think Wes is looking to be endorsed or validated by idiots. If he was, he could have asked me.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I predict you won't because you are just a simpleton culture warrior, and your only purpose is to score points for your side.


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



I predict you you wont come back here because your beat your wife and get a mild stiffy when talking to men about homosexuality. It's a poor rhetorical trick, but I still do it better than you.
Posted by: Joy on May 12 2009,23:55

Sorry, 'Ras. Don't watch television. Have a set, lots of tapes and DVDs. It's not worth $75 a month to be assaulted with mindless garbage just so they can [try to] sell me things I don't want or need. I figure if it's all that important to keep me stupid, they can foot the bill. Since they don't, hypnotically induced stupidity isn't part of life here (though these 'toobs might be a contender).

John was a mess. The gifted seem to get into that mess too often, he managed to live through it (until he died, that is). Saw Hendricks' second-to-last show. Talk about strung out! And John Prine who fell off his stool at the first chord, didn't get up. It was a short set...
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 13 2009,06:12

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,00:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not true. As for Telic Thoughts "advantage of tone": Telic Thoughts is indisputably friendlier than either of your sites (ATBC and Panda's Thumb). I don't recall any TT'er ever using the vulgar language that prevails at the websites that you spawned and/or maintain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I dispute that, as will the many who've had their posts 'meddled with'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll dispute that on different grounds.

Accusing the entire scientific community of a vast conspiracy to take over the world/brainwash the masses/cover up The Truth About God™ (without any evidence whatever) isn't any friendlier because you don't use the word "shithead". It only makes you less honest.

TT/UD/AIG/etc are all cut from the same cloth, each one a cesspool of lies and distortions, run by self-important Napoleon wannabes whose goal is to dictate science by fiat without ever having stepped into a lab or gone out to the field to do any actual science. Creationists aim to usurp the mantle of science, wear the lab coat while destroying the microscope as it were.

The fact that they don't use four-letter words when they lie is not an "advantage of tone".


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,08:04

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,00:55)
Sorry, 'Ras. Don't watch television. Have a set, lots of tapes and DVDs. It's not worth $75 a month to be assaulted with mindless garbage just so they can [try to] sell me things I don't want or need. I figure if it's all that important to keep me stupid, they can foot the bill. Since they don't, hypnotically induced stupidity isn't part of life here (though these 'toobs might be a contender).

John was a mess. The gifted seem to get into that mess too often, he managed to live through it (until he died, that is). Saw Hendricks' second-to-last show. Talk about strung out! And John Prine who fell off his stool at the first chord, didn't get up. It was a short set...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well, to be honest, i don't watch TV either.

psst this happened about 30 something years ago

i didn't catch it on Dancing with the stars last week, hun

perhaps you'll youtoob it.  certainly is worth pointing and laughing watching
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,08:07

lou that is a pretty good rant thar'

i think they just wanna use the microscope for something different tho'

drunkchz thinks it is a sit n' spin
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,08:22

Lou:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll dispute that on different grounds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, since the subject came up, I will tell you that 'meddling' with posts is a strict no-no at TT - they may be holed in entirety or not at all, formatting corrected only upon request. Really. Yes, things sometimes get weirded out - I've lost whole or portions of posts occasionally, don't bother with the emoticons because they either don't show at all (just get the keystrokes) or turn out wrong. I don't know why, but shit happens.

I'd say those who can't handle the occasional glitch without going all CT [Conspiracy Theory] should probably stay here instead.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
TT/UD/AIG/etc are all cut from the same cloth, each one a cesspool of lies and distortions, run by self-important Napoleon wannabes whose goal is to dictate science by fiat without ever having stepped into a lab or gone out to the field to do any actual science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Truth is, it's mostly a matter of perception. Yes, most at TT are 'creationists' in that they do view biology and evolution as creations instead of accidents (with some caveats), with deity running the show. But insisting that their view boils down to "lies and distortions" because you have an opposite view makes about as much sense as defending torture because The Dick Can Do No Wrong. Frustrating, but not a matter of deliberate deception.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Creationists aim to usurp the mantle of science, wear the lab coat while destroying the microscope as it were.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have more faith in science than that, I guess. So long as the true theocons are prevented from imposing religion as science in science classes (and they *are* so prevented, legally, just as it should be), it doesn't matter what they believe about creation or evolution. Science will eventually follow the evidence wherever it leads, or make itself useless. Since there's actual power involved, I'm guessing it won't choose ideological uselessness over what's real about life.

Whatever that turns out to be, on the level of what we can know or find out.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,08:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, since the subject came up, I will tell you that 'meddling' with posts is a strict no-no at TT
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really, Joy? And yet it happens. Strict no-no's aren't what they used to be!
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,08:41

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
psst this happened about 30 something years ago
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's right around the time I tossed my TV down the basement stairs. Found myself watching "The Gong Show" at dinner with the kids one night, some obese woman burping the National Anthem. Grossed me out so bad it was like waking up in the middle of a nightmare and finding it was real. Now I've a grandson who is old enough to have voted last fall. Only time he's ever watched TV was at someone else's house, and he inevitably came home with a new appreciation for why we don't.

Though if he could just get Sci-Fi Channel 24-7 he'd be okay with it. Bad Zombie movies... btw, have you seen "Zombie Strippers" yet? May be the best Z-Cult Classic ever!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
perhaps you'll youtoob it.  certainly is worth pointing and laughing watching
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe someday. If we ever get frustrated enough with dial-up to pay $75 a month for HughesNet (they're never ever going to run a cable half a mile up my driveway even if it ran along our road, which it doesn't).
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,08:47

Richard:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really, Joy? And yet it happens. Strict no-no's aren't what they used to be!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I can tell you the 'edit' function hasn't worked at all in at least six months. So it would be pretty hard to edit a post instead of just click the 'hole' button. We have a 'delete' button too, which is how I've edited posts that didn't come out right. I sure don't know why anyone would bother to copy a post in full just to change an emoticon and then delete and re-post.

And since I also can't get the emoticons to work right, I would not automatically jump to nefarious conclusions. But whatever floats your boat...
Posted by: Louis on May 13 2009,09:39

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 13 2009,12:12)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,00:41)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not true. As for Telic Thoughts "advantage of tone": Telic Thoughts is indisputably friendlier than either of your sites (ATBC and Panda's Thumb). I don't recall any TT'er ever using the vulgar language that prevails at the websites that you spawned and/or maintain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I dispute that, as will the many who've had their posts 'meddled with'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll dispute that on different grounds.

Accusing the entire scientific community of a vast conspiracy to take over the world/brainwash the masses/cover up The Truth About God™ (without any evidence whatever) isn't any friendlier because you don't use the word "shithead". It only makes you less honest.

TT/UD/AIG/etc are all cut from the same cloth, each one a cesspool of lies and distortions, run by self-important Napoleon wannabes whose goal is to dictate science by fiat without ever having stepped into a lab or gone out to the field to do any actual science. Creationists aim to usurp the mantle of science, wear the lab coat while destroying the microscope as it were.

The fact that they don't use four-letter words when they lie is not an "advantage of tone".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded....Thirded....Fourthed....Infinityed!

Pearl clutching over profanity and verbal nastiness (which is unfortunately an almost inevitable consequence of the frustration generated when confronted by the invidiously mendacious) is yet another distraction from the fact that creationists of all stripes have no evidence to support their assertions. Zip. Nada. Bubkis. Zilch. Nothing. Sweet Fanny Adams. Nil. Zero. Absolutely fuck all.

Other than the usual special pleads and assorted logically fallacious appeals that is.

That distraction can be, but isn't always, a deliberate (and thus dishonest) attempt to avoid admitting they are wrong about the data.

Louis
Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,09:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Found myself watching "The Gong Show" at dinner with the kids one night, some obese woman burping the National Anthem. Grossed me out so bad it was like waking up in the middle of a nightmare and finding it was real
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



uh huh, but it WAS real, most nightmares are warning you to destroy the evidence.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bad Zombie movies... btw, have you seen "Zombie Strippers" yet? May be the best Z-Cult Classic ever!

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



Dang.....that happens to me all the time.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 13 2009,09:49

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,08:47)
I sure don't know why anyone would bother to copy a post in full just to change an emoticon and then delete and re-post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know why.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 13 2009,10:25

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,09:22)
Truth is, it's mostly a matter of perception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bullshit.
 
Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,09:22)
Yes, most at TT are 'creationists' in that they do view biology and evolution as creations instead of accidents (with some caveats), with deity running the show.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bullshit.
 
Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,09:22)
But insisting that their view boils down to "lies and distortions" because you have an opposite view makes about as much sense as defending torture because The Dick Can Do No Wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bullshit.
 
Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,09:22)
Frustrating, but not a matter of deliberate deception.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bullshit.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,10:28

oh lou why can't you just admit that there are two sides to every story and both of them are equally valid?

lol
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 13 2009,10:35

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 13 2009,11:28)
oh lou why can't you just admit that there are two sides to every story and both of them are equally valid?

lol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm a cranky bastard that way, I guess.
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,10:39

You like that "bullshit" word a lot, eh Louie?

Don't guess there's anything I could add to what I posted previously, in that those observations are in fact my observations. You could probably use the same word to describe my observational prowess, but it wouldn't change a thing about my observations.

I get a lot more frustrated with the political teabagging than with speculative flights of fancy regarding whether or not this or that biological process shows signs of design-like organization. But then again, Dueling Metaphysics isn't the primary reason I got involved in the first place. It was the bizarre assertions and misinformation coming from the scientific cadre that first caught my attention. Made me wonder what the hell was going on...
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 13 2009,10:45

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,11:39)
It was the bizarre assertions and misinformation coming from the scientific cadre that first caught my attention. Made me wonder what the hell was going on...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again with unfounded conspiracy theories and scurrilous accusations, eh Joyfullyinsane?

You want to play name games, or just continue casting aspersions without merit?

I think we're all clear that you have no desire to actually discuss science.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 13 2009,10:47

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,10:39)
It was the bizarre assertions and misinformation coming from the scientific cadre that first caught my attention. Made me wonder what the hell was going on...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy,

Would you care to give some examples of such?

It might put you in a better light if your examples were agreed by all to be valid and not simply the same old tired debunked creationist talking points.

thanks

OM
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,10:55

Quote ( Joy @ upslope)
I get a lot more frustrated with the political teabagging than with speculative flights of fancy regarding whether or not this or that biological process shows signs of design-like organization.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



if you'd attempt to parse the two you might find that most of us agree with you.

since, for the latter, there is absolutely no method whatsoever that can justify those, as you call them, speculative flights of fancy, most of us here view ANY attempts to institutionalize such metaphysick as political teabagging.

BUT

provide such a method where we can all wear our science hats and discuss, without having such discussion devolve into whether or not a bearded thunderer can do this or that, and you will have spooned the fork.  i don't think it will happen because i don't believe there is such a method.  i would love to be proven wrong.  i dare ya
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,11:23

Lou:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again with unfounded conspiracy theories and scurrilous accusations, eh Joyfullyinsane?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, well. I guess the "kinda cute" PotW only lasts so long before the insults and name-calling rise yet again to the fore. You didn't have a Mama who taught you better manners, did you?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think we're all clear that you have no desire to actually discuss science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've seen no actual science discussed in this thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you care to give some examples of such?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Primarily claims to knowledge science doesn't really have, about things that science doesn't specialize in. Mostly metaphysics, which last I checked is the exclusive purview of philosophy, theology and/or New Agey scam artists who make it up as they go along.

There's also the ignorance of scientoid groupies who learned no more than the average high schooler about biological evolution years ago, who bought into the metaphysics of EAs pretending that science somehow 'proves' their metaphysics correct. Those who don't know the difference between statistical treatment of phenomena (probability) and the concept of causation. Things like that.

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...most of us here view ANY attempts to institutionalize such metaphysick as political teabagging.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then I guess you have no problem with my view of attempts to do that very thing by the opposing 'metaphysick'-ally inclined combatants. Science education - which I suppose to be the institution you're concerned about - shouldn't be in the business of promulgating anybody's metaphysics. The religios have had precisely zero luck trying to get past Amendment #1. The other corner has enjoyed somewhat better luck until rather recently when textbooks were stripped of the theological arguments. Better late than never.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
without having such discussion devolve into whether or not a bearded thunderer can do this or that, and you will have spooned the fork.  i don't think it will happen because i don't believe there is such a method.  i would love to be proven wrong.  i dare ya
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry to disappoint you yet again, 'ras. I've got no magician in this race. No sporks (or spooks) here...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 13 2009,11:47

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,11:23)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would you care to give some examples of such?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Primarily claims to knowledge science doesn't really have, about things that science doesn't specialize in. Mostly metaphysics, which last I checked is the exclusive purview of philosophy, theology and/or New Agey scam artists who make it up as they go along.

There's also the ignorance of scientoid groupies who learned no more than the average high schooler about biological evolution years ago, who bought into the metaphysics of EAs pretending that science somehow 'proves' their metaphysics correct. Those who don't know the difference between statistical treatment of phenomena (probability) and the concept of causation. Things like that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Joy,

That was not quite what I was after and I think you know it.

You said

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
bizarre assertions and misinformation coming from the scientific cadre
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And yet the quoted text above does not mention any such bizarre assertions or misinformation.

New Agey Scam artists "made you wonder what the hell was going on?" with actual real science did they?

If by "scientific cadre" you mean "working, published scientists" then I simply don't see what new agers and people who don't know the difference between statistical treatment of phenomena (probability) and the concept of causation have do do with the "scientific cadre"? Can you explain that?

Wikipedia notes:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cadre (pronounced /?k??dre?/, from the French) is the backbone of an organization, usually a political or military organization. The expression can be in the singular or the plural. Generally it is applied to a small core of committed and experienced people who are capable of providing leadership and of training newer members.

Because cadre are well developed in terms of knowledge, experience, and agreement with the organization's goals, they should be able to adapt and rebuild the organization's structure and ideological direction even if the organization has been weakened, through, for example, other members being killed or imprisoned. For professional revolutionaries the cadre consider themselves subject to the discipline and self-discipline of a political vanguard party model.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And so it seems to me you have mixed up the "pretend" scientists and their proclamations with the proclamations of the actual-scientists and paint all with the same brush.

Hardly fair?

So, I ask again, could you give me a specific example of a bizarre assertion and/or misinformation coming from the "scientific cadre" that caused you to take the position you have?
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,11:47

Just so you know, I've no problem with evolution. Never did have a problem with evolution, at least per most issues except universal common ancestor (I suspect there was more than one). I do have problems with strict Darwinism's "selection as creator of new information" thing, but so did science. Which is why they kept on seeking the mechanism of inheritance, since that is where new information arises for selection to act upon.

I also have a problem with the ridiculous assertion that all new information is caused by 'random', since random isn't a cause of anything. I expect new and incoming information about self-organization, non-linear processes, state dynamics, epigenetics, expression-suiting (chromatin and histone dynamics) and things at "the edge of chaos" on the biophysics end will eventually lead to a theory of evolution that doesn't look so accidental, concerning organisms with a very strong self-interest in surviving as long as possible (and being as sexy as possible).

I view life as a fairly efficient (i.e., "intelligent") designer of its own forms and functions, as well as systematic originator of all qualities and traits we see displayed in the biodiversity all around us. No one denies selection's input, since the Fickle Finger of Fate is a big player in the game of what does survive and reproduce for generations down the line. That's a caveat to what is often essentially accidental (in effect, not cause) rather than adaptively weeded-out by environmental challenges to this trait or that.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 13 2009,11:51

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,11:47)
I also have a problem with the ridiculous assertion that all new information is caused by 'random', since random isn't a cause of anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could you give me an example of a biologist (or related occupation) saying such?

I hear that said alot, but never who is claiming it. Who is claiming such? Please do tell.

Have you ever considered that it is just a strawman you've never looked at too closely?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 13 2009,12:06

< http://phase.sourceforge.net/ >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is a small program that generates random phase music. Random music has been around for a long time (from Mozart's musical dice game to John Cage's chance music), but phase music was invented rather recently by Steve Reich.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.randomusic.com/ >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Randomusic is a music composing software that automatically generates music in a random fashion while following various rules that add harmony, structure, etc. These rules are applied according to certain probabilities which you can adjust.

Combining the power of chaos, randomness, and music theory, the program takes you on a journey to the thrilling rand of music, where experiences beyond conventions and stereotypes extend your perception of peace, excitement, and beauty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.random-art.org >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Welcome the the gallery of random art, where pictures are made by a computer program. Every day new pictures are presented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,12:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also have a problem with the ridiculous assertion that all new information is caused by 'random', since random isn't a cause of anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When you say random I think you think of goat giving birth to a frog. Or you throw a dice and if its a 3 you decide to go downstairs and fuck the neighbor.

Random mutation in the case of evolution may mean flipping a single amino acid in an organism's DNA.

A cow being born with two heads or an Asteroid hitting the earth wiping out almost all of life here are events that are restricted within possible bounds only.
To a human they may seem random but they do actually happen.

Your use of the word random is an emotional plea.
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,12:28

OMitSDI:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yet the quoted text above does not mention any such bizarre assertions or misinformation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You want me to remember specifics from a decade ago? Geez... it's not like I have boxes and file cabinets stuffed full of painful details and documentary evidence (as I have for back when such detail and documentation was my job).

Best I can recall, it was some pseud on the CNN message boards who showed up spewing the usual crap about how "science proves" there's no God because life evolved instead of getting zapped into existence 6,000 years ago. Your basic unwarranted extrapolation from a logical fallacy (straw man). Struck me as an extremely odd thing to say from someone pretending to *be* a scientist (thus ought to know better).

Questioning the assertion earned a link from someone else to the ARN boards, which I audited for awhile before deciding what position I cared to weigh in on. I view the Creationist position as sadly misguided and very dumb, but at the same time I recognize that it's a serious minority contingent based on theological error their in-group doesn't view as theological error. First learned about the Hebraic mythology and pre-Judaic histories from my godparents, who were Jews. Always figured they knew more about it than the Bibolators did, since it's their mythology and histories and all.

However, I also believe strongly in the fundamental human and constitutional right to believe in what amounts to theological error. Thus I don't care what silliness other people choose to believe about things that can't ever really be known, so long as they aren't teaching it in public schools to other people's conscripted children disguised as science.

When I see silliness asserted by those pretending to speak for science, it does bug me. Because it's a dangerous corruption of the most powerful tool humanity ever invented for itself (for good or ill).  Also amazed that such things are not called out by real scientists more often. Though I'm also pretty sure real scientists don't spend a lot of time on obscure internet message boards and blogs correcting misconceptions and erroneous assertions.

In this particular 'controversy' (if there really is one) Dueling Metaphysics is the name of the game. Off in the distance science marches on, pretty soon the competing arguments will be moot. At which point the duelers will inevitably fall back on pure metaphysical assertions that convince no one, and the partisan politics that goes with. In fact, it looks to me like it's basically already there.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,12:29

Hi Carlsonjok,
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I, for one, thank Wesley for his commitment to the First Amendment.  So, Chunky, why do you hate America?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm for free speech as much as the next anonymous internet jerk. What I despise is the hypocrisy of a "defender of science" who criticises the "nastiness" of his perceived enemy while ignoring the "nastiness" of his drooling minions. Wesley's outrage is just an act. Otherwise he'd have the balls to call his own people on their nastiness.



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
True story*.  Back about a year ago, someone created bpsdb.org (Blogging about Pseudo-Scientific Douche Bags) for aggregating blog posts about the various psuedo-sciences and their purveyors.  Wesley specifically asked for an option that dropped "Douche Bags" in order to stay at his preferred level of discourse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this supposed to be impressive? Of COURSE Wesley wants to keep the outward appearance clean - he has a public image to maintain. Panda's Thumb and antievolution.org are just the whitewashed sepulchers. The filth and corruption are kept safely inside, with Wesleys blessing.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one will argue that Wes has strong positions on science education, nor that he advocates for them with intensity. I will dispute your implication about his tone.  I find that he conducts himself with an equanimity that alot of folks could stand to emulate.  I appreciate his attempts to maintain a specific tone level in his personal writings. But, I also appreciate his unwillingness to impose, by fiat, the same level of tone on the participants here. Censorship is unbecoming and speaks more to the character of the censor than the person(s) being censored.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hear Larry Flint is quite congenial in person too. Yet both he and Wesley Elsberry, having complete editorial control, are purveyors of sickening vulgarity and they do it without shame. And frankly, that's Wesley's call. But don't you dare lecture me about my "nastiness" when you are sponsoring much worse right on your own website.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, Wes? When was the last time you performed some sort of scientific experimentation or analysis?

Chunkdz, same question to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even if Wesley Elsberry were a three time Nobel Laureate, he would still be running two websites featuring the grossest and most vulgar bigotry and prejudice under the pretense of "science education". Again, Wesley, I couldn't care less if that's what you want to do but don't presume to lecture me about "tone" and "nasty" behavior while your own website greets it's critics as "tards".

What a pathetically lame hypocrite you are.
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,12:41

k.e.:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your use of the word random is an emotional plea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No it's not. Sure, isotopes comprising molecules may spontaneously decay on occasion, replication 'mistakes' can occur, aa elements may 'flip' for no apparent reason, and ionizing radiation (as well as free radical ionization) can break strands or zap pieces-parts much smaller. Deal is, I do not view these events as contributory to evolution proper, just to selection of individuals and perhaps sub-populations. Like an unpredictable earthquake that wipes out an entire village, fit and unfit alike. That's the Fickle Finger of Fate, which can go forward into population dynamics on the evolutionary front, but *is* not the 'engine of evolution'.

Accumulated and inherited "damage" contributes more to disease than to evolution, I suspect.

Two-headed calves and cosmic billiard games are selective events. There is no species of two-headed bovines, you know. And cosmic billiards is a game of skill, not chance. Just because neither dinosaurs nor humans may see it coming doesn't mean it occurred at random or was caused by "randomness."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,12:41

and you are a proponent of tardery.

that makes you a tard.

drunkchz concern trollery is not needed here nor anywhere.

ETA drunkchz knows who that is for.  not joy, who has been on relatively good behavior here in the drunk tank swamp
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,13:28

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,12:29)
Hi Carlsonjok,
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I, for one, thank Wesley for his commitment to the First Amendment.  So, Chunky, why do you hate America?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm for free speech as much as the next anonymous internet jerk. What I despise is the hypocrisy of a "defender of science" who criticises the "nastiness" of his perceived enemy while ignoring the "nastiness" of his drooling minions. Wesley's outrage is just an act. Otherwise he'd have the balls to call his own people on their nastiness.  


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
True story*.  Back about a year ago, someone created bpsdb.org (Blogging about Pseudo-Scientific Douche Bags) for aggregating blog posts about the various psuedo-sciences and their purveyors.  Wesley specifically asked for an option that dropped "Douche Bags" in order to stay at his preferred level of discourse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this supposed to be impressive? Of COURSE Wesley wants to keep the outward appearance clean - he has a public image to maintain. Panda's Thumb and antievolution.org are just the whitewashed sepulchers. The filth and corruption are kept safely inside, with Wesleys blessing.


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one will argue that Wes has strong positions on science education, nor that he advocates for them with intensity. I will dispute your implication about his tone.  I find that he conducts himself with an equanimity that alot of folks could stand to emulate.  I appreciate his attempts to maintain a specific tone level in his personal writings. But, I also appreciate his unwillingness to impose, by fiat, the same level of tone on the participants here. Censorship is unbecoming and speaks more to the character of the censor than the person(s) being censored.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hear Larry Flint is quite congenial in person too. Yet both he and Wesley Elsberry, having complete editorial control, are purveyors of sickening vulgarity and they do it without shame. And frankly, that's Wesley's call. But don't you dare lecture me about my "nastiness" when you are sponsoring much worse right on your own website.  

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, Wes? When was the last time you performed some sort of scientific experimentation or analysis?

Chunkdz, same question to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even if Wesley Elsberry were a three time Nobel Laureate, he would still be running two websites featuring the grossest and most vulgar bigotry and prejudice under the pretense of "science education". Again, Wesley, I couldn't care less if that's what you want to do but don't presume to lecture me about "tone" and "nasty" behavior while your own website greets it's critics as "tards".

What a pathetically lame hypocrite you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tee Hee. I gather the real answer to Carlson's question regarding scientific background is "none."

Eh, whoever this Tragic Accomodationist Regarding Design (TARD) is, apparently he has the vapors and needs a calmative.

Insults are fine in his world, y'see, just not the ones that "Chunkdz" doesn't like.

For example, he can label Carlson a hypocrite above, without Carlson using "vulgarities" against him -- it's *classic* concern - trolling.

And the fact remains that while this site simply allows free speech, other sites use a veneer, like "Chunk dz" does,  of "religious civility" to cover the same use of insult and vulgarity. Does it matter? No, not really. It's just concern trolling.

Both sites use insults, both sites use what can be deemed "vulgarities" ...but only one pretends to loftier site-wide standards while maintaining a communion-wafer-thin layer of sewage where chunkdz swims like a tiny demented spermatocyte.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,13:37

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,13:41)
k.e.:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your use of the word random is an emotional plea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No it's not. Sure, isotopes comprising molecules may spontaneously decay on occasion, replication 'mistakes' can occur, aa elements may 'flip' for no apparent reason, and ionizing radiation (as well as free radical ionization) can break strands or zap pieces-parts much smaller. Deal is, I do not view these events as contributory to evolution proper, just to selection of individuals and perhaps sub-populations. Like an unpredictable earthquake that wipes out an entire village, fit and unfit alike. That's the Fickle Finger of Fate, which can go forward into population dynamics on the evolutionary front, but *is* not the 'engine of evolution'.

Accumulated and inherited "damage" contributes more to disease than to evolution, I suspect.

Two-headed calves and cosmic billiard games are selective events. There is no species of two-headed bovines, you know. And cosmic billiards is a game of skill, not chance. Just because neither dinosaurs nor humans may see it coming doesn't mean it occurred at random or was caused by "randomness."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


soooooo

there is no such thing as random?
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,13:38

And on the subject of 'random' SNPs in genes and associated genetic elements working with sub and super codes, there are still unsettled questions about what the "correct" sequences ought to be. Because real scientific research has focused on polymorphisms primarily as "disease genes" or "obesity genes" or whatever kind of "what ails you" genes, I think people trying to follow the science may often earn erroneous perceptions of what it all means in broader context.

Take as for instance the human prion gene(s). As of the year 2001 there were at least 42 variants identified. Reflective no doubt of past population exposures to TSEs, which served to select-out the susceptible to whatever the trigger is for that particular version of TSE. Leaving those less susceptible. For whatever reasons, either inherited or acquired - and exposure to pathogens has historically resulted in genetic rearrangements and/or insertions of borrowed material, epigenetic mechanisms can apparently pass some things on to offspring from somatic acquisitions.

Remember, all that counts for evolution's purposes are those variants that kill the young. Evolution cares not a whit about organisms that die in old age from bad meat they ate at any point along the way (death being as necessary as reproduction to the process). Thus the vCJD epidemic of the 1990s represented only a single genotype killing the healthy young (thus gaining widespread attention, research funding and public panic).

One of 42. Which are likely to represent genotypes more resistant, though not necessarily immune. One study from a medical research hospital (I forget which) that involved autopsies on people who died of Alzheimer's - who are not normally autopsied - discovered that up to 50% of them died of CJD instead. But since they were dealing with a late-life onset syndrome, no one seems to have cared. Heck, maybe it'll turn out that all amyloid diseases of the central nervous system involve prions or prion-like proteins that state-switch from some environmental trigger. Who knows?

Perhaps someday we'll have figured out what the function of 'normal' prion and prion-like proteins is, which should help a lot in prevention or treatment of amyloid diseases of late onset. No doubt governed per period of latency by whatever variant (or variant group) the person carries/belongs to.

I find things like this to be immensely interesting, do try to follow as best I can. In this example, things apparently went proprietary after Prusiner got the Nobel Prize. Not surprising, but I sure do wish things were less controlled by commercial interests. Just an opinion, of course. Not something I ever expect to see.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,13:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
drunkchz concern trollery is not needed here nor anywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I appreciate your concern erasmus.You are a good little minion. But I think Wesley is smart enough to defend himself without your help, thanks.
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,13:49

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there is no such thing as random?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is no such thing as random causation, 'ras. Unstable isotopes decay because they're unstable. We can't predict when any given atom will transmutate, but then again, we have no capability of observing any given atom to determine the precise state of its internals. So we treat massive amounts of like isotopes probablistically - half will decay in this amount of time, by these entirely predictable means. It's precise enough for gub'ment work.

Since radioactive decay is the 'gold standard' of random, that should suffice to illustrate that radioactive decay does indeed have cause(s). We just can't determine for any particular isotope when it will occur. Everything else has causes too, despite our woeful lack of ability to predict with precision. "Random" is not a cause, it's a statistical effect.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,13:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: Insults are fine in his world, y'see, just not the ones that "Chunkdz" doesn't like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not too bright, are you? I just finished saying that the insults don't bother me. What bugs me is hypocrites who only pretend to be outraged so that they can score culture war points. Wesley is a stupid hypocrite because he expresses outrage at me but allows his idiot shoe lickers like yourself to be as nasty as you like without fear of similar reprimand.

It's not difficult to understand.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, he can label Carlson a hypocrite above, without Carlson using "vulgarities" against him
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You missed the fact that it was Wesley whom I called a hypocrite. Carlson is just a jackass sycophant.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Both sites use insults, both sites use what can be deemed "vulgarities" ...but only one pretends to loftier site-wide standards while maintaining a communion-wafer-thin layer of sewage where chunkdz swims like a tiny demented spermatocyte.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't know me very well, do you moron? :)
Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,14:04

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,21:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
drunkchz concern trollery is not needed here nor anywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I appreciate your concern erasmus.You are a good little minion. But I think Wesley is smart enough to defend himself without your help, thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ooooooh you biatch. Someone steal your dog.

.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Otherwise he'd have the balls to call his own people on their nastiness.

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



Who's his own people kimusabi?

Dipshits like you who promote skull fucked crazy ideas could at least come up with rational, considered, logical support for witchcraft and satan right?

No? Fine by me.
Hey Chuck go fuck yourself. Wanker
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,14:11

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,13:57)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: Insults are fine in his world, y'see, just not the ones that "Chunkdz" doesn't like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not too bright, are you? I just finished saying that the insults don't bother me. What bugs me is hypocrites who only pretend to be outraged so that they can score culture war points. Wesley is a stupid hypocrite because he expresses outrage at me but allows his idiot shoe lickers like yourself to be as nasty as you like without fear of similar reprimand.

It's not difficult to understand.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, he can label Carlson a hypocrite above, without Carlson using "vulgarities" against him
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You missed the fact that it was Wesley whom I called a hypocrite. Carlson is just a jackass sycophant.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Both sites use insults, both sites use what can be deemed "vulgarities" ...but only one pretends to loftier site-wide standards while maintaining a communion-wafer-thin layer of sewage where chunkdz swims like a tiny demented spermatocyte.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't know me very well, do you moron? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said many things, chunkdz, and labelled things vulgarities, expressing distaste for them when they are little more than insults, just as you use.

You just don't like them when they don't match your style.

Wesley didn't express outrage, In my view, he merely noted what I did...that one site has a pretense of civility enshrined in their standards of conduct. You violate civility yet remain there, because you don't use "vulgarities" and the pretense given is precisely because you don't use "vulgarities" Yep, that's hypocritical.

And if it was Wesley that you were calling a hypocrite, then why did you address your statement to Carlson? The sentence containing it stands alone and unconnected to any previous sentence. If there is ambiguity to referent, it's up to you to make it clear.

Lastly, I don't have to know you, you're largely insignificant to me. I don't post on "Telic Thoughts" so I have no idea who you are other than your concern-trolling here.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 13 2009,14:16

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,13:57)
You don't know me very well, do you moron? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the contrary.

Who could forget the great chunkdz?


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

I encourage you to take a look at the Panda’s Thumb and follow the entire thread devoted to the optimality of the genetic code. It is simply priceless. Someone styling himself Chunkdz dominates the discussion and by virtue of a very considerable gift for profane abuse, succeeds in doing what I never thought possible, and that is reducing the entire PT crowd to sputtering, dim-witted incoherence. You must link to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....s-thumb >
Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,14:18

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,20:41)
k.e.:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your use of the word random is an emotional plea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No it's not. Sure, isotopes comprising molecules may spontaneously decay on occasion, replication 'mistakes' can occur, aa elements may 'flip' for no apparent reason, and ionizing radiation (as well as free radical ionization) can break strands or zap pieces-parts much smaller. Deal is, I do not view these events as contributory to evolution proper, just to selection of individuals and perhaps sub-populations. Like an unpredictable earthquake that wipes out an entire village, fit and unfit alike. That's the Fickle Finger of Fate, which can go forward into population dynamics on the evolutionary front, but *is* not the 'engine of evolution'.

Accumulated and inherited "damage" contributes more to disease than to evolution, I suspect.

Two-headed calves and cosmic billiard games are selective events. There is no species of two-headed bovines, you know. And cosmic billiards is a game of skill, not chance. Just because neither dinosaurs nor humans may see it coming doesn't mean it occurred at random or was caused by "randomness."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had a good friend die in Douala Cameroon Africa from a multidrug resistant Malaria in Febuary this year *was that the fickle finger of fate?* or was it to test the faith in god of his wife and children?

He was a tough fit Australian dude, another of my friends was medivaced out to Johanesburg with the same thing he survived. The local adult population are resistant to that very same strain of Malaria without drugs, they get the symtoms but recover, I know it spoilt my night. However a child dies every 20 something seconds on this Earth from that disease.

Is that to test your faith in god?
Evolution is not an abstract idea it is just a fact of life wether you like it or not.

Your contrarianess makes you look ignorant.
Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,14:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
soooooo

there is no such thing as random?


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



Define random
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,14:27

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 13 2009,14:16)
Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,13:57)
You don't know me very well, do you moron? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the contrary.

Who could forget the great chunkdz?
 

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

I encourage you to take a look at the Panda’s Thumb and follow the entire thread devoted to the optimality of the genetic code. It is simply priceless. Someone styling himself Chunkdz dominates the discussion and by virtue of a very considerable gift for profane abuse, succeeds in doing what I never thought possible, and that is reducing the entire PT crowd to sputtering, dim-witted incoherence. You must link to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....s-thumb >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's cute. "Profane abuse." One might term such things "vulgarities" and swoon -- or pretend to, while hurling exactly the same.

And one site might *pretend* to codes of civility while another simply accomodates free speech.

Participants at those sites are free to choose their own level of discourse -- but don't swoon at "vulgarities" when both sites use them. Right, chunkdz?
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,14:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: You said many things, chunkdz, and labelled things vulgarities, expressing distaste for them when they are little more than insults, just as you use.

You just don't like them when they don't match your style.

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


No, idiot. I don't dislike insults. I dislike hypocrites.

Still don't get it? Good Lord you really are a moron.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley didn't express outrage, In my view, he merely noted what I did...that one site has a pretense of civility enshrined in their standards of conduct. You violate civility yet remain there, because you don't use "vulgarities" and the pretense given is precisely because you don't use "vulgarities" Yep, that's hypocritical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong again, moron. TT has no standards of conduct. Each thread is policed by the originator, and even then there is no across the board policy. Yet TT remains in large part quite civil.

I'll say it again since you seem to be a bit on the double digit side of the IQ curve. Insults are fine. Hypocrites like Wesley R. Elsberry make my skin crawl. Why you idiotic monkeys try to defend him is beyond me.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,14:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
K.E.: Hey Chuck go fuck yourself. Wanker
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It must be difficult to have your master, Wesley, brought out into the daylight and exposed for the hypocrite that he is. I have to admire your loyalty, misplaced as it is.
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,14:41

<Sheesh!> You guys can dish it out plenty, should probably learn how to take it too. chunk's just being a Roman...</sheesh>

Another interesting development this week on that issue I previously mentioned about gene and 'junk' (associated elements, not necessarily junk) polymorphisms having much to do with disease, susceptibility to certain diseases, and resistance to certain diseases. My previous example was state-switching proteins as pathogens, and late-onset diseases as uninteresting for tracing particular past selective events or even the nature of what eventually kills old folks who don't die of something else first.

From ScienceDaily:
< Study Reveals Significant Genetic Variation Between Mexico's Population and World's Other Known Genetic Subgroups >

(Yeah, another interminable title from the wiz's of interminable titles). The question raised is pertinent to the unseemly death rate of the current chimeric version of H1N1 swine flu in Mexico compared to how deadly it hasn't been in the rest of the world despite rapid and unstoppable spread.

I of course ignore the implied pie-in-the-sky promise of "pharmacogenomics" and racial/personal medicines - never gonna happen in my lifetime. Hell, we don't even have flying cars yet! But it is interesting in the context of what I brought up earlier per the identified (publicly) variants of prion genes. Of course, for something like this they'd have to identify which other genes and elements in coordinated expression suiting lead to the cytokine 'storms' that so quickly killed younger, healthy Mexicans, and whether those healthy immune systems might not be particularly useful to their owners in the face of other types of health problems they DO NOT have that other genotypes get often (and often die of).

Rather fascinating. So while I still don't expect any miracles from this sort of research, I follow when I can. It sort of highlights how little we actually know, how much there is yet to discover. Putting to good use is a big shrug at this point in history. We should have a much better understanding of ourselves before we start really messing around with our genetics. But every little tidbit helps.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 13 2009,14:44

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,12:28)

You want me to remember specifics from a decade ago?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You originally said
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was the bizarre assertions and misinformation coming from the scientific cadre that first caught my attention. Made me wonder what the hell was going on
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I had my thinking changed so radically I think I'd remember what kicked it off.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Best I can recall, it was some pseud on the CNN message boards who showed up spewing the usual crap about how "science proves" there's no God because life evolved instead of getting zapped into existence 6,000 years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People say lots of things. Only some of those things can be supported.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your basic unwarranted extrapolation from a logical fallacy (straw man). Struck me as an extremely odd thing to say from someone pretending to *be* a scientist (thus ought to know better).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't think I'd be that bothered - you had seen through this person, you knew he was only pretending to be a scientist. So why base any actions on somebody you've already discredited?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Questioning the assertion earned a link from someone else to the ARN boards, which I audited for awhile before deciding what position I cared to weigh in on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm having difficulty following you? Somebody said how "science proves" there's no God because life evolved instead of getting zapped into existence 6,000 years ago and you had to question that? You had to look into the possibility that the earth was 6,000 years old?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Questioning the assertion earned a link from someone else to the ARN boards, which I audited for awhile before deciding what position I cared to weigh in on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is your position? You say      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've no problem with evolution. Never did have a problem with evolution, at least per most issues except universal common ancestor (I suspect there was more than one).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what's your position then if you've no problem with evolution? And as far as a UCA goes, what difference does it make one way or the other to you?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I view the Creationist position as sadly misguided and very dumb
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite. So, you've no problem with evolution, creationism is stupid.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, I also believe strongly in the fundamental human and constitutional right to believe in what amounts to theological error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what? Is anybody trying to suppress what people believe in their own minds? Who is that then? I believe in the fundamental human and constitutional right to wonder if I've really turned the gas off in the morning when I'm half way to work already.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus I don't care what silliness other people choose to believe about things that can't ever really be known, so long as they aren't teaching it in public schools to other people's conscripted children disguised as science.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it depends on what "things that can't ever really be known" are really?

Can you list these "things that can't ever really be known" please? I think this is the crux of the matter.

And can you give me an example, specifically, of something that is currently taught to children and you consider "disguised as science"? And in what way is it disguised?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I see silliness asserted by those pretending to speak for science, it does bug me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but we seem to be jumping between teaching it to children and reading some random kook on a message board.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Though I'm also pretty sure real scientists don't spend a lot of time on obscure internet message boards and blogs correcting misconceptions and erroneous assertions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< AF DAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS >

< Daniel Smith's "Argument from Impossibility" >

Also there was a credential showdown on another thread recently. Lots of "real scientists". Wonder how many of the posters at TE are "real scientists"? Do you know? Why don't you ask?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also amazed that such things are not called out by real scientists more often.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is. You just have not been looking very hard I suspect.
     

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

In this particular 'controversy' (if there really is one) Dueling Metaphysics is the name of the game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends. What's on your list of "things that can't ever really be known" please?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Off in the distance science marches on, pretty soon the competing arguments will be moot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends. What's on your list of "things that can't ever really be known" please?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At which point the duelers will inevitably fall back on pure metaphysical assertions that convince no one, and the partisan politics that goes with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you translate that for me? What does that mean? What will it look like when that happens? How will we know that it has happened?

?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, it looks to me like it's basically already there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On what basis? Where is "there"? What happens now then? If we're not quite there when will we be, do you say?
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,14:45

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,14:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: You said many things, chunkdz, and labelled things vulgarities, expressing distaste for them when they are little more than insults, just as you use.

You just don't like them when they don't match your style.

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


No, idiot. I don't dislike insults. I dislike hypocrites.

Still don't get it? Good Lord you really are a moron.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley didn't express outrage, In my view, he merely noted what I did...that one site has a pretense of civility enshrined in their standards of conduct. You violate civility yet remain there, because you don't use "vulgarities" and the pretense given is precisely because you don't use "vulgarities" Yep, that's hypocritical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong again, moron. TT has no standards of conduct. Each thread is policed by the originator, and even then there is no across the board policy. Yet TT remains in large part quite civil.

I'll say it again since you seem to be a bit on the double digit side of the IQ curve. Insults are fine. Hypocrites like Wesley R. Elsberry make my skin crawl. Why you idiotic monkeys try to defend him is beyond me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah...well, I stand corrected, Telic Thoughts has no established codes. So it's merely you that pretends towards civility while saying that vulgarity makes you giddy.

vul·gar·i·ty  
1.The quality or condition of being vulgar.
2.Something, such as an act or expression, that offends good taste or propriety.

Hmm...would that include "profane abuse?"
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,14:51

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 22 2009,23:22)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 14 2009,21:47)
well i forget.  

< this  was where it started >

< this > is the sort of isht i was talking about

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nick briefly remembered the weekend in San Simeon with Wesley. The feelings were similar but Wes seemed like a child now. Like some old children's TV show that Nick could barely recall. But here was a real man. Even when The Dawk didn't speak his very presence was burning a memory into Nicks mind fast and hot. Nick tried to hide his discomfort by taking long gulps of coffee. Where was the damn waitress?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< more homoerotic pseudo fiction >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nick's phone vibrated. It was a text from Abbie.

"a bunch of us getting s#!tfaced after the lecture. wanna go?"

Nick had planned on going to The Dawk's booksigning. But that was before he met the man. Now he had lost the desire. How could he line up at the trough like all those stupid sycophants now that he had shared this moment with the man?

"They just want a signature. A piece of his fame, a trophy for enduring 3 hours in line for a superficial encounter." Nick said to himself.

"I've experienced the man. Connected with him."

Everything about The Dawk was exciting. His hair, his spritely European charm, his manner of dress, the way he asked the waitress for marmalade. Every electron in Nick's body was energized into a higher valence. But oh, that mind! That amazing glorious mind that seemed to understand Nick from the first email he ever returned. God, how he loved that mind.

Vic was babbling about frogs or something. Nick texted back an expedient "ok" to Abbie. He had to go to the bathroom right now.

Just as he was about to ask Vic to save his seat The Dawk turned to him.
"Do you know where the WC is?" Richard said to Nick.

Nick's head was glistening. His face was growing red again. What the hell was the WC?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i don't know if i wanna know what all that b.s. is about.  whatchoo think wesley?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the link and samples. I think that puts paid to any pretense TT might have had about any relative advantage in "tone".

I hear Penthouse used to pay $0.25/word for stuff published in the "Letters" section. I wonder if C. had a prior career.

I find it satisfying enough to dwell upon the actual faults of religious antievolutionists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Wesley actually said, above -- note that he's not making any claims to this site being free of "vulgarities" -- just noting that both sides use insult, invective, and "vulgarities." like chunkdz's little homoerotic tale
------------------------------------------
Chunkdz's swoon:
Quote (chunkdz @ May 12 2009,12:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley: I see C. is still managing to emit content-free prose. So I guess C. has got nothing when it comes to the rest of what I said:

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


Not true. As for Telic Thoughts "advantage of tone": Telic Thoughts is indisputably friendlier than either of your sites (ATBC and Panda's Thumb). I don't recall any TT'er ever using the vulgar language that prevails at the websites that you spawned and/or maintain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahem...vulgar is in the eye of the beholder, snookums. I don't find you vulgar, just sort of ...well, let's say dishonest.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,14:51


Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,14:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wrong again, moron. TT has no standards of conduct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Conduct?

A blog Czar in an echo chamber with his finger on a ban button isn't conduct it's a nazi regime.

   

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

Each thread is policed by the originator, and even then there is no across the board policy. Yet TT remains in large part quite civil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A circle jerk is civil.

   

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

I'll say it again since you seem to be a bit on the double digit side of the IQ curve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


speak for yourself

 

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

Insults are fine.

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



Accusing someone of being a hypocrite is not an insult it is a statement of fact and if it's true which it is obviously with you then you are ....well there's no other word you're a hypocrite.

Lets quote the Bible .....you should love that right?


And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
And he [God] said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
-- Genesis 4: 9-10 (KJV)


Rage on.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 13 2009,14:52

Joy,

At what point in time does the "designer" enact his changes, what's your best guess? Where, when, at what level? Atoms? DNA? In the past? Before time? At a quantum level? Pseudo-random events?

You seem to be gushing forth about how great "science" really is but I think I may have missed the point you are making. What is it?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another interesting development this week on that issue I previously mentioned about gene and 'junk'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then going into some detail
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question raised is pertinent to the unseemly death rate of the current chimeric version of H1N1 swine flu in Mexico compared to how deadly it hasn't been in the rest of the world despite rapid and unstoppable spread.

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


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
identify which other genes and elements in coordinated expression suiting lead to the cytokine 'storms' that so quickly killed younger, healthy Mexicans,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But what's your point? Are you here to regurgitate science news for me? Or do you have a position on ID or TE or something you want to take? Just askin!  :p
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,14:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah...well, I stand corrected, Telic Thoughts has no established codes. So it's merely you that pretends towards civility while saying that vulgarity makes you giddy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, you are an idiot. Let me say it in language that you may understand.

Chunky like insult. Chunky no like hypocrite. Insult good. Hypocrite bad.

Still don't get it. moron?
You are either off your meds or you need to stop snorting the liquid nitrogen.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,14:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll say it again since you seem to be a bit on the double digit side of the IQ curve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why are fundies and alike so fixated with IQ?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 13 2009,14:57

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,14:55)
Hypocrite bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you give me two quotes that demonstrate this hypocrisy?

Document your position chunkdz!
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,14:57

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,14:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah...well, I stand corrected, Telic Thoughts has no established codes. So it's merely you that pretends towards civility while saying that vulgarity makes you giddy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, you are an idiot. Let me say it in language that you may understand.

Chunky like insult. Chunky no like hypocrite. Insult good. Hypocrite bad.

Still don't get it. moron?
You are either off your meds or you need to stop snorting the liquid nitrogen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (chunkdz @ May 12 2009,12:38)
 I don't recall any TT'er ever using the vulgar language that prevails at the websites that you spawned and/or maintain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahem
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 13 2009,14:58

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,12:29)
Hi Carlsonjok,
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I, for one, thank Wesley for his commitment to the First Amendment.  So, Chunky, why do you hate America?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm for free speech as much as the next anonymous internet jerk. What I despise is the hypocrisy of a "defender of science" who criticises the "nastiness" of his perceived enemy while ignoring the "nastiness" of his drooling minions. Wesley's outrage is just an act. Otherwise he'd have the balls to call his own people on their nastiness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That Wes chooses to set an example rather than demand conformity is to his credit.  That you can't see that and would rather criticize him for not censoring tells me everything I need to know about you and your commitment to free speech.  
 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, Wes? When was the last time you performed some sort of scientific experimentation or analysis?

Chunkdz, same question to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even if Wesley Elsberry were a three time Nobel Laureate, he would still be running two websites featuring the grossest and most vulgar bigotry and prejudice under the pretense of "science education". Again, Wesley, I couldn't care less if that's what you want to do but don't presume to lecture me about "tone" and "nasty" behavior while your own website greets it's critics as "tards".

What a pathetically lame hypocrite you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll take that answer to mean that "never."
Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,14:59

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,22:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll say it again since you seem to be a bit on the double digit side of the IQ curve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why are fundies and alike so fixated with IQ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's against their religion.
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,15:00

k.e.:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had a good friend die in Douala Cameroon Africa from a multidrug resistant Malaria in Febuary this year *was that the fickle finger of fate?* or was it to test the faith in god of his wife and children?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow, sorry to hear that. It's been a rough winter, I've lost some very old friends to what I figured should be curable by now. Helps to remind me not to be very hopeful for my own future, I guess.

Multidrug resistant malaria has a cause too, unfortunately. Several of 'em, in fact. I don't pretend to know if it was just to test his survivors' faith (though it most likely has tested it). At least he reproduced, so if multidrug resistant malaria susceptibility isn't heritable by his kids, they may still play a role in the evolution game. Whatever that is.

Sometimes it's a person's general fitness to fight disease that prevails, sometimes there's just no prevailing - the disease wins. Everybody dies of something eventually. That too is part of the evolutionary game.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However a child dies every 20 something seconds on this Earth from that disease.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Amazingly enough, it hasn't managed to slow the exponential rate of population increase that is so stressing the whole of our planet's fine-tuned ecological systems. And humans are among the least "reproductively fit" critters in existence - takes us nearly a year to produce a single offspring, mortality rate in infancy is high (higher here in the U.S. than in about 50 other nations), as is maternal mortality for biological design reasons. Go figure.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution is not an abstract idea it is just a fact of life wether you like it or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, life is life. Evolution is a deep-time phenomenon, an effect of a process. Every single individual life form (that qualifies) lives and dies in its time, quick or long relatively speaking. Not all of them contribute to evolution, but it doesn't matter at all to their experience of life and death on planet earth. All beings are the "crown of creation" in that, imo.

Not being contrary, being honest. Lots of things can test one's faith in gods/God. What does that have to do with science or evolution?
Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,15:03

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,22:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah...well, I stand corrected, Telic Thoughts has no established codes. So it's merely you that pretends towards civility while saying that vulgarity makes you giddy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, you are an idiot. Let me say it in language that you may understand.

Chunky like insult. Chunky no like hypocrite. Insult good. Hypocrite bad.

Still don't get it. moron?
You are either off your meds or you need to stop snorting the liquid nitrogen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Double digiters don't grok the meaning of the word hypocrite do they Chuck?
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,15:08

Order of events:
(1) Chunkdz posts a little homoerotic fantasy at TT concerning his "enemies"

(2) Wes asks"..link?" Comments that the "story" removes any pretense that TT may have towards "tone."

(3) Chunkdz says "Wesley's a hypocrite for decrying the tone of TT while he maintains a cesspool...TT is without vulgarities"

(4) Evidence given which shows Dembski admires Chunkdz's "profane abuse" while chunkdz wrote, on Telic Thoughts, the original homoerotic tale that is vulgar by my standards -- beyond being merely craven.

Chunkdz retreats into insults while insisting he's right. Yet Wesley never personally authored a homoerotic attack, nor does he pretend that his sites are "vulgarity-free."

So... the question is about hypocrisy. Which to choose, which to choose.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 13 2009,15:09



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

That too is part of the evolutionary game.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where is the telic part of evolution for you then?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
stressing the whole of our planet's fine-tuned ecological systems
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fine tuned by what? Evolution acting alone or with some telic help?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And humans are among the least "reproductively fit" critters in existence
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet there are billions of us and billions more on the way. In what way do you mean?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
maternal mortality for biological design reasons
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Designed by what? Evolution or some entity?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every single individual life form (that qualifies)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What life form could possibly not qualify for evolution?

Just one example.      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every single individual life form (that qualifies) lives and dies in its time, quick or long relatively speaking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes yes yes, very poetic. But your monkey is jumping around throwing shit at the walls and people are starting to throw shit back and so, before it gets too bad in here, I'd like to just find out your position.
Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,15:12

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,23:00)
k.e.:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had a good friend die in Douala Cameroon Africa from a multidrug resistant Malaria in Febuary this year *was that the fickle finger of fate?* or was it to test the faith in god of his wife and children?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow, sorry to hear that. It's been a rough winter, I've lost some very old friends to what I figured should be curable by now. Helps to remind me not to be very hopeful for my own future, I guess.

Multidrug resistant malaria has a cause too, unfortunately. Several of 'em, in fact. I don't pretend to know if it was just to test his survivors' faith (though it most likely has tested it). At least he reproduced, so if multidrug resistant malaria susceptibility isn't heritable by his kids, they may still play a role in the evolution game. Whatever that is.

Sometimes it's a person's general fitness to fight disease that prevails, sometimes there's just no prevailing - the disease wins. Everybody dies of something eventually. That too is part of the evolutionary game.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However a child dies every 20 something seconds on this Earth from that disease.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Amazingly enough, it hasn't managed to slow the exponential rate of population increase that is so stressing the whole of our planet's fine-tuned ecological systems. And humans are among the least "reproductively fit" critters in existence - takes us nearly a year to produce a single offspring, mortality rate in infancy is high (higher here in the U.S. than in about 50 other nations), as is maternal mortality for biological design reasons. Go figure.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution is not an abstract idea it is just a fact of life wether you like it or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, life is life. Evolution is a deep-time phenomenon, an effect of a process. Every single individual life form (that qualifies) lives and dies in its time, quick or long relatively speaking. Not all of them contribute to evolution, but it doesn't matter at all to their experience of life and death on planet earth. All beings are the "crown of creation" in that, imo.

Not being contrary, being honest. Lots of things can test one's faith in gods/God. What does that have to do with science or evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you confuse the words random and accident.

The theory of evolution through natural selection does not mean "the crown of creation" was an accident, a fluke maybe but not like a car crash.

Plasmodium falciparum is evolving right under our noses so it is incorrect to say evolution is some deep time woo.

And you seem to have some limited ideas on how evolution through natural selection works.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,15:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: That Wes chooses to set an example rather than demand conformity is to his credit.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, and mobsters don't do the drugs,they just sell 'em.

Thank you Wesley for setting such a great example for your little brood of chimpanzees. You must be so proud.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,15:17

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,15:08)
Order of events:
(1) Chunkdz posts a little homoerotic fantasy at TT concerning his "enemies"

(2) Wes asks"..link?" Comments that the "story" removes any pretense that TT may have towards "tone."

(3) Chunkdz says "Wesley's a hypocrite for decrying the tone of TT while he maintains a cesspool...TT is without vulgarities"

(4) Evidence given which shows Dembski admires Chunkdz's "profane abuse" while chunkdz wrote, on Telic Thoughts, the original homoerotic tale that is vulgar by my standards -- beyond being merely craven.

Chunkdz retreats into insults while insisting he's right. Yet Wesley never personally authored a homoerotic attack, nor does he pretend that his sites are "vulgarity-free."

Which to choose, which to choose
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FAR TOO FACTY.







HOMO  :angry:
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,15:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, and mobsters don't do the drugs,they just sell 'em.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, they do the drugs, albeit better ones.

Marx said religion is the 'opium of the masses'.*

This does opiates a terrible disservice, IMHO.

*Full quote, which is quite kind to religion:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,15:23

In lieu of anything amusing at UD, this is at least crumbs of tard, I suppose.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,15:26

Can we keep chunkdz?
I promise to clean his cage!
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,15:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: Order of events:
(1) Chunkdz posts a little homoerotic fantasy at TT concerning his "enemies"

(2) Wes asks"..link?" Comments that the "story" removes any pretense that TT may have towards "tone."

(3) Chunkdz says "Wesley's a hypocrite for decrying the tone of TT while he maintains a cesspool...TT is without vulgarities"

(4) Evidence given which shows Dembski admires Chunkdz's "profane abuse" while chunkdz wrote, on Telic Thoughts, the original homoerotic tale that is vulgar by my standards -- beyond being merely craven.

Chunkdz retreats into insults while insisting he's right. Yet Wesley never personally authored a homoerotic attack, nor does he pretend that his sites are "vulgarity-free."

So... the question is about hypocrisy. Which to choose, which to choose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ooops! Like a good little brain numbed drooling minion you conveniently left out the part where Wesley said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, Wesley, when's the last time you took the time to point out the faults of your herd of attack chimps?

Stupid hypocrite.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,15:29

This is what I asked about, chunkdz.


Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:26)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: Order of events:
(1) Chunkdz posts a little homoerotic fantasy at TT concerning his "enemies"

(2) Wes asks"..link?" Comments that the "story" removes any pretense that TT may have towards "tone."

(3) Chunkdz says "Wesley's a hypocrite for decrying the tone of TT while he maintains a cesspool...TT is without vulgarities"

(4) Evidence given which shows Dembski admires Chunkdz's "profane abuse" while chunkdz wrote, on Telic Thoughts, the original homoerotic tale that is vulgar by my standards -- beyond being merely craven.

Chunkdz retreats into insults while insisting he's right. Yet Wesley never personally authored a homoerotic attack, nor does he pretend that his sites are "vulgarity-free."

So... the question is about hypocrisy. Which to choose, which to choose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ooops! Like a good little brain numbed drooling minion you conveniently left out the part where Wesley said:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, Wesley, when's the last time you took the time to point out the faults of your herd of attack chimps?

Stupid hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, your homoerotic tale qualifies as "nasty and vulgar," and the question is about who is the hypocrite. Who actually authored that tale, chunkdz? And who said  which site is without vulgarities?
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,15:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Richardthughes: Why are fundies and alike so fixated with IQ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, Richard. Why does a keyword search of your posts turn up 122 mentions of "gay"?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,15:32

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Richardthughes: Why are fundies and alike so fixated with IQ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, Richard. Why does a keyword search of your posts turn up 122 mentions of "gay"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because I have no problem with the concept. Add "Homo" if you want a bumper batch of results.
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 13 2009,15:32

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: That Wes chooses to set an example rather than demand conformity is to his credit.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, and mobsters don't do the drugs,they just sell 'em.

Thank you Wesley for setting such a great example for your little brood of chimpanzees. You must be so proud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you would respect Wes more if he ruthlessly censored comments that he doesn't approve of?

Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,15:33

Richard is a happy fellow. So, Chunkdz?

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:26)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: Order of events:
(1) Chunkdz posts a little homoerotic fantasy at TT concerning his "enemies"

(2) Wes asks"..link?" Comments that the "story" removes any pretense that TT may have towards "tone."

(3) Chunkdz says "Wesley's a hypocrite for decrying the tone of TT while he maintains a cesspool...TT is without vulgarities"

(4) Evidence given which shows Dembski admires Chunkdz's "profane abuse" while chunkdz wrote, on Telic Thoughts, the original homoerotic tale that is vulgar by my standards -- beyond being merely craven.

Chunkdz retreats into insults while insisting he's right. Yet Wesley never personally authored a homoerotic attack, nor does he pretend that his sites are "vulgarity-free."

So... the question is about hypocrisy. Which to choose, which to choose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ooops! Like a good little brain numbed drooling minion you conveniently left out the part where Wesley said:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, Wesley, when's the last time you took the time to point out the faults of your herd of attack chimps?

Stupid hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, your homoerotic tale qualifies as "nasty and vulgar," and the question is about who is the hypocrite. Who actually authored that tale, chunkdz? And who said  which site is without vulgarities?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,15:33

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,15:33)
Richard is a happy fellow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*Blushes*


Oooh, I could kiss you!
Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,15:34

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,23:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Richardthughes: Why are fundies and alike so fixated with IQ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, Richard. Why does a keyword search of your posts turn up 122 mentions of "gay"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Carefull Richard

He'll be PMing you with an offer of ice and a massage.
Posted by: Louis on May 13 2009,15:34

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,21:23)
In lieu of anything amusing at UD, this is at least crumbs of tard, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?

One confused, pseudo-profound espousal of various partially remembered offences, containing a set of common straw men and ignorance, added to one clueless, quote mining concern troll persisting in its own misunderstandings?

Pretty poor crumbs if you ask me.

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,15:35

Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,15:34)
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,21:23)
In lieu of anything amusing at UD, this is at least crumbs of tard, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?

One confused, pseudo-profound espousal of various partially remembered offences, containing a set of common straw men and ignorance, added to one clueless, quote mining concern troll persisting in its own misunderstandings?

Pretty poor crumbs if you ask me.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have loftier standards,  while I am but a vulgar minion.

Homo.
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 13 2009,15:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,15:26)
Can we keep chunkdz?
I promise to clean his cage!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, sure, he is all cute and endearingly clumsy now. But just give him a little time and he'll turn into your typical sullen, know-it-all teenager eating all our food, raiding the liquor cabinet, and sneaking off to the downstairs bathroom with your skin mags.  Will you clean up after him then?
Posted by: ppb on May 13 2009,15:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,16:32)
Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Richardthughes: Why are fundies and alike so fixated with IQ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, Richard. Why does a keyword search of your posts turn up 122 mentions of "gay"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because I have no problem with the concept. Add "Homo" if you want a bumper batch of results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wouldn't that make it an "Add Homo" argument?
Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,15:37

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 13 2009,23:36)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,15:26)
Can we keep chunkdz?
I promise to clean his cage!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, sure, he is all cute and endearingly clumsy now. But just give him a little time and he'll turn into your typical sullen, know-it-all teenager eating all our food, raiding the liquor cabinet, and sneaking off to the downstairs bathroom with your skin mags.  Will you clean up after him then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah and he's already 42.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,15:37

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 13 2009,15:36)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,15:26)
Can we keep chunkdz?
I promise to clean his cage!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, sure, he is all cute and endearingly clumsy now. But just give him a little time and he'll turn into your typical sullen, know-it-all teenager eating all our food, raiding the liquor cabinet, and sneaking off to the downstairs bathroom with your skin mags.  Will you clean up after him then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we neuter him he'll be a tardling for ever!
Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,15:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,23:37)
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 13 2009,15:36)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,15:26)
Can we keep chunkdz?
I promise to clean his cage!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, sure, he is all cute and endearingly clumsy now. But just give him a little time and he'll turn into your typical sullen, know-it-all teenager eating all our food, raiding the liquor cabinet, and sneaking off to the downstairs bathroom with your skin mags.  Will you clean up after him then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we neuter him he'll be a tardling for ever!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he still won't wash the car.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,15:39

Quote (ppb @ May 13 2009,15:36)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,16:32)
Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:30)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Richardthughes: Why are fundies and alike so fixated with IQ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, Richard. Why does a keyword search of your posts turn up 122 mentions of "gay"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because I have no problem with the concept. Add "Homo" if you want a bumper batch of results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wouldn't that make it an "Add Homo" argument?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Phallusy.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,15:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: Yep, your homoerotic tale qualifies as "nasty and vulgar," and the question is about who is the hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is nothing even mildly erotic about my story. It is the story of a starstruck young grad student and his brush with superstardom.

And even if it were "nasty and vulgar" Wesley R. Elsberry would STILL be a stupid hypocritical moron for only pointing out the faults of those whom he perceives as his enemy.

When's the last time Wesley took the time to tell one of you morons that you were nasty? When did Wesley ever try to correct this supposed "fault"?

Never, and he never will because it wouldn't help his culture war to do so. So he remains a dumbass hypocrite.

Live with it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,15:41

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,16:08)
Order of events:
(1) Chunkdz posts a little homoerotic fantasy at TT concerning his "enemies"

(2) Wes asks"..link?" Comments that the "story" removes any pretense that TT may have towards "tone."

(3) Chunkdz says "Wesley's a hypocrite for decrying the tone of TT while he maintains a cesspool...TT is without vulgarities"

(4) Evidence given which shows Dembski admires Chunkdz's "profane abuse" while chunkdz wrote, on Telic Thoughts, the original homoerotic tale that is vulgar by my standards -- beyond being merely craven.

Chunkdz retreats into insults while insisting he's right. Yet Wesley never personally authored a homoerotic attack, nor does he pretend that his sites are "vulgarity-free."

So... the question is about hypocrisy. Which to choose, which to choose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hear hear

har har har

chunk did you get a tickly feeling while you were imagining how nick matzke was imagining man handling the dick to the Dawk?  sweaty palms couldn't finish his dinner got tore up about the water closet DAMN lord have mercy help me now!!!

that was one of the gayest things i have ever seen.  and that is REALLY gay because I have been to myrtle beach AND key west buddy i bet you have too in the same week on the back of a crotch rocket wearing a pink thong.  

drunkchz doesn't have a point

he is just wanking around trying to change the subject from his repressed autophobic sexual fantasies and culture war role play.
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 13 2009,15:45

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:40)
When's the last time Wesley took the time to tell one of you morons that you were nasty? When did Wesley ever try to correct this supposed "fault"?

Never, and he never will because it wouldn't help his culture war to do so. So he remains a dumbass hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Show of hands everybody!


Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2009,15:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
he is just wanking around trying to change the subject from his repressed autophobic sexual fantasies and culture war role play.

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



Well it's about time he changed hands he's getting monotonous
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,15:46

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 13 2009,15:45)
Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:40)
When's the last time Wesley took the time to tell one of you morons that you were nasty? When did Wesley ever try to correct this supposed "fault"?

Never, and he never will because it wouldn't help his culture war to do so. So he remains a dumbass hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Show of hands everybody!


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


Seconded.
Posted by: Louis on May 13 2009,15:48

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,21:35)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,15:34)
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,21:23)
In lieu of anything amusing at UD, this is at least crumbs of tard, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?

One confused, pseudo-profound espousal of various partially remembered offences, containing a set of common straw men and ignorance, added to one clueless, quote mining concern troll persisting in its own misunderstandings?

Pretty poor crumbs if you ask me.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have loftier standards,  while I am but a vulgar minion.

Homo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks! I am far more vulgar. You bum washing, fuck bagging, cum skip.

(I do have lofty standards, but as I am a sensitive and frequently disappointed precious, I shall console myself with naughty words and random acts of wanton hedonism. And kicking babies. Never forget the kicking of babies)

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,15:48

Quote (k.e.. @ May 13 2009,15:22)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
soooooo

there is no such thing as random?


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



Define random
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes of course... wait someone is on the phone

its yer cousin and hezch drunk.  and hes not on the phone he is in the living room (i think he may have shit hisself don't let him sit on the couch)

i tried to find out what random meant and all i heard was SNPs and prions and isotopes and what not

ok let's try again assuming that we don't need to understand the fundamental behavior of whatever fundamental particles exist and do whatever they do in order to use a word like random without qualifying the epistemic content of a claim far beyond the pathetic detail necessary for human communication, is there such a thing as random anything?

this is the boiling kernel

do you deny natural law
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,15:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: So, you would respect Wes more if he ruthlessly censored comments that he doesn't approve of?

Why am I not surprised?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wipe the drool from your chin, moron, and try to listen.

I was not "ruthlessly censored". I was chastised for being "nasty".

I might find some respect for Wesley if he ever had the balls to consistently chastise nastiness whether at TT or one of his own websites.

Unfortunately, Wesley can only seem to get worked up when ID'ers get rude. His attack chimps like yourself get a pass.

Selective indignation is one term for it. I prefer to call him a dumbass hypocrite.

You may now return to chewing your toenails and drinking your own urine.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,15:51

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: Yep, your homoerotic tale qualifies as "nasty and vulgar," and the question is about who is the hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is nothing even mildly erotic about my story. It is the story of a starstruck young grad student and his brush with superstardom.

And even if it were "nasty and vulgar" Wesley R. Elsberry would STILL be a stupid hypocritical moron for only pointing out the faults of those whom he perceives as his enemy.

When's the last time Wesley took the time to tell one of you morons that you were nasty? When did Wesley ever try to correct this supposed "fault"?

Never, and he never will because it wouldn't help his culture war to do so. So he remains a dumbass hypocrite.

Live with it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You didn't answer what I asked, chunkdz.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,15:52

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: So, you would respect Wes more if he ruthlessly censored comments that he doesn't approve of?

Why am I not surprised?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wipe the drool from your chin, moron, and try to listen.

I was not "ruthlessly censored". I was chastised for being "nasty".

I might find some respect for Wesley if he ever had the balls to consistently chastise nastiness whether at TT or one of his own websites.

Unfortunately, Wesley can only seem to get worked up when ID'ers get rude. His attack chimps like yourself get a pass.

Selective indignation is one term for it. I prefer to call him a dumbass hypocrite.

You may now return to chewing your toenails and drinking your own urine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're being rude - your posts get through okay. Is he really that 'worked up'?
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,15:53

Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,15:48)
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,21:35)
 
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,15:34)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,21:23)
In lieu of anything amusing at UD, this is at least crumbs of tard, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?

One confused, pseudo-profound espousal of various partially remembered offences, containing a set of common straw men and ignorance, added to one clueless, quote mining concern troll persisting in its own misunderstandings?

Pretty poor crumbs if you ask me.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have loftier standards,  while I am but a vulgar minion.

Homo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bollocks! I am far more vulgar. You bum washing, fuck bagging, cum skip.

(I do have lofty standards, but as I am a sensitive and frequently disappointed precious, I shall console myself with naughty words and random acts of wanton hedonism. And kicking babies. Never forget the kicking of babies)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are an English toff, incapable of the kinds of vulgarities that we unwashed former colonials can obtain with the snap of a limp wrist, you green toothed, beans- for- brekkie monarchistic masochist.

ETA:



HAR,HAR, THIS IS U
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 13 2009,15:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,15:52)
 
Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:50)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: So, you would respect Wes more if he ruthlessly censored comments that he doesn't approve of?

Why am I not surprised?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wipe the drool from your chin, moron, and try to listen.

I was not "ruthlessly censored". I was chastised for being "nasty".

I might find some respect for Wesley if he ever had the balls to consistently chastise nastiness whether at TT or one of his own websites.

Unfortunately, Wesley can only seem to get worked up when ID'ers get rude. His attack chimps like yourself get a pass.

Selective indignation is one term for it. I prefer to call him a dumbass hypocrite.

You may now return to chewing your toenails and drinking your own urine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're being rude - your posts get through okay. Is he really that 'worked up'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey!  Don't be harshing on his rant with all your


Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,16:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're being rude - your posts get through okay. Is he really that 'worked up'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When's the last time Wesley said "Richardthughes problem is that he has nothing to say, and says it in the nastiest way possible"?

When's the last time he chastised any of you crap throwing bonobos?

Probably never because Wesley the Culture Warrior is only interested in winning battles in the culture war. He will only chastise you if it is deemed important to the cause of defeating the dreaded "religious anti-evolutionists!"

What a pathetic bunch of smelly little howlers you all are. Wesley, you must be so proud!
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,16:06

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,15:33)
Richard is a happy fellow. So, Chunkdz?

   
Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:26)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: Order of events:
(1) Chunkdz posts a little homoerotic fantasy at TT concerning his "enemies"

(2) Wes asks"..link?" Comments that the "story" removes any pretense that TT may have towards "tone."

(3) Chunkdz says "Wesley's a hypocrite for decrying the tone of TT while he maintains a cesspool...TT is without vulgarities"

(4) Evidence given which shows Dembski admires Chunkdz's "profane abuse" while chunkdz wrote, on Telic Thoughts, the original homoerotic tale that is vulgar by my standards -- beyond being merely craven.

Chunkdz retreats into insults while insisting he's right. Yet Wesley never personally authored a homoerotic attack, nor does he pretend that his sites are "vulgarity-free."

So... the question is about hypocrisy. Which to choose, which to choose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ooops! Like a good little brain numbed drooling minion you conveniently left out the part where Wesley said:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, Wesley, when's the last time you took the time to point out the faults of your herd of attack chimps?

Stupid hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, your homoerotic tale qualifies as "nasty and vulgar," and the question is about who is the hypocrite. Who actually authored that tale, chunkdz? And who said  which site is without vulgarities?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is what I asked, chunkdz. Who is the hypocrite here? Keep in mind that Wes has never claimed his site was without vulgarities, YOU did, though, and yet you authored that little homoerotic tale.

Wes merely commented that your story removes any pretense you may have had towards "tone" at TT. That's it. Now see if you can approach honesty, as I did when acknowledging that I was wrong in assuming TT had codified rules.

Can you manage that , or is actual honesty beyond you?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,16:09

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,16:30)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Richardthughes: Why are fundies and alike so fixated with IQ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, Richard. Why does a keyword search of your posts turn up 122 mentions of "gay"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< chunkhole >

if he had actually had anything to say he would say it.  just concern troll wankery.  you can't say "its not a coherent argument" because um its not even an argument.  just a bunch of spewing repressed nothingness
Posted by: Louis on May 13 2009,16:11

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,21:53)
[SNIP]

You are an English toff, incapable of the kinds of vulgarities that we unwashed former colonials can obtain with the snap of a limp wrist, you green toothed, beans- for- brekkie monarchistic masochist.

ETA:



HAR,HAR, THIS IS U
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I R NOT GINGER!

Louis

P.S. I r also not an monarchismist. I r a Re-Publican (I like to visit pubs more than once). Teh Roil fambleh r only good for 3 things: 1) comedy, 2) using as diplomats for offending people in an amusingly anachronistic manner as possible, 3) Duchy original sausages. That fucking homeopath loving Prine is a total tosser but he knows which bits of a pig to stuff in an intestine tube. But the important point is

I R NOT GINGER!
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,16:17

Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:11)
I R NOT GINGER!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to be honest, you're one of the few people that I would plan on meeting, kidnapping, and plying with vast amounts of drink and/or drugs when I visit that green and pleasant land once again. So you can take that as an "I like u, cause ur speshul."

Even if you look funny. Homo.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,16:19

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,16:17)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:11)
I R NOT GINGER!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to be honest, you're one of the few people that I would plan on meeting, kidnapping, and plying with vast amounts of drink and/or drugs when I visit that green and pleasant land once again. So you can take that as an "I like u, cause ur speshul."

Even if you look funny. Homo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm over in 3 weeks! I'll be at the Liverpool / spuds game and in London for a day or 2.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,16:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: This is what I asked, chunkdz. Who is the hypocrite here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hello again, moron. I never claimed to not be nasty, so it is not me.

Wesley Elsberry, however, becomes outraged by an innocent story about a grad student yet remains silent as his horde of monkeys call people tards and make dick jokes.

So in answer to your question, Wesley R. Elsberry is a dumbass, self serving, two faced hypocrite. And you are his toe cheese scraping, poo flinging, lice eating accolyte.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,16:22

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,16:19)
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,16:17)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:11)
I R NOT GINGER!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to be honest, you're one of the few people that I would plan on meeting, kidnapping, and plying with vast amounts of drink and/or drugs when I visit that green and pleasant land once again. So you can take that as an "I like u, cause ur speshul."

Even if you look funny. Homo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm over in 3 weeks! I'll be at the Liverpool / spuds game and in London for a day or 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gah! Lucky bastid. I'll have to wait a while, I'm still unsure on my schedule (which I don't pronounce as "shed- jool" like those lisping furriners). Dammit, now I'm envious. Of richard. Oi, fuck.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 13 2009,16:24

As for why C. got some attention... C. doesn't seem to understand that < going after someone in particular > might lead to a particular response.

I may choose to provide commentary on anyone who writes homoerotic fantasies that include me as a character. So far as I know, C. is the only member of that set.



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

C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way. I don't have to fictionalize anything to be able to point that out.

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



Still just as true as the moment I wrote it.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,16:24

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,16:21)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: This is what I asked, chunkdz. Who is the hypocrite here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hello again, moron. I never claimed to not be nasty, so it is not me.

Wesley Elsberry, however, becomes outraged by an innocent story about a grad student yet remains silent as his horde of monkeys call people tards and make dick jokes.

So in answer to your question, Wesley R. Elsberry is a dumbass, self serving, two faced hypocrite. And you are his toe cheese scraping, poo flinging, lice eating accolyte.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wrote that vulgar tale, chunkdz, and you claimed TT is without vulgarities. Yet, the tale appeared on your site.

Wes never claimed AtBC is without vulgarities (ever, to my knowledge), but did comment that your story removed any claim that TT may have towards "tone."

Try again, this time employing the concept ( alien to you, apparently ) of "honesty."
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,16:25

OMitSDI:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where is the telic part of evolution for you then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the life forms struggling to adapt and survive, and self-organizing toward that end. It's not just teenage humans who think they're immortal, you know.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fine tuned by what? Evolution acting alone or with some telic help?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What sort of "thing" is evolution that it can "act," alone or in concert with other things? I see a process over multi-generational time, not a "thing" with physical existence or life of its own in time.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yet there are billions of us and billions more on the way. In what way do you mean?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, it is quite odd in evolutionary terms that we are so apparently 'successful'. Of course, we could always commit collective suicide (even have developed the means, busy developing newer, better means), take enough of the rest of life with us to qualify as a "Mass Extinction Event." I wouldn't be inclined to think of that as random happenstance, either. Perhaps if we had other examples of evolution on other planets, we'd have some idea of how common it is for the process to begin, work its way to "intelligence," then have the intelligence make the whole process moot. Looks pretty damned stupid to me that a natural process would produce anything as unnatural as us, but that's again just an opinion. Evolution may be suicidal at heart if it's a "thing" (as you've described).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Designed by what? Evolution or some entity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Designed by all entities, through which the process manifests. The process designs nothing, since it's not a "thing" with goals, and never a done deal. Until it manages to produce life forms intelligent enough to end it on purpose, that is.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What life form could possibly not qualify for evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Another meaningless question. What life form "evolves?" Answer: none. What we've got is evidence for past life forms that are no longer here, and different life forms around right now. The assumption is that those past life forms 'evolved' over millions of generations to become the life forms we see now. You know, sort of like the dino-to-dove thing. The process of evolution requires descent with modification. None of us gives birth to ourselves in our own lifetimes. Bacteria maybe do (if you consider simple division to qualify), and even then there are eventual modifications. But no, e.coli doesn't give magical 'birth' to nematodes. They reproduce more e.coli's, sometimes with new metabolic abilities. Still e.coli.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But your monkey is jumping around throwing shit at the walls and people are starting to throw shit back and so, before it gets too bad in here, I'd like to just find out your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I can see that the poo-flinging is winning this round. Must be quite difficult to keep up with such divergent sub-discussions, but I've been quite clear about my position. Let me respond to k.e. and then I'll let you apes get back to the poo-flinging.
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 13 2009,16:26

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,16:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: This is what I asked, chunkdz. Who is the hypocrite here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hello again, moron. I never claimed to not be nasty, so it is not me.

Wesley Elsberry, however, becomes outraged by an innocent story about a grad student yet remains silent as his horde of monkeys call people tards and make dick jokes.

So in answer to your question, Wesley R. Elsberry is a dumbass, self serving, two faced hypocrite. And you are his toe cheese scraping, poo flinging, lice eating accolyte.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This guy's schtick is getting boring. Very derivative of Guts appearance here last year. He was throwing around insults hoping to get banned, but never did.  Reminded me of the old joke:

Q. What does a sadist do to a masochist?
A. Nothing.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,16:27

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 13 2009,16:24)
...I may choose to provide commentary on anyone who writes homoerotic fantasies that include me as a character. So far as I know, C. is the only member of that set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm, you might want to check out my screenplay...

???
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 13 2009,16:29

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,12:23)
Lou:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again with unfounded conspiracy theories and scurrilous accusations, eh Joyfullyinsane?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, well. I guess the "kinda cute" PotW only lasts so long before the insults and name-calling rise yet again to the fore. You didn't have a Mama who taught you better manners, did you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't play the martyr, Joy. You nailed yourself to that cross.

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,11:39)
You like that "bullshit" word a lot, eh Louie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dishonest twit.
Posted by: Louis on May 13 2009,16:29

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,22:17)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:11)
I R NOT GINGER!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to be honest, you're one of the few people that I would plan on meeting, kidnapping, and plying with vast amounts of drink and/or drugs when I visit that green and pleasant land once again. So you can take that as an "I like u, cause ur speshul."

Even if you look funny. Homo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do I have to be kidnapped? Can't I just drink heavily? And what's with all the nice? Dagnabit, this is AtBC, we're mean and nasty and vulgar and use words like "poo" and stuff. So there.

Louis
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,16:30

k.e.:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you confuse the words random and accident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In what way? Did your friend get malaria at random, or because he got bit by a mosquito bearing the drug resistant pathogen? Did the mosquito choose him at random or accidentally, or because he was a warm body with red blood who was available? I hear they're drawn by the CO2 in our exhalation, but there could be other factors that draw a mosquito to lite and bite. Not being mosquitoes, we may be entirely ignorant of them, but it's not like people haven't known for ages that mosquitoes like human blood and spread diseases. For the mosquito it may not have been the least bit random. Does development of resistance have no traceable causes?

Sorry, but I can't see mosquito bites as "accidental," since mosquitoes are known to like biting humans and sucking their blood. That they spread diseases in the process is also part of their modus, something the pathogens they carry have overtaken for their own purposes of gaining new hosts and successfully reproducing to use the same vector for that purpose. Hardly "accidental," and certainly not "random."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of evolution through natural selection does not mean "the crown of creation" was an accident, a fluke maybe but not like a car crash.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shit happens to the fit and unfit alike. I don't think selection is the be-all and end-all of the process of evolution. It plays a role, but it designs nothing. Mere Fickle Finger of Fate. Your friend wasn't "selected out" of the gene pool, his contribution to evolution is still alive and growing. They may or may not reproduce, their children and children's children may or may not reproduce. Nobody expects any of them to ever magically give birth to a new species, though they might give birth to some monstrous failures. That happens too. How many of his possibly unique genetic contributions get into whatever new species might come along in a million years is definitely a crap-shoot. But then again, there may well be no new species in a million years. Shouldn't matter to anyone living and dying today. Sexual reproduction tends to stabilize species more than it changes them into something else. Come to think of it, so does asexual reproduction. Go figure.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plasmodium falciparum is evolving right under our noses so it is incorrect to say evolution is some deep time woo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What's it evolving into? A drug resistant strain of bacteria isn't a new species of life, it's an adaptive development in an existing species of life. It's still Plasmodium falciparum the protozoa that causes malignant malaria. Its adaptability may well be the justification for the title "malignant." All life feeds on other life, one way or the other. Death is part of the process that results in evolution, as well as the excuse for reproduction with modification.

That's like saying I've "evolved" because I got a smallpox vaccination (and in some cases of immune system developments I can indeed pass that to my offspring, so it can be heritable). I've [artificially, but does that matter?] developed resistance! Am I not still human? Are the 42 variants of the prion genes representative of different species of humans? This makes no sense. To the smallpox virus (if it were a considerable life form), I'd still be a desirable host that frustratingly developed defenses.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you seem to have some limited ideas on how evolution through natural selection works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think evolution works exclusively or even primarily via natural selection. I explained that already, my interest is with the 'engine' and inherent self-organizational capabilities, not the Fickle Finger of Fate.
Posted by: Louis on May 13 2009,16:31

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,22:19)
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,16:17)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:11)
I R NOT GINGER!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to be honest, you're one of the few people that I would plan on meeting, kidnapping, and plying with vast amounts of drink and/or drugs when I visit that green and pleasant land once again. So you can take that as an "I like u, cause ur speshul."

Even if you look funny. Homo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm over in 3 weeks! I'll be at the Liverpool / spuds game and in London for a day or 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Oh dear. I'm meeting Bob on the 23rd, looks like we'll have to have a beer when you're over too. PM me.

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,16:32

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,16:27)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 13 2009,16:24)
...I may choose to provide commentary on anyone who writes homoerotic fantasies that include me as a character. So far as I know, C. is the only member of that set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm, you might want to check out my screenplay...

???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I better be in it as a "toe cheese scraping, poo flinging, lice eating accolyte. " ...dammit, since that sets the proper non-vulgar tone.
Posted by: Louis on May 13 2009,16:32

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 13 2009,21:58)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,15:52)
 
Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:50)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: So, you would respect Wes more if he ruthlessly censored comments that he doesn't approve of?

Why am I not surprised?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wipe the drool from your chin, moron, and try to listen.

I was not "ruthlessly censored". I was chastised for being "nasty".

I might find some respect for Wesley if he ever had the balls to consistently chastise nastiness whether at TT or one of his own websites.

Unfortunately, Wesley can only seem to get worked up when ID'ers get rude. His attack chimps like yourself get a pass.

Selective indignation is one term for it. I prefer to call him a dumbass hypocrite.

You may now return to chewing your toenails and drinking your own urine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're being rude - your posts get through okay. Is he really that 'worked up'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey!  Don't be harshing on his rant with all your


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


BTW, that image made me laugh. I grant you one horse joke immunity. Don't make me regret it.

:angry:

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,16:37

Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:31)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,22:19)
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,16:17)
 
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:11)
I R NOT GINGER!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to be honest, you're one of the few people that I would plan on meeting, kidnapping, and plying with vast amounts of drink and/or drugs when I visit that green and pleasant land once again. So you can take that as an "I like u, cause ur speshul."

Even if you look funny. Homo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm over in 3 weeks! I'll be at the Liverpool / spuds game and in London for a day or 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Oh dear. I'm meeting Bob on the 23rd, looks like we'll have to have a beer when you're over too. PM me.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Will do - I'm in Liverpool on teh 23rd and in Brugge for a couple of days, but We'll work it out  :D
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 13 2009,16:39

Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:31)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,22:19)

I'm over in 3 weeks! I'll be at the Liverpool / spuds game and in London for a day or 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Oh dear. I'm meeting Bob on the 23rd, looks like we'll have to have a beer when you're over too. PM me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG. It sounds like a homonic convergence.  London will be draped in a rainbow colored fog with an outbreak of random acts of gayness.
Posted by: Louis on May 13 2009,16:46

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 13 2009,22:39)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:31)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,22:19)

I'm over in 3 weeks! I'll be at the Liverpool / spuds game and in London for a day or 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Oh dear. I'm meeting Bob on the 23rd, looks like we'll have to have a beer when you're over too. PM me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG. It sounds like a homonic convergence.  London will be draped in a rainbow colored fog with an outbreak of random acts of gayness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are we allowed to cross the streams? Or will that result in total protonic reversal?

{Horse joke deleted}

Louis
Posted by: JohnW on May 13 2009,16:49

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 13 2009,14:39)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:31)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,22:19)

I'm over in 3 weeks! I'll be at the Liverpool / spuds game and in London for a day or 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Oh dear. I'm meeting Bob on the 23rd, looks like we'll have to have a beer when you're over too. PM me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG. It sounds like a homonic convergence.  London will be draped in a rainbow colored fog with an outbreak of random acts of gayness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shall we ask chunky to do the minutes?
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,16:51

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 13 2009,16:39)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:31)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,22:19)

I'm over in 3 weeks! I'll be at the Liverpool / spuds game and in London for a day or 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Oh dear. I'm meeting Bob on the 23rd, looks like we'll have to have a beer when you're over too. PM me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG. It sounds like a homonic convergence.  London will be draped in a rainbow colored fog with an outbreak of random acts of gayness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: carlsonjok on May 13 2009,16:56

Quote (JohnW @ May 13 2009,16:49)
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 13 2009,14:39)
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:31)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,22:19)

I'm over in 3 weeks! I'll be at the Liverpool / spuds game and in London for a day or 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Oh dear. I'm meeting Bob on the 23rd, looks like we'll have to have a beer when you're over too. PM me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG. It sounds like a homonic convergence.  London will be draped in a rainbow colored fog with an outbreak of random acts of gayness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shall we ask chunky to do the minutes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Minutes?  Aren't they some Village People cover band?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,16:58

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 13 2009,17:39)
 
Quote (Louis @ May 13 2009,16:31)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,22:19)

I'm over in 3 weeks! I'll be at the Liverpool / spuds game and in London for a day or 2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Oh dear. I'm meeting Bob on the 23rd, looks like we'll have to have a beer when you're over too. PM me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG. It sounds like a homonic convergence.  London will be draped in a rainbow colored fog with an outbreak of random acts of gayness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


shhh you're getting drunkchz excited

hey now joy, chunk, are y'all playing good tard bad tard?

is there intent behind this latest flurry of activity on this thread?

doubleteam trollery?

is that a conspiracy theory???//?

(hush yo mowf)

if joy doesn't quit waving her hands about what "random" really means and explain, just, why using that word with the usual definition in the usual accepted context in the rhetoric of a scientific explanation is somehow a metaphysical claim, then I am going to grow more suspicious about this

really.  if this is just semantics about what is meant by "random" then I'm sure you could find something of substance to bitch about closer to home.

< like this or sumthin >

shes all "aw shucks duh duh yup i play the banjer and i'm tarred of bibblologists ruining my woo by god.  ahma gonna play with you guys I mean youns fer a whall.  ahh that chihuaha that i brung in hyar that is a shittin' everywhar hit's just bein a roman you know.  I got that little sumbitch in Rome.  From a pure-tee Roman feller.  Said he was and evrythang"

drunkchz "yap yap yap yap yap yap yap" pissing on itself

joy "oh yeah i knew yall would call people names.  just because my shitty little dog shit on the shag carpet and scooted its red swollen ass around in it like it had been eating habaneros you are going to kick it well fuck you i knew this was the swamp"

that's a pretty good shtick yall.  i like that.  sorta like the Rock and Roll Express and what not.  like when I saw the Arn and Tully Anderson whup Flair with a 2x4 in the parking lot, then they was all horsemen thar a few months later
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,18:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley: As for why C. got some attention... C. doesn't seem to understand that going after someone in particular might lead to a particular response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then a particular response should have sufficed. You took it further to impugn the "tone" of the Telic Thoughts website - and you had the gall to suggest that my little story somehow puts TT down on the same level as your smelly monkey farm.

What grotesque hypocrisy. Are you proud of this? When you speak to clergy about science education do you tell them about your dirty little websites where they can go to be ridiculed as creotards?

No wonder you have been passed over by OpenLab, Scientific American, and Scienceblogs for any awards as of late. Your websites have become nothing but filthy playgrounds for the most vulgar and vile culture warrior bullcrap imaginable, yet you continue to hide them under the pretense of "Science Education".


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I may choose to provide commentary on anyone who writes homoerotic fantasies that include me as a character. So far as I know, C. is the only member of that set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And as I said earlier, there is absolutely nothing erotic about the story. You are reading way too much into it.
It's a story about a starstruck young grad student and his brush with superstardom. The character of Wes was introduced as a literary device to represent Nick's break with the past. The character of Phina was used in a similar way.

Anyhow if you are upset about it, then you should have said so rather than tossing insults and hypocritically posturing in feigned outrage. Or better yet, just do what you always do. Let your horde of trained attack marmosets launch a few handfuls of poo while you pretend to take the moral high ground.

You're not fooling anybody, Wesley. The filth that you sponsor on your own websites is evidence of how much you value "tone". Save your fake outrage for somebody who hasn't figured out what a complete mealy mouthed phony you are.
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 13 2009,18:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This does opiates a terrible disservice, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have to agree. Morphine (heroin, let's be frank) is an excellent painkiller and, under medical supervision, is the drug of choice where pain control is paramount.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,18:14

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 13 2009,19:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This does opiates a terrible disservice, IMHO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have to agree. Morphine (heroin, let's be frank) is an excellent painkiller and, under medical supervision, is the drug of choice where pain control is paramount.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


just don't take it by yourself and then sit in a room by yourself and breathe nitrous with a bag tied around your face.  that killed a buddy of mine from college.  passed out in the bag.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,18:27

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,18:03)
And as I said earlier, there is absolutely nothing erotic about the story. You are reading way too much into it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Compare and contrast:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz Says:

March 12th, 2009 at 9:46 pm I love Nick too. I had hoped to option the movie rights to his epic love story. < http://telicthoughts.com/behe/#comment-222490 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Also:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The Dawk spoke to standing ovations, kindling feelings of man-love deep within Nick."  http://telicthoughts.com/behe/#comment-222422
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Complete thread here: < http://telicthoughts.com/behe/ >

So there's nothing erotic about it --  it's just about love (according to you)  and written in a style that imitates soft-core eroticism, complete with blushing, sweating and "tightening sphincters."   

Just because some people at TT happen to buy your line of lies doesn't mean everyone (or anyone) here will. You're not a very good liar, but you are a liar.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 13 2009,18:34

If C. thinks an invitation to a pissing match will be productive, he is mistaken.



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

C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way. I don't have to fictionalize anything to be able to point that out.

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



Still just as true as the moment I wrote it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,18:36

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 13 2009,19:34)
If C. thinks an invitation to a pissing match will be productive, he is mistaken.



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

C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way. I don't have to fictionalize anything to be able to point that out.

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



Still just as true as the moment I wrote it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wes ummmm i don't think he wants a match

he just wants you to piss on him

tell him he is bad

seen it a thousand times
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 13 2009,18:36

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,18:03)
You're not fooling anybody, Wesley. The filth that you sponsor on your own websites is evidence of how much you value "tone". Save your fake outrage for somebody who hasn't figured out what a complete mealy mouthed phony you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come on, Chunky, you really need to lighten up. If none other than Casey Luskin < can forgive Wes >, you should let a little turn-the-other-cheek shine through that gruff exterior of yours.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,18:41

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,16:06)
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,15:33)
Richard is a happy fellow. So, Chunkdz?

     
Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:26)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: Order of events:
(1) Chunkdz posts a little homoerotic fantasy at TT concerning his "enemies"

(2) Wes asks"..link?" Comments that the "story" removes any pretense that TT may have towards "tone."

(3) Chunkdz says "Wesley's a hypocrite for decrying the tone of TT while he maintains a cesspool...TT is without vulgarities"

(4) Evidence given which shows Dembski admires Chunkdz's "profane abuse" while chunkdz wrote, on Telic Thoughts, the original homoerotic tale that is vulgar by my standards -- beyond being merely craven.

Chunkdz retreats into insults while insisting he's right. Yet Wesley never personally authored a homoerotic attack, nor does he pretend that his sites are "vulgarity-free."

So... the question is about hypocrisy. Which to choose, which to choose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ooops! Like a good little brain numbed drooling minion you conveniently left out the part where Wesley said:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, Wesley, when's the last time you took the time to point out the faults of your herd of attack chimps?

Stupid hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, your homoerotic tale qualifies as "nasty and vulgar," and the question is about who is the hypocrite. Who actually authored that tale, chunkdz? And who said  which site is without vulgarities?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is what I asked, chunkdz. Who is the hypocrite here? Keep in mind that Wes has never claimed his site was without vulgarities, YOU did, though, and yet you authored that little homoerotic tale.

Wes merely commented that your story removes any pretense you may have had towards "tone" at TT. That's it. Now see if you can approach honesty, as I did when acknowledging that I was wrong in assuming TT had codified rules.

Can you manage that , or is actual honesty beyond you?

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


I don't mind poking at the wee critter... so chunkdz -- address what you were asked.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,18:48

Of course, I expect you to continue denying any vulgarity in writing that homoerotic little "love tale" (according to you), chunkdz.

But boy, it seems to bother you if others are vulgar, again, according to you. Tsk.

It's merely reflective of the level of honesty that ID proponents brings to the table: little to none.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,19:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: Of course, I expect you to continue denying any vulgarity in writing that homoerotic little "love tale" (according to you), chunkdz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's "man-love", as in "thanks for the awesome barbecue - I love you man". Not "man-love" as in "I can't wait to go to London with Richard T. Hughes". Big difference.

It is an epic love story, but not the erotic kind that you apparently are used to. Nick is in love with fame and celebrity, and The Dawk represents all that he desires.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But boy, it seems to bother you if others are vulgar, again, according to you. Tsk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, but no. As I've said several times it is hypocrisy that I despise. And rock headed obtuse stupidity like yours. I despise that too.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Keep in mind that Wes has never claimed his site was without vulgarities, YOU did, though, and yet you authored that little homoerotic tale.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Read what I wrote again, stupid. I said TT doesn't have the kind of vulgarity seen at Wesley Elsberry's websites. They have their share of vulgarity, no doubt. But most of it comes from the swampers who they tolerate, and you'll almost never have a TT'er ask you to "fuck off" or any of the standard greetings that you'll find here.


I must say I expected a little more brain power from you guys given your reputation as vulgar but clever wordsmiths. The idiots at Panda's Thumb actually seem bright by comparison.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,20:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: Come on, Chunky, you really need to lighten up. If none other than Casey Luskin can forgive Wes, you should let a little turn-the-other-cheek shine through that gruff exterior of yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I am thinking of writing another chapter in which Wes flies into a jealous rage and commands his pet falcon to attack The Dawk during a book signing at Border's.  Would you like to be his sidekick? You get to tackle Jerry Coyne when he comes to The Dawk's rescue.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,20:06

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,20:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: Come on, Chunky, you really need to lighten up. If none other than Casey Luskin can forgive Wes, you should let a little turn-the-other-cheek shine through that gruff exterior of yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I am thinking of writing another chapter in which Wes flies into a jealous rage and commands his pet falcon to attack The Dawk during a book signing at Border's.  Would you like to be his sidekick? You get to tackle Jerry Coyne when he comes to The Dawk's rescue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would focus on your scientific research first..

so much design, so little time!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,20:06

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,21:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: Come on, Chunky, you really need to lighten up. If none other than Casey Luskin can forgive Wes, you should let a little turn-the-other-cheek shine through that gruff exterior of yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I am thinking of writing another chapter in which Wes flies into a jealous rage and commands his pet falcon to attack The Dawk during a book signing at Border's.  Would you like to be his sidekick? You get to tackle Jerry Coyne when he comes to The Dawk's rescue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


now he's hitting on you carlson

sell him a horse and send him on his way

drunkchz why don't you share some more of your erm "work".  the least you could do while you are here is pretend to be interesting.  the only thing gayer than your fantasies about nick matzke, wes and richard dawkins is the way you wank about with your concern trollery
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,20:46

I think, just for fun, and as a test of TT loyalty, I'll ask Joy to give her opinion on whether or not "chunkdz's" tale is intended as a homoerotic vulgar slight.

So, Joy...you have given the impression (at least here) of a willingness to engage in what can be termed honest discourse.

Is chunkdz's tale intended, in your opinion, as a homoerotic jab? Be honest now, Jesus is watching you.

Chunkdz: It would've been far more honest of you to merely say "Hah, yeah, it's a parody, intended to insult and written in a style emulating cheesy erotic lit, involving males whom I despise. Big deal. "

That would have been honest. I might have respected that.

Instead, you fall back on "but that's not what I meant." much like a child saying "But I didn't know, and if I did, I didn't mean to do that." Of course, there's always excuses for people like yourself, chunkdz; you deliberately seek out excuses for your behavior.

I've bothered to read your drivel at TT, and I can say unequivocally that not only are you sadly ignorant of any meaningful understanding of the topics you champion in your religious fervor...you're widely regarded there as I saw you here: a troll that is willing to lie their way out of anything. Any excuse will do.

But you sure tried to play martyr here...that's cute.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,20:51

please answer that joy?

i may have been uncharitable in my (albeit tentative) inference of double team trollery.  

perhaps this is one of those coincidences that actually is random....

i second deadman.  if chunk had just said "har har har did you like that you evilutionists are gay" it would be one thing.  i woulda laughed, probly.

that wouldn't have made it any less gay (not that there is anything wrong with that, some of my favorite super heroes and fashion critics blah blah)

but the concern trollery, nah...  what a repressed loser
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,21:04

As far as my reading was concerned, this was the kicker ( in addition to the other homoerotic implications I've already listed) :
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was an erotic aura around The Dawk, almost palpable. < http://telicthoughts.com/behe/#comment-222423 >

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



But chunkdz also says, in this thread: " There is nothing even mildly erotic about my story."

Yet, there it is. So, what of the use of the word "erotic?"  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
e·rot·ic  
1. arousing or satisfying sexual desire: an erotic dance.  
2. of, pertaining to, or treating of sexual love; amatory: an erotic novel.
 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/erotic
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





He also refers to it as an "epic love story" about "man-love" ...while simultaneously claiming it's as unepic as " "thanks for the awesome barbecue."

Lies piling on lies. Tsk.
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 13 2009,21:06

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,20:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: Come on, Chunky, you really need to lighten up. If none other than Casey Luskin can forgive Wes, you should let a little turn-the-other-cheek shine through that gruff exterior of yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I am thinking of writing another chapter in which Wes flies into a jealous rage and commands his pet falcon to attack The Dawk during a book signing at Border's.  Would you like to be his sidekick? You get to tackle Jerry Coyne when he comes to The Dawk's rescue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whoa! Dude!  A full homo menage a trois?  You are one kinky feller. I hope you have a secure hiding place for your Blue Boy magazines. I can only imagine what Mommy and Daddy would do to you if they found them.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,21:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you sure tried to play martyr here...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, you idiots are dense as uranium. I have not been victimized here. If there is a victim it is you morons who unwittingly run to the defense of your jackass-in-charge.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: But chunkdz also says, in this thread: " There is nothing even mildly erotic about my story."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, fame has an erotic allure to it. One might say fame and fortune have an "erotic aura" about them. It's a literary device, moron. What if I had said "The Dawk had an intoxicating aura around him"? Would you then insist that I was suggesting that Nick was an alcoholic?

I expected a lack of sophistication around here, but I didn't think you'd all be such a bunch of complete butt scratching nitwits.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: Whoa! Dude!  A full homo menage a trois?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I guess this is about as interesting as you guys are going to get. One gay reference after another. At least PT had some interesting characters and a little variety in their ad homs.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are one kinky feller.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, Wesley is the one advertising on Wikipedia that he has open sores on his rectum. I'm just a writer.
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,21:35

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
doubleteam trollery?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have no control over what anybody else does if they aren't living in my house. I am not feeling welcome at TT of late, there's some political issues they're having trouble accepting gracefully (like losing an election to a black guy, finding out their chickenhawk heroes sold America down the morality river and robbed us blind, etc.). A shame, but not surprising.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
shes all "aw shucks duh duh yup i play the banjer and i'm tarred of bibblologists ruining my woo by god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, Asheville's the "New Age Capital of America" ever since John McCain ruined Sedona. The same old Hipper Than Thou crowd. Luckily, we don't live in A-ville. It's nice enough to visit, has good brewhouses and veggie restaurants, great markets for organic goodies. Sometimes work there. And it's not too big.

If by "bibblologists" you mean biologists, I like 'em just fine. Sort of was one myself once, in an applied science colored with a little physics. Know some biologists personally, am even related to one. Specialized post-grad in isolating the alkaloids of American Mandrake and Pacific Yew - cancer research, for whatever that was worth (not much, apparently).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if this is just semantics about what is meant by "random" then I'm sure you could find something of substance to bitch about closer to home.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I was asked what claims were being made that got me interested in the debate, I responded. I don't buy the deceptively exclusive focus on selection as an explanation for evolution, while waving away the more important source ['engine'] of biological innovation with spurious appeals to randomness. Nor do I buy any claims that science [outside mathematics] deals in proofs, much less that it 'proves' any negatives in the metaphysical realm. If you don't like my point of view, tough titty. I never expected you to.

It was just boredom. I can see that things here still inevitably end in the same sewer they always did, and I've honestly got better things to do.
Posted by: Joy on May 13 2009,21:41

deadman:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is chunkdz's tale intended, in your opinion, as a homoerotic jab? Be honest now, Jesus is watching you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know. Must have missed the original. Don't care either. What stumps me is why you guys (who toss homosexual insults at each other constantly) care. You got something against gays?

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
perhaps this is one of those coincidences that actually is random...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I doubt it. There are no coincidences...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but the concern trollery, nah...  what a repressed loser
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Huh. In my experience a "concern troll" must actually display some believable concern for the impressions some disinterested 'public' might garner from the material at issue. No one here or at TT is disinterested in anything being presented or commented upon. He's just pushing your buttons. Because he can, must think it's fun because the reactions are so completely predictable.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,21:41

"Yes, fame has an erotic allure to it. One might say fame and fortune have an "erotic aura" about them"

Wow. Is a good meal also erotic? Do you and the guys go out for an erotic munch?

If everyone but you reads it different, it might not be the great "literary device' you think it is.

Right, I'm off for a buttsecks cocktail.*


*with whoever puts this in their sig line.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,21:43

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,21:29)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you sure tried to play martyr here...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, you idiots are dense as uranium. I have not been victimized here. If there is a victim it is you morons who unwittingly run to the defense of your jackass-in-charge.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman: But chunkdz also says, in this thread: " There is nothing even mildly erotic about my story."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, fame has an erotic allure to it. One might say fame and fortune have an "erotic aura" about them. It's a literary device, moron. What if I had said "The Dawk had an intoxicating aura around him"? Would you then insist that I was suggesting that Nick was an alcoholic?


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




Heh. "intoxicating aura" would mean interesting and have nothing necessarily to do with sexuality. "Erotic" by definition refers to sexuality, and that is the term you used.

In the case of your story it's being used from the point-of-view of your character (a male) towards another male...and you called it an epic love story of "man-love" ...

But then again, you also claimed there was nothing erotic about it, saying    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz wrote:
"There is nothing even mildly erotic about my story. And even if it were "nasty and vulgar" Wesley R. Elsberry would STILL be... [snip meaningless invective]"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your statement there goes precisely to what I wrote below, in bold:
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,20:46)
Chunkdz: It would've been far more honest of you to merely say "Hah, yeah, it's a parody, intended to insult and written in a style emulating cheesy erotic lit, involving males whom I despise. Big deal. "

That would have been honest. I might have respected that.

Instead, you fall back on "but that's not what I meant." much like a child saying "But I didn't know, and if I did, I didn't mean to do that." Of course, there's always excuses for people like yourself, chunkdz; you deliberately seek out excuses for your behavior.


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



You may be able to b-s the simpletons at Telic Thoughts, but that's less likely here.

More importantly, since I've seen that you *will* attempt to lie about virtually anything (rather than you simply honestly acknowledging your silly little attempt at vulgar insult), I'll content myself to wait and see what "Joy" has to say about your perceived intent. I'm willing to hope for honesty from strangers.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,21:43



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

I doubt it. There are no coincidences...

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



I was just thinking that. Whoa! double six!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,21:48

joy

lol well if you ain't gonna claim drunkchz that's good enough for me

i haven't been reading TT much lately so I'll take your word for their political issues.  sounds entertaining tho, got any linkies for tasty reading?  

my people have been in the french broad valley almost 250 years.  i am pretty sure that precedes the woo but who knows.  i think it might precede john mccain but i dunno.  i blame the white flight of the 60s and the back to the landers from the 70s, but it is of course more complex than that.  

lol i meant "bibleologists".  if you have genuine beef with the fundies i have yet to understand what it could be.  no spooks, don't share their politics, why ID?

it's not that i don't like your POV, luv, I have yet to understand what exactly it is.  what's "random" supposed to mean anyway?

i am pretty sure that phototaxis in your mater bushes has a general material explanation frinstance.  that ain't random.  

but no one claims it is.  

what exactly AINT random?  thats what i wanna know.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,21:53

Quote (Joy @ May 13 2009,21:41)
deadman:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is chunkdz's tale intended, in your opinion, as a homoerotic jab? Be honest now, Jesus is watching you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know. Must have missed the original. Don't care either. What stumps me is why you guys (who toss homosexual insults at each other constantly) care. You got something against gays?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course I don't have anything against gays, Joy. I was asking you your honest opinion, as a means of determining your view of chunkdz's intent.

The original thread in its entirety is here: < http://telicthoughts.com/behe/ >

By the way, Joy, I'm not trying to drag any thread you're involved in here down into any sewer, honestly. Just reading above, I can respect the stance you have concerning Obama's election and the realities of the effects of the Bush administration. I have no beef at all with you, and I can understand completely if you simply don't want to add any more fuel to the fire regarding TT.

BUT, this was merely about chunkdz's claim to innocence regarding something that is clearly intended as a hit-piece (however short and meaningless it may be).

Clearly, he's not going to acknowledge wrongdoing if I merely point out the facts, or at least he hasn't yet...but it wasn't a "good" thing to write homoerotic implications  and use that as an excuse to play martyr here. I don't mind direct insult, I just dislike the game being played in this instance.

That was my only intent: to see if you had an unbiased opinion that you were willing to give on the subject. If not, that's fine. I'll simply apologize to you for putting you in an awkward position and leave you to your current discussion.
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 13 2009,22:23

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,21:29)

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Carlsonjok: Whoa! Dude!  A full homo menage a trois?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I guess this is about as interesting as you guys are going to get. One gay reference after another. At least PT had some interesting characters and a little variety in their ad homs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet you keep coming back. You must not be too bored.

{sotto voce}

Psst, Chunky, that feller Erasmus?  Biggest hillbilly hereabouts, but queer as a three dollar bill. If you are into bears, he is your guy.

{/sotto voce}
 

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

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are one kinky feller.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, Wesley is the one advertising on Wikipedia that he has open sores on his rectum. I'm just a writer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You and Denyse O'Leary. Heady company you move in.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,22:29

pffft he is not my kinda queer.  he would fall in love and i would just be bored
Posted by: chunkdz on May 13 2009,22:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll simply apologize to you [Joy] for putting you in an awkward position and leave you to your current discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You jackasses should apologize for more than that. Joy has done nothing to deserve the filthy treatment that you've reached down under your prehensile tails and flung at her. She came here in good faith just to shoot the breeze and you morons treated her like garbage with insult after vulgar insult, and it is evident that not one of you even knows the first thing about her.

Not that she will cry herself to sleep worrying about what a bunch of anonymous cretins think about her. But why don't you all try summon up about as much class as Joy has in her little finger and apologize, you drooling, feces eating rhesus monkeys?

And Lou, you should go first you lobotomized lab chimp.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,22:37

Davescot - brains = Chuckdz
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 13 2009,22:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2009,23:37)
Davescot - brains = Chuckdz
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


really

i have been marvelling over the similarities.  its like a dumber davetard!

drunkchz < i tried to be like you >.  how does it rate?  i am asking you because you are very clearly an expert in the one hand read
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 13 2009,22:43

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,22:33)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll simply apologize to you [Joy] for putting you in an awkward position and leave you to your current discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You jackasses should apologize for more than that. Joy has done nothing to deserve the filthy treatment that you've reached down under your prehensile tails and flung at her. She came here in good faith just to shoot the breeze and you morons treated her like garbage with insult after vulgar insult, and it is evident that not one of you even knows the first thing about her.

Not that she will cry herself to sleep worrying about what a bunch of anonymous cretins think about her. But why don't you all try summon up about as much class as Joy has in her little finger and apologize, you drooling, feces eating rhesus monkeys?

And Lou, you should go first you lobotomized lab chimp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since that was directed at me and that was my sentence you've quoted, please point out where I have insulted "Joy."

Or is that just another of your lies? Check the thread.

This propensity of yours to just make things up is kinda weird, chunkdz.
Posted by: Badger3k on May 13 2009,23:11

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,21:04)
As far as my reading was concerned, this was the kicker ( in addition to the other homoerotic implications I've already listed) :
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There was an erotic aura around The Dawk, almost palpable. < http://telicthoughts.com/behe/#comment-222423 >

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



But chunkdz also says, in this thread: " There is nothing even mildly erotic about my story."

Yet, there it is. So, what of the use of the word "erotic?"  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
e·rot·ic  
1. arousing or satisfying sexual desire: an erotic dance.  
2. of, pertaining to, or treating of sexual love; amatory: an erotic novel.
 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/erotic
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





He also refers to it as an "epic love story" about "man-love" ...while simultaneously claiming it's as unepic as " "thanks for the awesome barbecue."

Lies piling on lies. Tsk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, Larry Craig also just had a wide stance...
Posted by: Badger3k on May 13 2009,23:22

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,21:29)
Yes, fame has an erotic allure to it. One might say fame and fortune have an "erotic aura" about them. It's a literary device, moron. What if I had said "The Dawk had an intoxicating aura around him"? Would you then insist that I was suggesting that Nick was an alcoholic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fame and fortune are erotic and intoxicating for the opposite sex.  Sorry - I've seen Dawkins speaking, and if the lines were shorter would have met him too, but there was nothing erotic or intoxicating about him.  Sorry.  I've been to a lot of concerts and even gotten close to some of the musicians, and the only erotic ones were the females (and then only if they were attractive).  I just saw Springsteen a short time ago, my second concert, and he has fame and fortune, and sorry, I can't say it was either of your "literary devices."  You write like a cheap romance novel, or slash fiction (from the little I've heard of it).

Maybe you need to rethink your own sexuality.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2009,23:36

He's angry and upset and insulting - hoping to start a flame war - so cute!!!!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 14 2009,02:09

C.:

 

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

Hey, Wesley is the one advertising on Wikipedia that he has open sores on his rectum.

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



Wikipedia:

 

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

In 2004, he helped establish the Panda's Thumb weblog. While hospitalized following emergency surgery resulting from chronic ulcerative colitis, he established his personal weblog, The Austringer.

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



C. can't even manage to do insults without resorting to fiction. Ulcerative colitis != "open sores on rectum" and C. fictionalizes his tense, as he would know if he consulted Wikipedia:

   

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

Unlike Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis can generally be cured by surgical removal of the large intestine. This procedure is necessary in the event of: exsanguinating hemorrhage, frank perforation or documented or strongly suspected carcinoma. Surgery is also indicated for patients with severe colitis or toxic megacolon. Patients with symptoms that are disabling and do not respond to drugs may wish to consider whether surgery would improve the quality of life.

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



A doctor of mine once said to me, "We can cure ulcerative colitis; we can remove the colon." My quality of life is much better without my colon and I tend to think a 20+ year history of dealing with a chronic disease might be something that would merit a mention in a biography. Which leads me back to...

 

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

C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way. I don't have to fictionalize anything to be able to point that out.

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



Every time C. leaves a comment, he seems determined to reinforce just how on-target my observation was.
Posted by: Quack on May 14 2009,03:27

Where can I find the relevant pages at TT and maybe other sources of input by Chunkdz, Wesley and maybe others in the current controversy?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 14 2009,03:28

Quote (Quack @ May 14 2009,03:27)
Where can I find the relevant pages at TT and maybe other sources of input by Chunkdz, Wesley and maybe others in the current controversy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://telicthoughts.com/behe/ >
Posted by: Louis on May 14 2009,03:49

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 14 2009,08:09)
C.:

   

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

Hey, Wesley is the one advertising on Wikipedia that he has open sores on his rectum.

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



Wikipedia:

   

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

In 2004, he helped establish the Panda's Thumb weblog. While hospitalized following emergency surgery resulting from chronic ulcerative colitis, he established his personal weblog, The Austringer.

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



C. can't even manage to do insults without resorting to fiction. Ulcerative colitis != "open sores on rectum" and C. fictionalizes his tense, as he would know if he consulted Wikipedia:

   

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

Unlike Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis can generally be cured by surgical removal of the large intestine. This procedure is necessary in the event of: exsanguinating hemorrhage, frank perforation or documented or strongly suspected carcinoma. Surgery is also indicated for patients with severe colitis or toxic megacolon. Patients with symptoms that are disabling and do not respond to drugs may wish to consider whether surgery would improve the quality of life.

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



A doctor of mine once said to me, "We can cure ulcerative colitis; we can remove the colon." My quality of life is much better without my colon and I tend to think a 20+ year history of dealing with a chronic disease might be something that would merit a mention in a biography. Which leads me back to...

 

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

C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way. I don't have to fictionalize anything to be able to point that out.

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



Every time C. leaves a comment, he seems determined to reinforce just how on-target my observation was.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Bolding mine)

SEE! SEE! It's lies and deception like this that make you the evil hypocrite and purveyor of vulgarities that you are Elsberry!

{Shakes fist}

I count a total of four colons and one semi colon. Clearly you are advantaged beyond most people you elitist bastard you.

Elsberry has colons!

Teach the controversy!

:angry:

Louis

P.S. Of course should anyone point out that there is a difference between punctuation and a painful medical condition afflicting a vital organ I shall persist in my misunderstanding aggressively by use of a combination of homophobic slurs, homoerotic stories and comparing people unfavourably to various other primates.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 14 2009,06:54

Chunk

Are you just over here to fling poo? Or do you want to discuss your alleged scientific perspective?

If the latter, here is a definition of front-loaded evolution from Telic Thoughts a while back.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Front-loading is the idea that the designer made the first organisms with the future in mind, and that the original design influenced the course of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I’ll assume that this is the working definition; if that assumption is incorrect, please advise and we can talk about the actual definition.

But if it is the definition, I’ve no idea how one could generate a testable hypothesis based on it. Do we have the “first organisms”? No, so how would we examine them? Do we have a clue about the “original design”? I’m pretty sure we don’t. Do we know who the designer is? No, so how would we ask him/her/it about motives? What is the nature of this alleged "influence" over the subsequent course of evolution, and how do we find evidence for it?

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’d really appreciate an answer to the question - How do you generate a testable hypothesis, and, more importantly, how do you proceed to do the testing, with this definition as the explanatory principle?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,07:12

alby i am pretty sure he is only here to get wes' phone number.

and also it seems he likes carlson.

yep we got a manlove troll.  beware, he falls in love!
Posted by: Gunthernacus on May 14 2009,07:15

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,23:33)
Joy has done nothing to deserve the filthy treatment that you've reached down under your prehensile tails and flung at her. She came here in good faith just to shoot the breeze and you morons treated her like garbage with insult after vulgar insult, and it is evident that not one of you even knows the first thing about her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Joy's first post of her most recent foray >      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, I've gotta say I'm only slightly surprised that anyone in real life actually believes the sort of shit Beck, O'Reilly, et al. spew on the teevee. I don't watch teevee. Bradford's head is indeed in a very scary place, from what I can tell. The peanut gallery is even worse off, from all indications. Luckily they're chickenhawks, talk big but only when hiding behind a keyboard. Much like those on this wetland side of the equatorial belt...

I used to believe they were the underdogs. Their human and Constitutional rights at issue against actually politically powerful bullies like you. Now all I see are schoolyard bullies on all sides, overeager wannabe mind-tyrants that aren't merely pitiful for being so damned sociologically dumb. Some of them might be dangerous if I cared that much. Fortunately, I don't.

Meanwhile, the actual actually politically powerful bullies march on, unseen and unnoticed by practically all. I don't believe in magic - I know too many magicians. At this point I don't believe in evolution either, because if it meant anything we'd have evolved past this shit by now. A pox on both your houses - think I'll go prune the vineyard instead...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My bolding.  It seems she grabbed a fresh steamer out of your diaper on her way over here - just to tell us that she doesn't care and would rather prune her vineyard.  A week, and 20-30 comments from Joy, later you say she "came here in good faith just to shoot the breeze".  Tell us chunkerz, when she reached into your diaper, were her hands warm?  Did they almost convince you to give up the homoeroticism?  Almost?
Posted by: k.e.. on May 14 2009,08:05

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 14 2009,06:37)
Davescot - brains = Chuckdz
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Davescot - brains - lesbians = Chuckdz
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 14 2009,09:04

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 14 2009,03:09)


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

C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way. I don't have to fictionalize anything to be able to point that out.

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



Every time C. leaves a comment, he seems determined to reinforce just how on-target my observation was.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...because that's all he's got.

Every time a creationist pretends to do science, he gets his ass handed to him.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,09:07

what about when they pretend to do barechested bodice ripping hot man love fiction?

they get handed in the ass.  he loves that part.  drunkchz ain't making any pretense towards science.  he is just in it for the buttsecks
Posted by: Joy on May 14 2009,10:57

deadman:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BUT, this was merely about chunkdz's claim to innocence regarding something that is clearly intended as a hit-piece (however short and meaningless it may be).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I read the tale (thnx for the link). Actually, it made me laugh out loud. Of course, as a clown I might have more appreciation for such things than the targets would. Given the amount of money made by comedians over the years poking irreverent fun at likely targets (usually the pompous 'white face' character), there's definitely a market for it.

Obviously a mockery, something you guys should be intimately familiar with given the many cruder examples of the same sort of thing flowing through the peanut gallery threads here. Perhaps I'm in error for lumping you in with "you guys," I am not that familiar with all participants here. Still, the feigned insult seems overblown, all things considered. It's pretty difficult to offensively "hit" someone whose stock-in-trade is being offensive.

Sort of like having a front row seat when < Don Rickles > gets a serious roasting.

I'd say "lighten up," but that's completely unlikely. Everybody these days seems to be taking themselves way too seriously. Something in the water?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 14 2009,10:59

What do you make of Chuckdz's claims and defense of his piece, Joy?
Posted by: k.e.. on May 14 2009,11:34

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 14 2009,18:59)
What do you make of Chuckdz's claims and defense of his piece, Joy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<k.e. clears throat> .....sotto voce

Well on the one hand I'm disgusted with chuck and can't understand why someone who agrees with me that TT is a source of sweetness and light in this unforgiving universe and a shining example blog of free speech in complete contrast to that evil overlord of Darwinist darkness Wesley whats his name and this very blog

...and on the other hand I think that he's a train wreck or a great guy really, one or the other.

I don't know you figure it out.
Now I've got to do something with cabbages and show the hippies my collection of banjoes


Oh ...you were asking Joy sorry?   ... as you were.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 14 2009,11:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now I've got to do something with cabbages and show the hippies my collection of banjoes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So I was drinking regular coffee but the stuff that came up and out through my nose is cappuccino. Is this how they are made?
Posted by: Richard Simons on May 14 2009,13:05

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 14 2009,06:54)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Front-loading is the idea that the designer made the first organisms with the future in mind, and that the original design influenced the course of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I’ll assume that this is the working definition; if that assumption is incorrect, please advise and we can talk about the actual definition.

But if it is the definition, I’ve no idea how one could generate a testable hypothesis based on it. Do we have the “first organisms”? No, so how would we examine them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You get as many chromosomes from as many different organisms as you can manage, smodge them all together and see what it grows in to.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 14 2009,14:02

Quote (Joy @ May 14 2009,10:57)
deadman:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BUT, this was merely about chunkdz's claim to innocence regarding something that is clearly intended as a hit-piece (however short and meaningless it may be).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I read the tale (thnx for the link). Actually, it made me laugh out loud...[snip]
Obviously a mockery, something you guys should be intimately familiar with given the many cruder examples of the same sort of thing flowing through the peanut gallery threads here. Perhaps I'm in error for lumping you in with "you guys," I am not that familiar with all participants here. Still, the feigned insult seems overblown, all things considered. It's pretty difficult to offensively "hit" someone whose stock-in-trade is being offensive...


I'd say "lighten up," but that's completely unlikely. Everybody these days seems to be taking themselves way too seriously. Something in the water?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for your opinion, however guarded. Of course the piece was intended as a homoerotic send-up. That's not the issue.

Yep, I'm familiar with insult, as are most here. I don't mind honest insult. However, I am not approving of using insults then pretending innocence. I view that as dishonest -- much the same as I would someone falsely accusing me of insulting you directly in this thread. Both are false, both are dishonest.

Since you're a clown, you realize that holding up a mirror to those who don't recognize their own b-s is an effective form of humor. This theme runs through virtually every culture in various forms, whether mocking songs that can be used by nearly anyone to "sacred" fools whose responsibility is to make people think. Generally speaking, the attempt is made to use perceptible truths as a means of mocking perceptible, demonstrable  (self-) deceptions, just as Lenny Bruce or Pryor or Carlin did.  

This is a time-honored tradition and I have no problem with it. I have a problem with clowns like chunkdz who are willing to be clowns and then feign innocence of intent by bullshitting about it.

One of the funniest things I've ever heard of was a Hopi clown who glances at the battered, broken massive alarm-clock strapped to his wrist,  and then snatched the food from the hands of a startled EuroAmerican, saying that "It's time to be hungry!" That little incident said a great deal, beyond being merely funny. There's a similarly interesting tale about mocking Christianity (as Hopi clowns are wont to do with their own beliefs as well) -- but you might not find it funny, so I won't bother. The issue there was striking back at power..."power" meaning the ability to get others to think and do what one, or a dominant culture, wishes. Music and humor and other tools are used by cultures to delegitimize  claims to power, and the targets might be scientists (plenty of geeky/nutty caricatures abound for that) or theistically-driven figures seeking to co-opt politics. See the George Bush regime for the results of that.

However, my point is simply that I don't know many scientists that are striving for political power -- but when I see it, I feel free to mock it. What I do see is a whole lot of religious folks using pseudoscience as a pretext for theistic political power (as in the Wedge Document), so they get the majority of my mockery, and I don't bullshit about being "innocent" when I use it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 14 2009,14:04

Quote (Richard Simons @ May 14 2009,13:05)
You get as many chromosomes from as many different organisms as you can manage, smodge them all together and see what it grows in to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




?
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 14 2009,14:14

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 14 2009,14:04)
Quote (Richard Simons @ May 14 2009,13:05)
You get as many chromosomes from as many different organisms as you can manage, smodge them all together and see what it grows in to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like I said in another thread, Loose has really put on weight.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,14:15

for the love of whatever floats your boat do you really think anyone is insulted by that steaming pile of homoeros?

i doubt wesley is.

if you'll notice, he just said paraphrased "drunkchz has nothing to say and says it in piss poor style" which we all agree is true particularly since he came over and proved it.

it's chuckie trying to deny that he is a repressed closet homo that is what is funny.  at least as far as i can see.  i laughed when i read the original posts too.  not because they were funny so much but because i realized that it was obvious that chunkdz is a lil bit gay and hates himself for it.  and that is funny.  gotta love those culture warrior autophobes.

joy acting like she just doesn't understand what the fuss is all about is almost as funny as chuckies unrequited yearnings for some hot beef injection.  almost.  but i dont' buy it.
Posted by: Joy on May 14 2009,16:08

deadman:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See the George Bush regime for the results of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I hear you there, deadman. From a pov more tied to this end of the life-curve than to the court jester's handy bauble, I do have to observe that when people are comfortably complacent - or unreasonably scared - things have to get really, really bad before they can be made better. Americans these days are both. The more religious they are, the more greedy and easily frightened that they'll lose their hoard of Caesar's coins. I think it qualifies as a mental illness.

I was sort of hoping last September's sudden panic over the nation's lax bookkeeping (brought on by scheduled IMF audit beginning September 30) would finally sink the system so deep we'd actually have a chance to re-make it into something that might last awhile. Instead, what we got was the "opportunity" to pay off gambler's crooked debts with our lives and livelihoods for the next hundred years just to keep the crap shoot going. I now accept that it's never going to change, we'll make ourselves extinct first.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, my point is simply that I don't know many scientists that are striving for political power -- but when I see it, I feel free to mock it. What I do see is a whole lot of religious folks using pseudoscience as a pretext for theistic political power (as in the Wedge Document), so they get the majority of my mockery, and I don't bullshit about being "innocent" when I use it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



chunk's not innocent, but I seriously doubt he ever believed he could convince anybody here that he is. It's just button-pushing, looks to me like his success rate is near 100%. As for the theocons, they lost. Their Beast and his pet antichrist plus all their demonic little henchmen have been unmasked. They will all, justice willing and the tide don't tarry, soon be living out their worthless lives in tiny prison cells or toasting their buns in hell with their old buddy Saddam for crimes against humanity.

Again, sometimes things have to literally peg the Evil-meter before people can be shaken awake. Many have indulged in the opium so liberally (haha) that they're still dreaming. Perhaps some cold water, vicious dogs, electric shocks and/or "stress positions" will bring 'em around. The lawsuits have been filed, the pictures of tortured-to-death POWs and child rapes will be released. I can't wait to see the Beast's chalky face on MtP trying to justify that once America has seen the results in living color on tee-vee.
Posted by: Joy on May 14 2009,17:46

deadman:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's a similarly interesting tale about mocking Christianity (as Hopi clowns are wont to do with their own beliefs as well) -- but you might not find it funny, so I won't bother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually (again, just so there's no confusion on the issue), I stopped calling myself "Christian" back when the bid for my generation's modicum of political power got started, and that was before every medium-sized town in America had its own megachurch in ugly acre-sized metal buildings. I am a mere follower of the man called Jesus. Funny is funny. I don't take myself too seriously, you probably shouldn't take me too seriously either.

One of the most prescient things Jesus had to say for posterity was about the "End Times" (notice the plural tense) - something that, history demonstrates rather well, comes about every few generations when the church(es) manage to destroy themselves with greed, lust for worldly power, and a strong penchant for Absolute Evil. At first it took a thousand years because church and state were one, complete with blanket license to kill the naysayers. It's been coming more often this last thousand years as church-state liaisons became less universal. Ours occurred just as our Principality (world hegemony) was busily being sold piecemeal to petty tyrants all over the world, but primarily in the Middle East.

Things get so bad that, "...were it possible, even the Elect would be fooled." Deal is, the term "Elect" in these passages (all referent to a single source or borrowed from each other so probably as accurate a communication as we'll ever get from the Son of Man) is more obscure than it appears.

The recurrent theme of Judgment throughout the Judaic traditions and histories as often refers to the people (the tribe) as to the nations. Jesus was a Jew, perhaps even the rightful King of Jews. This was his tradition and history, the prophesies he said he came to fulfill.

And because these traditions, histories and prophesies are all about multiple Judgments through millennia, the Bibolators' readings of a single "End Time" is, imo, erroneous. The "Elect" Jesus speaks of are not those pride-filled Pharisees in Armani suits (purple robes) who wield earthly power and hoard earthly riches, the ones who pray so loudly on our television screens and claim to *be* "Elect." Jesus said he does not know them - calls them hypocrites to their face.

In the end - and everyone has an end - it is "the least of these" who will gain peace. The poor, the humble, the powerless, the sorrowing, the prisoners whom Christians are commanded to love and compassionately tend. Even their enemies. It is impossible for these Elect to be fooled, since they know they're not worthy of mercy in the first place.

The message gets lost in a cyclical manner. Then Judgment comes. It has been thus from the early days of Mesopotamian Ur - from whence came Abraham - back when humans first built mighty city-states and civilizations of power. It has been thus ever since. Fear is the weapon of the Beast, its rising is the bell that rings...

Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hatred leads to suffering.


...Master Yoda

I am not afraid, for I am a professional fool - a clown from a long line of clowns, going so far back into the mists of prehistory that some say the Fool was created first when Man Maker the Magician decided one fine day to create human beings... §;o)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,18:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't wait to see the Beast's chalky face on MtP trying to justify that once America has seen the results in living color on tee-vee.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



wtf

you talkin' bout Dick Cheney?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 14 2009,18:45

I don't expect to be well-loved by IDC advocates. Especially in the ranks of the IDC advocate cheerleaders, there is a generic opprobrium for any effective opponent, as there tends to be generic approval for those who oppose them but tend toward behaviors that they find tactically useful for their own purposes. For instance, Michael Ruse tends to get accolades, particularly from the IDC cheerleaders.

For the opposite example, I helped organize the folks on the ground in Florida who helped bring about a shut-out of the Discovery Institute's machinations in 2008. That sort of thing doesn't buy me a lot of love from the IDC cheerleaders, as various of C.'s prior comments make clear.

If C. and other cheerleaders hope to dissuade me from effectiveness by withholding their approval, they are sadly mistaken. I consider the source.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 14 2009,19:16

As noted above, Bradford disappeared some of my comments. Now, nullasalus has sent a recent comment to the Memory Hole without explanation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: Or as I like to call it, the "All major sides in the ID debate are wrong" theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I made a qualified disagreement.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: That's not quite an accurate parallel. Many ID Advocates incorrectly claim scientific support for the claim of teleology. An ID Advocate claiming that evolutionary mechanisms (in this universe) are not capable of generating adaptive structures is not equivalent to someone pointing out the fallacy of that position. Indeed, most of the ID Movement concerns such false scientific claims.

However, I would agree that many flavors of metaphysics can be seen as more-or-less equivalent as long as they don't include false claims about science. (To clarify this point, the universe may be 6000 years old, but the claim that there is scientific evidence to support this position is false.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nullasalus summarized as follows.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: Short and highly skeptical summary: "Quantum woo."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: Not that there is anything wrong with woo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Woo meaning metaphysical viewpoint.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are not allowed to comment on this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,19:20

Quote (wes @ up'ar)
I don't expect to be well-loved by IDC advocates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



perhaps not.  but did you expect for them to have homosexual fantasies about you?

that is the crux of the matter.

well, not your expectation.

drunkchz homosexual fantasies about antiantievolutionists is the crux of the matter
Posted by: Joy on May 14 2009,19:40

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
drunkchz homosexual fantasies about antiantievolutionists is the crux of the matter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's YOUR issue, obviously. I asked yesterday if you guys have something against gays, just trying to parse the psychology here where homo jokes and innuendoes are endemic (I'm fairly used to the reverse psychology on the other 'side'). I got some blanket denials, were you in that company?

Deal is, I don't have anything against gays. Know many personally, am related to some. Hubby's even officiated at a gay wedding (cowboy theme, quite sweet even though comedically ripe). If it were true that chunk were harboring gay tendencies - closeted as they may be - would that really be the best avenue of ridicule to take with him? I mean, if you were inclined to see the apparent situation compassionately and all.

Just askin', because I don't see it as the "crux of the matter" in this thread.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,19:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deal is, I don't have anything against gays. Know many personally, am related to some. Hubby's even officiated at a gay wedding (cowboy theme, quite sweet even though comedically ripe).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



as much fun as it might be i'll decline the pissing match about who has more Inuit friends



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it were true that chunk were harboring gay tendencies - closeted as they may be - would that really be the best avenue of ridicule to take with him? I mean, if you were inclined to see the apparent situation compassionately and all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not at all inclined to see that apparent situation compassionately, that's all.

I reserve compassion for victims, not self-loathing rabid attack squirrels.

maybe when chunkdz works through his inner turmoil many other things will also rise to the surface.  one of those things being the root (heh heh) cause of his anti-evolutionism.  good luck to you working through your issues chunkdz.  perhaps you will gain a modicum of self-respect and decency, and then I personally will treat you at that level.

in the meantime, let's all point and laugh.  

ps joy i think blipey is a funnier clown.  you are a sad clown.  that's ok too.  i just don't like the It clown.



Posted by: ERV on May 14 2009,19:50

Quote (Joy @ May 14 2009,19:40)
Erasmus:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
drunkchz homosexual fantasies about antiantievolutionists is the crux of the matter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's YOUR issue, obviously. I asked yesterday if you guys have something against gays, just trying to parse the psychology here where homo jokes and innuendoes are endemic (I'm fairly used to the reverse psychology on the other 'side').
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibXpPbUJ0n8 >
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 14 2009,20:07

Quote (ERV @ May 14 2009,19:50)
Erasmus:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
drunkchz homosexual fantasies about antiantievolutionists is the crux of the matter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibXpPbUJ0n8 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HaHa, tihs is U
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,20:09

if only

and that was the Dawk

my god gotta go
Posted by: AmandaHuginKiss on May 14 2009,20:11

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 14 2009,23:54)
Chunk

Are you just over here to fling poo? Or do you want to discuss your alleged scientific perspective?

If the latter, here is a definition of front-loaded evolution from Telic Thoughts a while back.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Front-loading is the idea that the designer made the first organisms with the future in mind, and that the original design influenced the course of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I’ll assume that this is the working definition; if that assumption is incorrect, please advise and we can talk about the actual definition.

But if it is the definition, I’ve no idea how one could generate a testable hypothesis based on it. Do we have the “first organisms”? No, so how would we examine them? Do we have a clue about the “original design”? I’m pretty sure we don’t. Do we know who the designer is? No, so how would we ask him/her/it about motives? What is the nature of this alleged "influence" over the subsequent course of evolution, and how do we find evidence for it?

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’d really appreciate an answer to the question - How do you generate a testable hypothesis, and, more importantly, how do you proceed to do the testing, with this definition as the explanatory principle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Front-loading is such a broad statement. At one end it could be identical to TOE (ala Demski's latest with the Designer changing the environment to force the changes)   or at the other end a bug with a gigantic genome that contained all of the genes to create dinosaurs and roaches.
Although the latter would also require foreknowledge as it would need to synchronise the changes with the various climate and astronomical events (eg planning the flip over to mammals just when the big meteor hit 70 odd million years ago.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 14 2009,20:29

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 14 2009,20:09)
if only

and that was the Dawk

my god gotta go
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey, hey, HEY! I *might* have meant ERV, y'know -- Who... and I mean who among us... wouldn't appreciate a good ol' Amurrican ocular teabag, I asks.

Joy: In response to your general query about the use of various forms of humor here: I honestly don't know of a single AtBC-er that has ever evinced anti-gay/lesbian sentiments, ever. People here also seem to love lolcats.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 14 2009,20:45

Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ May 14 2009,20:11)
Front-loading is such a broad statement. At one end it could be identical to TOE (ala Demski's latest with the Designer changing the environment to force the changes)   or at the other end a bug with a gigantic genome that contained all of the genes to create dinosaurs and roaches.
Although the latter would also require foreknowledge as it would need to synchronise the changes with the various climate and astronomical events (eg planning the flip over to mammals just when the big meteor hit 70 odd million years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it seems as broad (and as untestable) as standard (no ideas about the designer, no sir!) ID.

Seems that chunk has disappeared, so I guess he was just here to fling poo. But I guess that even if he did stay to talk about front-loading, it would be indistinguishable from poo-flinging anyway.
Posted by: Joy on May 14 2009,20:48

Erasmus:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ps joy i think blipey is a funnier clown.  you are a sad clown.  that's ok too.  i just don't like the It clown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shakes is more my style...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,21:03

i thought y'all looked like this in mac-dowell county



Posted by: chunkdz on May 14 2009,21:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley R. Elsberry: "I don't expect to be well-loved by IDC advocates. Especially in the ranks of the IDC advocate cheerleaders, there is a generic opprobrium for any effective opponent, as there tends to be generic approval for those who oppose them but tend toward behaviors that they find tactically useful for their own purposes. For instance, Michael Ruse tends to get accolades, particularly from the IDC cheerleaders.

For the opposite example, I helped organize the folks on the ground in Florida who helped bring about a shut-out of the Discovery Institute's machinations in 2008. That sort of thing doesn't buy me a lot of love from the IDC cheerleaders, as various of C.'s prior comments make clear."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




The paranoid fantasies and self-congratulation continue. Like the T-Shirt says, Wesley, "You've mistaken me for someone who gives a damn".

You seem to think that I call you a hypocritical moron because I am somehow upset over your stunning "shut-out" victory over the Discovery Institute?

In truth I call you a hypocritical moron simply because YOU ARE ONE. You feign outrage over my "nastiness" even as you wallow in your own self-sponsored nastiness right here on your own website. It's your right to be as vulgar as you want to be, but it is blatantly hypocritical to be so selective with your outrage. You're just such a tunnel visioned culture warrior douchebag that you can't see it.

But it is hilarious, isn't it, the way you first alluded to me being a "religious antievolutionist" [I'm religious, but I'm not antievolution],

the way you imagine that your victories in the culture war have ignited my fury [I don't care about getting ID in schools, and I have no idea even what Florida event you are talking about]

the way you imagine that I am some kind of an "IDC advocate cheerleader" [I like exploring ID, I like reading and writing about the culture war, and I could not care less about advocating my views into public policy, and do not think that ID needs to be taught to schoolchildren]

It seems that anybody who might find fault with you and your dumbass lab-chimp rejects simply must be a Disgruntled Religious Antievolutionist who feels threatened by your incredible prowess as a Culture Warrior Extraordinaire. And like most paranoids, you are wrong.
(And apparently heady with delusions of grandeur over your victory over the evil forces of Discovery!)

Your moronic drooling horde of simian sycophants even tried to impugn Joy as religious, and antievolution. She is, of course, none of the things you dumbass culture warrior idiots expect your perceived enemies to be, so you become all the more idiotic and paranoid as you cast aspertions about, hoping that we will fit your bigotted stereotypes.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If C. and other cheerleaders hope to dissuade me from effectiveness by withholding their approval, they are sadly mistaken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's the bottom line, Wesley. I'm about as concerned about you and your culture war as I am about an invasion by little green men from space. It's fun to talk about you and your culture war buddies, it's fun to mock your transparent hypocrisy, it's funny to watch the New Atheists turning their attacks on you, and it's fun to goof on about your horde of shrimp-for-brains idiot minions, but the things that you expend your energy on in the culture war do not affect me one bit, despite your delusions of grandeur. Whatever you do that you consider "effective", it's all just a silly game to me. That sentiment applies to the DI too.

To me you are nothing but a Miniver Cheevy with bad facial hair, imagining yourself to be some brave romantic warrior in some all important fight for the future of mankind. In fact, you instead seem to be a sad little paranoid man in a tweed suit, throwing bigotted labels and stereotypes at everyone who makes you feel threatened, gutlessly hiding behind a thinly veiled hypocrisy. I think when they cut out your colon they took your balls and your funny-bone with it.

So have fun with your culture war, Wesley, and do try to find a sense of humor along the way. :)
Posted by: Joy on May 14 2009,21:39



More like this.

Give us Your Kids, we'll turn 'em into...



...this. Scary.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 14 2009,21:39

Honesty:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like the T-Shirt says, Wesley, "You've mistaken me for someone who gives a damn".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Followed by 322 words. Then:





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's the bottom line, Wesley. I'm about as concerned about you and your culture war as I am about an invasion by little green men from space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Followed by another 192 words. Wasn't someone moaning about hypocrisy before?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,21:44

rofl @ rich

hey drunkchz stick to the one hand read.  everything else you write is damn near incoherent.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,21:46

hah



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To me you are nothing but a Miniver Cheevy with bad facial hair, imagining yourself to be some brave romantic warrior in some all important fight for the future of mankind
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that's your fantasy buddy, roll with it.  you like fantasizing about wesley having fantasies.  

dude, THAT is gay
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,21:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm religious, but I'm not antievolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't care about getting ID in schools, and I have no idea even what Florida event you are talking about
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I like exploring ID, I like reading and writing about the culture war, and I could not care less about advocating my views into public policy, and do not think that ID needs to be taught to schoolchildren
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



shorter chucky d



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just troll the internet for man meat
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on May 14 2009,22:09

Which one of you is Chuckdz? Great parody, but you're over-cooking it now.
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 14 2009,22:28

Quote (chunkdz @ May 14 2009,21:33)
To me you are nothing but a Miniver Cheevy with bad facial hair, imagining yourself to be some brave romantic warrior in some all important fight for the future of mankind. In fact, you instead seem to be a sad little paranoid man in a tweed suit, throwing bigotted labels and stereotypes at everyone who makes you feel threatened, gutlessly hiding behind a thinly veiled hypocrisy. I think when they cut out your colon they took your balls and your funny-bone with it.

So have fun with your culture war, Wesley, and do try to find a sense of humor along the way. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude? You need a kleenex?  A cigarette? Both?
Posted by: k.e.. on May 14 2009,22:34

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2009,05:39)
Honesty:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like the T-Shirt says, Wesley, "You've mistaken me for someone who gives a damn".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Followed by 322 words. Then:



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's the bottom line, Wesley. I'm about as concerned about you and your culture war as I am about an invasion by little green men from space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Followed by another 192 words. Wasn't someone moaning about hypocrisy before?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah I only noticed those 2 lines as well.

I wouldn't give him the time of day if I owned a clock factory.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,22:34

Quote (carlsonjok @ May 14 2009,23:28)
Quote (chunkdz @ May 14 2009,21:33)
To me you are nothing but a Miniver Cheevy with bad facial hair, imagining yourself to be some brave romantic warrior in some all important fight for the future of mankind. In fact, you instead seem to be a sad little paranoid man in a tweed suit, throwing bigotted labels and stereotypes at everyone who makes you feel threatened, gutlessly hiding behind a thinly veiled hypocrisy. I think when they cut out your colon they took your balls and your funny-bone with it.

So have fun with your culture war, Wesley, and do try to find a sense of humor along the way. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude? You need a kleenex?  A cigarette? Both?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol i bet he is a wrestler
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 14 2009,22:34

Quote (chunkdz @ May 14 2009,21:33)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley R. Elsberry: "I don't expect to be well-loved by IDC advocates. Especially in the ranks of the IDC advocate cheerleaders, there is a generic opprobrium for any effective opponent, as there tends to be generic approval for those who oppose them but tend toward behaviors that they find tactically useful for their own purposes. For instance, Michael Ruse tends to get accolades, particularly from the IDC cheerleaders.

For the opposite example, I helped organize the folks on the ground in Florida who helped bring about a shut-out of the Discovery Institute's machinations in 2008. That sort of thing doesn't buy me a lot of love from the IDC cheerleaders, as various of C.'s prior comments make clear."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




The paranoid fantasies and self-congratulation continue. Like the T-Shirt says, Wesley, "You've mistaken me for someone who gives a damn".

You seem to think that I call you a hypocritical moron because I am somehow upset over your stunning "shut-out" victory over the Discovery Institute?

In truth I call you a hypocritical moron simply because YOU ARE ONE. You feign outrage over my "nastiness" even as you wallow in your own self-sponsored nastiness right here on your own website. It's your right to be as vulgar as you want to be, but it is blatantly hypocritical to be so selective with your outrage. You're just such a tunnel visioned culture warrior douchebag that you can't see it.

But it is hilarious, isn't it, the way you first alluded to me being a "religious antievolutionist" [I'm religious, but I'm not antievolution],

the way you imagine that your victories in the culture war have ignited my fury [Oh, noes, teh fury of chunkdz!!]  [I don't care about getting ID in schools, and I have no idea even what Florida event you are talking about]

the way you imagine that I am some kind of an "IDC advocate cheerleader" [I like exploring ID, I like reading and writing about the culture war, and I could not care less about advocating my views into public policy, and do not think that ID needs to be taught to schoolchildren]

It seems that anybody who might find fault with you and your dumbass lab-chimp rejects simply must be a Disgruntled Religious Antievolutionist who feels threatened by your incredible prowess as a Culture Warrior Extraordinaire. And like most paranoids, you are wrong.
(And apparently heady with delusions of grandeur over your victory over the evil forces of Discovery!)

Your moronic drooling horde of simian sycophants even tried to impugn Joy as religious, and antievolution. She is, of course, none of the things you dumbass culture warrior idiots expect your perceived enemies to be, so you become all the more idiotic and paranoid as you cast aspertions about, hoping that we will fit your bigotted stereotypes.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If C. and other cheerleaders hope to dissuade me from effectiveness by withholding their approval, they are sadly mistaken.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's the bottom line, Wesley. I'm about as concerned about you and your culture war as I am about an invasion by little green men from space. It's fun to talk about you and your culture war buddies, it's fun to mock your transparent hypocrisy, it's funny to watch the New Atheists turning their attacks on you, and it's fun to goof on about your horde of shrimp-for-brains idiot minions, but the things that you expend your energy on in the culture war do not affect me one bit, despite your delusions of grandeur.Whatever you do that you consider "effective", it's all just a silly game to me.  [except he's spewing all over himself now] That sentiment applies to the DI too.

To me you are nothing but a Miniver Cheevy with bad facial hair, imagining yourself to be some brave romantic warrior in some all important fight for the future of mankind. In fact, you instead seem to be a sad little paranoid man in a tweed suit, throwing bigotted labels and stereotypes at everyone who makes you feel threatened, gutlessly hiding behind a thinly veiled hypocrisy. I think when they cut out your colon they took your balls and your funny-bone with it.

So have fun with your culture war, Wesley, and do try to find a sense of humor along the way. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Errors and humorous stuff highlighted in red. This guy claimed he was a "writer?" Damn... he must mean like "writing letters to the local newsrag" in his haller.

He's not an "IDC advocate cheerleader culture warrior" except he is, and he doesn't *really* back ID, except he does, and he's not antievolution, except he is. What a wanker. Oh, and a demonstrable liar, as when he claimed I'd insulted "Joy."

Good job, there, chunkdz.
Posted by: k.e.. on May 14 2009,22:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Errors and humorous stuff highlighted in red. He's not a "culture warrior" except he is, and he doesn't back ID, except he does, and he's not antievolution, except he is. What a wanker. Oh, and a demonstrable liar, as when he claimed I'd insulted joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Can you imagine him getting away with that shit on UD or TT?

How very postmodern.

.....ahhhhh the beauty of Truth.

Recorded for posterity.

Thanks Wes.
Posted by: Lou FCD on May 14 2009,22:46

Is being off your meds a prerequisite for IDers?

It would explain a lot.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 14 2009,22:49

I wonder if he was mad at getting "outed?"

I blame 'ras.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,22:49

a writer huh

pffft

i bet he plays electric bass, shittily, in a bill gaither cover band

so i don't usually read telic tards.  but i went over just for gits and shiggles because we have been getting these nice visits from Joy and her pet squirrel.  and I found < this thread > discussing < this article > which i had actually read the other day.  

and i was amazed.  PZ and the squid whores had caused me to believe that Christianity Today was a braying den of stupid.  and they might be.  but good dog the comments at CT were much more interesting than the comments at TT.  including Heddle.

heddle, git outta thar son before those morons give you an apoplectic fit.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 14 2009,22:49

Quote (k.e.. @ May 14 2009,22:34)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2009,05:39)
Honesty:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like the T-Shirt says, Wesley, "You've mistaken me for someone who gives a damn".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Followed by 322 words. Then:



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's the bottom line, Wesley. I'm about as concerned about you and your culture war as I am about an invasion by little green men from space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Followed by another 192 words. Wasn't someone moaning about hypocrisy before?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah I only noticed those 2 lines as well.

I wouldn't give him the time of day if I owned a clock factory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He doesn't care for about 10 posts a day over at Telic Tards.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,22:52

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 14 2009,23:49)
I wonder if he was mad at getting "outed?"

I blame 'ras.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i think he probably gets "innied" instead

he definitely for the gayz

annyway blame tyler and ERV.  that is the wonderful duo that started all this.  and for that i thank them.  chucky don't run off now son we are just starting to have fun
Posted by: Badger3k on May 14 2009,22:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the way you imagine that your victories in the culture war have ignited my fury
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are we sure that he didn't mean "furry" - maybe in his next offering, Dawkins can be wearing a squirrel suit, and whoever the guy is can be dressed as a catgirl (are there even cat-boys?).  Just keeps getting better.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,23:11

Quote (Badger3k @ May 14 2009,23:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the way you imagine that your victories in the culture war have ignited my fury
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are we sure that he didn't mean "furry" - maybe in his next offering, Dawkins can be wearing a squirrel suit, and whoever the guy is can be dressed as a catgirl (are there even cat-boys?).  Just keeps getting better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


erm maybe he prefers badgers?

can't post that hilarious picture


< here > is a disturbing exchange about christian furries that is a must read.  i guess.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,23:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
i bet he plays electric bass, shittily, in a bill gaither cover band
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i changed my mind.  that's too old school.

drunkchz seems like a child of the eighties or sumtin

how about Stryper


Posted by: Badger3k on May 14 2009,23:31

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 14 2009,23:11)
Quote (Badger3k @ May 14 2009,23:56)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the way you imagine that your victories in the culture war have ignited my fury
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are we sure that he didn't mean "furry" - maybe in his next offering, Dawkins can be wearing a squirrel suit, and whoever the guy is can be dressed as a catgirl (are there even cat-boys?).  Just keeps getting better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


erm maybe he prefers badgers?

can't post that hilarious picture


< here > is a disturbing exchange about christian furries that is a must read.  i guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great!  Now I can't sleep for fear of getting...er....badgered!

Gotta post it < Badgers! >
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 14 2009,23:33

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 14 2009,23:20)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
i bet he plays electric bass, shittily, in a bill gaither cover band
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i changed my mind.  that's too old school.

drunkchz seems like a child of the eighties or sumtin

how about Stryper
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno. Chunk seems like a rasslin' type. Sweaty mens, hands sliding over tight singlets, ocular teabagging **.

That sort of thing.



**Sadly, I lost the .gif I used for GoP. I'll have to check my dvd's
Posted by: Badger3k on May 14 2009,23:41

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 14 2009,23:33)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 14 2009,23:20)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
i bet he plays electric bass, shittily, in a bill gaither cover band
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i changed my mind.  that's too old school.

drunkchz seems like a child of the eighties or sumtin

how about Stryper
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno. Chunk seems like a rasslin' type. Sweaty mens, hands sliding over tight singlets, ocular teabagging **.

That sort of thing.



**Sadly, I lost the .gif I used for GoP. I'll have to check my dvd's
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I keep meaning to put a link up for General JC Christian, Patriot (http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/) to get his opinion of the marvelous writin' skillz of Chunky, but this comment about wrestling brings this to mind:

< Trading Emails with Hi-Caliber >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks Mr. Caliber. We'd probably want to have a song about gladiators too, because I'm thinking I'd want to call it "God's Gladiators." Maybe it could be like a theme album about a Christian gladiator who loves the Lord and fights the urges to pat his robertson and engage in acts of sodomy with the same gusto he brings to battling Goths in the arena. I can even picture the cover. It'd be a statue in the ancient style of the Romans. You know, one of those naked warrior things. But it would be you, holding a sword and wearing a gladiator helmet and nothing else. And we'd cover you with flour to make you look like a statue. I'm not really into nakedness, but this would be like art. No skin would be shown because of the flour. We'd have to really work it in though, especially on your little gladiator. It'd have to look like marble.

I have the sword and gladiator helmet. I'm a collector. I bet I have the most extensive collection of gladiator movies anywhere. I like to put on my gladiator costumes and watch them. You should come sometime. We'd drink root beer, eat Frito pie and pork rinds, watch gladiator movies, and wrestle. That'd be fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just don't tell Cletus!
Posted by: Badger3k on May 14 2009,23:43

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 14 2009,23:33)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 14 2009,23:20)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
i bet he plays electric bass, shittily, in a bill gaither cover band
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i changed my mind.  that's too old school.

drunkchz seems like a child of the eighties or sumtin

how about Stryper
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno. Chunk seems like a rasslin' type. Sweaty mens, hands sliding over tight singlets, ocular teabagging **.

That sort of thing.



**Sadly, I lost the .gif I used for GoP. I'll have to check my dvd's
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about
Posted by: Joy on May 14 2009,23:43

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but i went over just for gits and shiggles because we have been getting these nice visits from Joy and her pet squirrel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks, 'ras. Somehow I just knew that would be your fall-back position. Why do you guys never surprise me?
Posted by: Badger3k on May 14 2009,23:45

Shoot - replied to the wrong one.  Loses a bit in the translation, but the original Santo (Samson) the "Silver-Mask Man" (as in MST3ks wonderful Samson vs the Vampire Women).
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 14 2009,23:52

Quote (Joy @ May 15 2009,00:43)
Erasmus:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but i went over just for gits and shiggles because we have been getting these nice visits from Joy and her pet squirrel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks, 'ras. Somehow I just knew that would be your fall-back position. Why do you guys never surprise me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what,  pray tell, is my fall back position?

that i find it a bit coincidental that your recent visits replete with aw shucks friendly banter happen to be simultaneous with the appearance of our repressed manlover chuck?

you have been stellar.  fantastic.  magnificent.  a diamond in the rough.  a princess in the pea patch.  

your buddy, not so much.  he knows good and damn well there are other forums for meeting men on the internet, but he knows Wes doesn't frequent those forums.  so you have what we had here this week.  

you don't seem to be interested in commenting on the tardery in that thread i linked to.  why not?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 15 2009,00:07

What does C. think he's doing? Maybe he's hoping that he'll get banned so he can pose as a martyr for the cause. Maybe he's hoping for some nixplanatory filter action so he can claim bad behavior on that score.

Nope.

I know just the link to send folks when they claim that only IDC advocates are victims of vitriol and only pro-science people are rhetorical bullies. Yeah, that's right, I have no desire to expunge the record of C.'s performance here, but rather look forward to making sure those who automatically extend the benefit of the doubt to IDC get a load of what that leads to. Back in the days of dial-up bulletin board systems, I had an extensive set of antievolution files from the Institute for Creation Research and various screeds by David Menton, figuring that some of the very best material for turning people pro-science was to get acquainted first-hand with exactly what the anti-science contingent was advocating. The same principle applies here.

Hysterical, overwrought, and clueless rants by the opposition... priceless.

Oh, and, like Lincoln, my physiognomy is worse without the facial hair, so good, bad, or otherwise, I'm likely to keep it. But I've never even owned a tweed suit, so I don't know where that came from. More fiction, I guess.



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

C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way. I don't have to fictionalize anything to be able to point that out.

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



Still oh-so-true. It's like C. doesn't want anyone to be in any doubt whatsoever that I was right then and continue to be right now. Way to go, C.

Push.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 15 2009,00:09

But...but, what about < Mil Mascaras? >

Edit: oh, hell...he was IN that film posted. *swoon*
Posted by: Joy on May 15 2009,00:13

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you don't seem to be interested in commenting on the tardery in that thread i linked to.  why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Didn't go there. "'tardery'" is SOP by the definition I've been given, I already know the scripts by heart. As I mentioned, it wasn't until they lost the last election that things got out of hand. They'll get over it in time (or not). Nothing new, only slightly dangerous given reality as-it-is.

I'm not here to bash TT or any participants therein (though they probably think I've done so). I'm here because I'm bored. With the lot of 'em, pro and con. Just trying for a psych profile on the last hold-outs, denizens of The [infamous] Swamp. To round out the research. That's all.

So far I sense a not-so-secret code I'm not privy to. It's a little difficult to separate the snark from the body blows sometimes. If you want to whine about being "misunderstood," a little bit of intentional consistency wouldn't hurt. Just an observation, of course.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 15 2009,00:16

Maybe C. picked up his spelling from < Roger DeHart >, antievolution advocate at the Burleson-Edison School District several years back, and featured in one of those flicks the Discovery Institute wanted done. There's a certain similarity there...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 15 2009,00:25

joy i don't wish to whine about being misunderstood.

i don't think anyone else does here either.

nonsequitor after another

as far as profiling goes, why don't you profile your roman friend for us?  that would be innerstin'.  

maybe keep you from being bored?
Posted by: k.e.. on May 15 2009,03:39

Lucius Cretious!


A Wrowman Pwrophile?

Here's one for you and it's not Biggus Dickus




Posted by: Louis on May 15 2009,03:50

Quote (Joy @ May 15 2009,05:43)
Erasmus:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but i went over just for gits and shiggles because we have been getting these nice visits from Joy and her pet squirrel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks, 'ras. Somehow I just knew that would be your fall-back position. Why do you guys never surprise me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A little fond of your over generalisations aren't you Joy?

Please stop.

Louis
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 15 2009,05:50

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 15 2009,00:07)
Oh, and, like Lincoln, my physiognomy is worse without the facial hair, so good, bad, or otherwise, I'm likely to keep it. But I've never even owned a tweed suit, so I don't know where that came from. More fiction, I guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you need to understand Wes, Chunky's next story featuring you starts out like this:



See? Tweed.  
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 15 2009,07:28

Quote (Louis @ May 15 2009,04:50)
Quote (Joy @ May 15 2009,05:43)
Erasmus:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but i went over just for gits and shiggles because we have been getting these nice visits from Joy and her pet squirrel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks, 'ras. Somehow I just knew that would be your fall-back position. Why do you guys never surprise me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A little fond of your over generalisations aren't you Joy?

Please stop.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


seriously

if that's all you've got to complain about perhaps you should go pinch tater bugs or summtin
Posted by: Louis on May 15 2009,07:47

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 15 2009,13:28)
Quote (Louis @ May 15 2009,04:50)
Quote (Joy @ May 15 2009,05:43)
Erasmus:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but i went over just for gits and shiggles because we have been getting these nice visits from Joy and her pet squirrel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks, 'ras. Somehow I just knew that would be your fall-back position. Why do you guys never surprise me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A little fond of your over generalisations aren't you Joy?

Please stop.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


seriously

if that's all you've got to complain about perhaps you should go pinch tater bugs or summtin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No complaint. No offence. Just observation and request.

I suppose I could ask her to stop lobbing straw versions of evolutionary biology about in pseudo-profound bafflegab filled posts, but then I'd have to start bothering with this thread beyond the odd post. And I don't want to. I am bored with trolls and denialists, why waste my time?

Louis
Posted by: k.e.. on May 15 2009,07:50

Frick ur paranoid he was talking to Joy.
Posted by: Louis on May 15 2009,08:22

Quote (k.e.. @ May 15 2009,13:50)
Frick ur paranoid he was talking to Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paranoid? He quoted me, ergo I thought he was talking to me.

It isn't that huge a leap to assume that someone is responding to the person they quote.

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 15 2009,08:27

Quote (Louis @ May 15 2009,09:22)
Quote (k.e.. @ May 15 2009,13:50)
Frick ur paranoid he was talking to Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paranoid? He quoted me, ergo I thought he was talking to me.

It isn't that huge a leap to assume that someone is responding to the person the quote.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


err Loose as a blueveined welshman turk brit I would think you would be just about as likely to go peench tater bugs as you would to um i don't know go to the dentist?

don't rurn a good point friend

if me calling chunkdz Joy's "pet attack squirrel" is all she has to complain about I suggest we find another topic of discussion.  I for one hoped that there would be more homoerotic narrative construction butt i suppose that is too much to ask from most of youns.

although Ima bit disappointed in Lou.  I know he can pull it off.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 15 2009,08:30

Concurrence is another reason for quotation.
Posted by: Louis on May 15 2009,08:49

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 15 2009,14:27)
Quote (Louis @ May 15 2009,09:22)
Quote (k.e.. @ May 15 2009,13:50)
Frick ur paranoid he was talking to Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paranoid? He quoted me, ergo I thought he was talking to me.

It isn't that huge a leap to assume that someone is responding to the person the quote.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


err Loose as a blueveined welshman turk brit I would think you would be just about as likely to go peench tater bugs as you would to um i don't know go to the dentist?

don't rurn a good point friend

if me calling chunkdz Joy's "pet attack squirrel" is all she has to complain about I suggest we find another topic of discussion.  I for one hoped that there would be more homoerotic narrative construction butt i suppose that is too much to ask from most of youns.

although Ima bit disappointed in Lou.  I know he can pull it off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well since I didn't, don't, and don't want to know what "peenching tater bugs" is I assumed you were chiding me for touching your new play toy. But meh, whatever. I can't be bothered with homoeroticism today, that's for tomorrow's rugby match. I'll let you make up your own jokes.

And despite Wes "Our Glorious Leader Who Can Never Be Wrong According To Chunk And Must Never Be Questioned Ever Ever Ever!" Elsberry's perfectly accurate refining of "reasons for quoting 101", I maintain, with no fear of valid contradiction, that (as noted above) if someone clicks the "quote" button on a post you've written the chances are that they are responding to you.

Mind you 'Ras, your comedy redneck terminology does occasionally cloud things. Bless your heart 'Ras, but English isn't always your first language. Unless you decide it is of course, I've noticed a rather large amount of clear prose come from your fingers once in a while. I reckon this hill billy impersonation of yours is just an act. I'm betting you've even read a book and have all your own teeth. You're fooling no one.

Louis
Posted by: k.e.. on May 15 2009,09:07

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 15 2009,16:27)
Quote (Louis @ May 15 2009,09:22)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ May 15 2009,13:50)
Frick ur paranoid he was talking to Joy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paranoid? He quoted me, ergo I thought he was talking to me.

It isn't that huge a leap to assume that someone is responding to the person the quote.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


err Loose as a blueveined welshman turk brit I would think you would be just about as likely to go peench tater bugs as you would to um i don't know go to the dentist?

don't rurn a good point friend

if me calling chunkdz Joy's "pet attack squirrel" is all she has to complain about I suggest we find another topic of discussion.  I for one hoped that there would be more homoerotic narrative construction butt i suppose that is too much to ask from most of youns.

although Ima bit disappointed in Lou.  I know he can pull it off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blueveined?

Varicose veins more like.

The closest he's been to a tater bug was when playing the masters at Squeezem & Teezems Secondary College for Gifted Choir Boys.

< Lous and the tater bug >
Posted by: k.e.. on May 15 2009,09:13

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 15 2009,16:30)
Concurrence is another reason for quotation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hrmmmm ........so is paranoia or living in a council flat.

But who am I to argue? After all you are our Evil Overlord™
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 15 2009,09:19

Quote (Louis @ May 15 2009,08:49)
And despite Wes "Our Glorious Leader Who Can Never Be Wrong According To Chunk And Must Never Be Questioned Ever Ever Ever!" Elsberry's perfectly accurate refining of "reasons for quoting 101", I maintain, with no fear of valid contradiction, that (as noted above) if someone clicks the "quote" button on a post you've written the chances are that they are responding to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do agree that more contextual breadcrumbs would be a good thing where there is ambiguity of reference.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 15 2009,09:25

clarity of prose is a luxury, enjoyed and intended only for the bourgeoise

round heah weuns chew with our mouths full
Posted by: Louis on May 15 2009,09:41

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 15 2009,15:19)
Quote (Louis @ May 15 2009,08:49)
And despite Wes "Our Glorious Leader Who Can Never Be Wrong According To Chunk And Must Never Be Questioned Ever Ever Ever!" Elsberry's perfectly accurate refining of "reasons for quoting 101", I maintain, with no fear of valid contradiction, that (as noted above) if someone clicks the "quote" button on a post you've written the chances are that they are responding to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do agree that more contextual breadcrumbs would be a good thing where there is ambiguity of reference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh look now this is just terrible. If we're all going to be reasonable and agree about trivia then Chunk/Chuck/NewTroll whatever its name is is just going to call us chimps etc.

What are we going to do? Won't someone think of the children?

Louis
Posted by: Louis on May 15 2009,09:43

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 15 2009,15:25)
clarity of prose is a luxury, enjoyed and intended only for the bourgeoise

round heah weuns chew with our mouths full
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah! Destroy the comprehensibility hegemony! Down with understanding and stuff. Let's copy Derrida and chums and strive to make communication as impenetrable as possible. But this time with even more hillbillies!

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 15 2009,10:14

i think that was what drunkchz was doing, only instead of hillbillyisming he is gay sexting.  cause none of all that other stuff makes sense except in light of that and whatnot
Posted by: k.e.. on May 15 2009,11:40

Yeah now you're moving onto bestiality


Posted by: Joy on May 15 2009,12:01

'Ras:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
round heah weuns chew with our mouths full
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yup. Discovered some time ago that if you chew with your mouth empty it leads to ground molars and TMJ. Funny how that works...

Off to a wedding on the Parkway, where it's about 50ş and most likely drizzle in a pea soup fog. This works out rather well, since I refuse to wear an actual dress (pants to a fancy sari instead, plain shirt, tartan poncho). Celtic knot thing, very ugly plaids - we who got ours by marriage to a Scotsman have better colors.

At least I won't have to put any big shot-stones (the Irish would rather drink instead, fine with me since it comes with trout and 'taters on the side) or have to deal with funny-legged guys in skirts or gawd-awful bagpipes I'd be sorely tempted to push off the cliff just because there's one handy...

See ya.
Posted by: chunkdz on May 15 2009,12:08

Hi Wesley,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does C. think he's doing? Maybe he's hoping that he'll get banned so he can pose as a martyr for the cause.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In order to be a martyr for a cause you have to be part of a cause. My only "cause" is to expose you as a dopey hypocrite. Your culture war is little more than an interesting joke to me. Fun to write about, but I won't be out gathering signatures for either you or the DI.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know just the link to send folks when they claim that only IDC advocates are victims of vitriol and only pro-science people are rhetorical bullies. Yeah, that's right, I have no desire to expunge the record of C.'s performance here, but rather look forward to making sure those who automatically extend the benefit of the doubt to IDC get a load of what that leads to. Back in the days of dial-up bulletin board systems, I had an extensive set of antievolution files from the Institute for Creation Research and various screeds by David Menton, figuring that some of the very best material for turning people pro-science was to get acquainted first-hand with exactly what the anti-science contingent was advocating. The same principle applies here.

Hysterical, overwrought, and clueless rants by the opposition... priceless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well now I know you are delusional, lol! Be my guest Wesley! Send out this weblink to all your Warrior Comrades, all your Warrior Enemies, and to those 10,000 clergy that you've coopted for your culture war too. That way everyone will see the kind of filth and vulgarity that you sponsor on your very own websites, they'll all be greeted with "tard" and "go fuck yourself" and all the other Hallmark Greetings that you pay good money to keep on the internet, and they will also witness first hand your utter and depraved hypocrisy.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe he's hoping for some nixplanatory filter action so he can claim bad behavior on that score.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heck no! By all means let my words stand right next to the vulgar filth that you publish. You see, Wes, you seem to think that I must be fighting for a "cause" or trying to "score" some points or something. Truth is I insult anybody I feel like insulting. On occasion I've ridiculed Dembski, mocked Mike Gene, sent Bradford to the memory hole, and I've even locked horns with my dearest Joy. I'm not out to be part of a team, I'm not your enemy, and I'm not part of your silly culture war. I do notice however that not one of the above mentioned ever told me to go fuck myself, or called me a 'tard', or made gay slurs ad nauseam. That brand of vitriol seems to be nearly exclusive to your team.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, and, like Lincoln, my physiognomy is worse without the facial hair, so good, bad, or otherwise, I'm likely to keep it. But I've never even owned a tweed suit, so I don't know where that came from. More fiction, I guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it's been a while since I read Edwin Robinson. Miniver wore khaki, not tweed. My bad.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe C. picked up his spelling from Roger DeHart, antievolution advocate at the Burleson-Edison School District several years back, and featured in one of those flicks the Discovery Institute wanted done. There's a certain similarity there...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well I did suggest that you look for your long lost sense of humor, and I do appreciate the effort here! There's hope for you yet! Maybe if you'd tried this in the first place rather than hypocritically claiming moral equanimity we could have had just had some laughs and been done with it. Keep working on those jokes and stop taking the culture war game so seriously.

(Oh, and I do apologize for the ad homs about facial hair and rectums and such. I regretfully do get carried away, sometimes. Please accept my sincere best wishes.)







:)
Posted by: Louis on May 15 2009,12:42

Shorter Chunkdz:

"Saying fuck and calling people tards is worse than lying, intellectual dishonesty and attempts to legislate unsupported minority religious bullshit as science."

Gotcha. Great. Buh bye now.

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 15 2009,12:50

It does seem to come down to chunkdz really wanting people to conduct themselves by his standards -- even if his standards allow for such fine things as outright lying.

Just so long as they don't use "fuck " and "tard" they can employ other insults:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz wrote:
"Truth is I insult anybody I feel like insulting... not one of the above mentioned ever told me to go fuck myself, or called me a 'tard', or made gay slurs ad nauseam"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Otherwise they're hypocrites. Wah.
Posted by: ERV on May 15 2009,12:51

Quote (chunkdz @ May 15 2009,12:08)
You see, Wes, you seem to think that I must be fighting for a "cause" or trying to "score" some points or something. Truth is I insult anybody I feel like insulting. On occasion I've ridiculed Dembski, mocked Mike Gene, sent Bradford to the memory hole, and I've even locked horns with my dearest Joy. I'm not out to be part of a team, I'm not your enemy, and I'm not part of your silly culture war.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Or youre just a /b/tard too stupid to survive on /b/, thus nest elsewhere.
Posted by: carlsonjok on May 15 2009,12:55

Quote (Louis @ May 15 2009,12:42)
Shorter Chunkdz:

"Saying fuck and calling people tards is worse than lying, intellectual dishonesty and attempts to legislate unsupported minority religious bullshit as science."

Gotcha. Great. Buh bye now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, he will be back. And then he'll tell us, at length, about the depth of his complete lack of interest in us and our little "culture war".

Chunky?  Blasé, Ur doin it rong!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 15 2009,12:57

SNIP lithpy protethtathionth...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...made gay slurs ad nauseam. That brand of vitriol seems to be nearly exclusive to your team...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.....SNIP lithypy protethtathionth....

NEARLY

lol

hey chucky won't you write uth thum more thtorieth?  pleeeeeeeeath?
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 15 2009,12:58

A young James Dean preparing to receive the ol' ocular teabag:

Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 15 2009,13:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Oh, and I do apologize for the ad homs about facial hair and rectums and such. I regretfully do get carried away, sometimes. Please accept my sincere best wishes.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




call me baby i still luv u
Posted by: Quack on May 16 2009,03:02

Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:26)
Hey, Wesley, when's the last time you took the time to point out the faults of your herd of  attack chimps? < Spetsnaz >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Had to fix it.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 16 2009,06:10



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

C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest and most irritating possible way. I don't have to fictionalize anything to be able to point that out.

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



Amended.

It's not too surprising that our C. confesses to indiscriminate trollery. That's a consequence of having nothing to say, but insisting on saying stuff anyway.

Push.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 16 2009,08:12

Shorter Wes:

"I've got chunkdz of guys like you in my stool."


Posted by: chunkdz on May 17 2009,14:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley :It's not too surprising that our C. confesses to indiscriminate trollery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not true. I came here specifically to talk to you, and specifically to correct your misconceptions, and to point out your hypocrisy. Nothing indiscriminate here.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's a consequence of having nothing to say, but insisting on saying stuff anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I did come here to say something specific. Particularly that you are a hypocrite. This is apparently still true since you now continue to ignore your own minions who REALLY have nothing to say (unless you consider gay slurs "something to say").

Such is the life of Culture Crusader. Here, I have something else to say. You won't speak out against the gay slurs and the vulgarity because you are too weak. You feel that you need to allow your attack chimps to be as brutally vulgar as they want to be so they will continue to follow you. Like a weak and permissive parent, you allow the children to do every vile and disgusting thing they want right in your own house because you are too afraid to administer any form of discipline.

Pity.

Sadly, you save your chastising exclusively for those who you deem to be your enemies in your Culture Crusade. Utter, transparent hypocrisy.

More's the pity.

But I do wish to reiterate my regret in my personal ad homs. You actually seem like a decent kind of fellow, and undeserving of attacks which go personal. I hope you accept my apologies. I actually believe that you would rather not be supporting the filth pervading your websites which only serves to dirty your reputation. My prayer is that you would find the fortitude to fight your crusade without the digusting vulgar cadre which have attached themselves to you. Fight your Culture War, but do it with honor. You do not need to endorse these kinds of disgusting tactics on websites that you are paying for and which could otherwise be used to further your cause. Were you to take a stand against the gay slurs and the filthy sexual attacks, if critics could visit your websites and not be attacked as "creo-tards" and greeted with "go fuck yourself" and so on ad nauseam - this could only serve to elevate your credibility.

In this, I wish you well. May you find the strength to someday fight your Culture Crusade admirably.
Posted by: Louis on May 17 2009,14:36

Chunk has missed the wisdom of < Motley Crue >.

Take their advice Chunk, you offer nothing.

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 17 2009,15:40

Chunkdz, short version:

"Wes, you are a hypocrite. You are weak. And I apologize for going personal."

That's dangerous recursion. Could open some sort of self-referential worm hole.
Posted by: Louis on May 17 2009,15:53

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 17 2009,21:40)
Chunkdz, short version:

"Wes, you are a hypocrite. You are weak. And I apologize for going personal."

That's dangerous recursion. Could open some sort of self-referential worm hole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worm hole? Strange, that's not the sort of hole that springs to my mind when the Chunks of this world are encountered...

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 17 2009,16:05

Quote (chunkdz @ May 17 2009,14:24)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wesley :It's not too surprising that our C. confesses to indiscriminate trollery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not true. I came here specifically to talk to you, and specifically to correct your misconceptions, and to point out your hypocrisy. Nothing indiscriminate here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. No misconceptions were made apparent.
2. Your entry here was due to you

(a) Posting a patently homoerotic "story" that
(b) Wes stated removed any pretense of "higher tone" at Telic Thoughts.
( c) You then came here and proceeded to attack everyone and anyone that disagreed with you...the only difference being that
(d) You seem to feel that using "fuck" and "tard" somehow "lowers" the kind of insults YOU admit to throwing around whenever you please, no matter how personal they get (as seen in this thread, from you).

In short, you're a hypocrite trying to play at morality cop.



Yeah...uh-huh.  

     
Quote (chunkdz @ May 17 2009,14:24)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's a consequence of having nothing to say, but insisting on saying stuff anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I did come here to say something specific. Particularly that you are a hypocrite. This is apparently still true since you now continue to ignore your own minions who REALLY have nothing to say (unless you consider gay slurs "something to say").
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, *I* did have something fun to say -- which is that I caught you at flat-outright lies, "Mr. Ethics 'n Morals"

     
Quote (chunkdz @ May 17 2009,14:24)
Such is the life of Culture Crusader. Here, I have something else to say. You won't speak out against the gay slurs and the vulgarity because you are too weak. You feel that you need to allow your attack chimps to be as brutally vulgar as they want to be so they will continue to follow you. Like a weak and permissive parent, you allow the children to do every vile and disgusting thing they want right in your own house because you are too afraid to administer any form of discipline.

Pity.

Sadly, you save your chastising exclusively for those who you deem to be your enemies in your Culture Crusade. Utter, transparent hypocrisy.

More's the pity.

But I do wish to reiterate my regret in my personal ad homs. You actually seem like a decent kind of fellow, and undeserving of attacks which go personal. I hope you accept my apologies. I actually believe that you would rather not be supporting the filth pervading your websites which only serves to dirty your reputation. My prayer is that you would find the fortitude to fight your crusade without the digusting vulgar cadre which have attached themselves to you. Fight your Culture War, but do it with honor. You do not need to endorse these kinds of disgusting tactics on websites that you are paying for and which could otherwise be used to further your cause. Were you to take a stand against the gay slurs and the filthy sexual attacks, if critics could visit your websites and not be attacked as "creo-tards" and greeted with "go fuck yourself" and so on ad nauseam - this could only serve to elevate your credibility.

In this, I wish you well. May you find the strength to someday fight your Culture Crusade admirably.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hah, what a garboon.

You simply reiterated the same "I don't like the way you let people insult -- you should make them insult like I insult." crap three times.

Go look in the mirror sometime and attack it like a squawking parakeet, you tard... (Oh, wait, I should use "feces eating monkey" because that's ever-so-much less offensive, by your lofty standards).

Have a nice day, egotistical, lying little control freak.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on May 17 2009,16:19

So I guess this means that chunk won't be giving us any telic hypothesis built around the TT definition of front-loading.

Sad


Posted by: Louis on May 17 2009,16:20

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 17 2009,22:05)
[SNIP]

(Oh, wait, I should use "feces-eating monkey" because that's ever so much less offensive, by your standards).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, so by Chunk's standards would "drool covered, mammering fuck puppet" be out of bounds too?

Gosh, it's all so confusing! Just what am I allowed to do when insulting people? If I say something that Chunk doesn't like he might say something nasty and then I'll be forced to...well...laugh at him. And that would be nasty too.

What to do, what to do? Please help me someone, without Chunk's guidance where does my moral compass point?

Louis

P.S. Too much sarcasm?
Posted by: Louis on May 17 2009,16:22

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 17 2009,22:19)
So I guess this means that chunk won't be giving us any telic hypothesis built around the TT definition of front-loading.

Sad

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sad? Probably.

Predictable? Absolutely.

As you always say, they never seem to want to talk about the science.* Strange really.

Louis

*Away from places where they can silence the unfortunate questions of course.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 17 2009,16:25

Quote (Louis @ May 17 2009,16:20)
Wait, so by Chunk's standards would "drool covered, mammering fuck puppet" be out of bounds too?...

Louis

P.S. Too much sarcasm?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I think ChunkyCheese needs more sarcasm sauce,  an ocular teabag or three, and a firm kick in the ass. A brain might help, but I don't know how to cure his willingness to lie.
Posted by: Louis on May 17 2009,16:45

Quote (deadman_932 @ May 17 2009,22:25)
Quote (Louis @ May 17 2009,16:20)
Wait, so by Chunk's standards would "drool covered, mammering fuck puppet" be out of bounds too?...

Louis

P.S. Too much sarcasm?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I think ChunkyCheese needs more sarcasm sauce,  an ocular teabag or three, and a firm kick in the ass. A brain might help, but I don't know how to cure his willingness to lie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dis be us upon appeerens of Chunk and subssi...subzij...suptzydgaree....ovvur trolls:



Louis

P.S. I has nau LOLed teh thread. I has win.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 17 2009,17:34

Quote (Louis @ May 17 2009,16:45)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 17 2009,22:25)
 
Quote (Louis @ May 17 2009,16:20)
Wait, so by Chunk's standards would "drool covered, mammering fuck puppet" be out of bounds too?...

Louis

P.S. Too much sarcasm?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I think ChunkyCheese needs more sarcasm sauce,  an ocular teabag or three, and a firm kick in the ass. A brain might help, but I don't know how to cure his willingness to lie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dis be us upon appeerens of Chunk and subssi...subzij...suptzydgaree....ovvur trolls:



Louis

P.S. I has nau LOLed teh thread. I has win.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<channeling Kairosfecus>
ONLOOKERS!! Take note that I am the handsome, more cultured one, with less fur, a better tan and actual dental work.

I have only prepared 8,733 words on this  matter, If I may be brief...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 17 2009,18:44

Making ironic charges of hypocrisy is meta-discussion, that is, still not an actual contribution. I see there's still no cognizance of the part about having to go with fiction rather than fact.



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

C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest and most irritating possible way. I don't have to fictionalize anything to be able to point that out.

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



Still ever so true.

Push.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 17 2009,21:46

lol chuck is still tore slap up about his dirty little secret getting out.  

Quote (drunkchz @ somewhere inside a glory hole)
Were you to take a stand against the gay slurs and the filthy sexual attacks,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



silly fool.  you started the gay stuff.  in fact, if you hadn't been fantasizing about nick matzke fantasizing about richard dawkins, your hypocrisy and latent homosexual tendencies would not have been dragged into the open for all the world to see.  

and who cares, right?  YOU.  the only reason pointing out your homosexual tendencies is funny is because YOU deny that your odes to man-love are meant to be erotic.

that makes you a liar too.

when are you going to write some more, is what i want to know.  i know 17 different drag queens who want to meet you, and at least three real butch looking guys who want to wrestle you, as long as you will whisper some junk about the water closet and silver haired daddy in their ears.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on May 18 2009,07:44

A couple more data points on chunkerz' denial of the obvious:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkerz at TT, November 24th, 2008 >

Hi all. I didn't really want to blog about ID. I just wanted a venue to publish my erotic Stargate fan-fiction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkerz at TT, August 23rd, 2007 >

Here are some sample questions for the extended interview [of Nick Matzke], chosen to stimulate / suppress the widest range of brain activity:
...9)Aren't you really leaving the NCSE because of your failed romance with Wesley Elseberry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that erotic stories and man-love fantasies are a long standing part of chunkerz' shtick.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 18 2009,08:18

Quote (Gunthernacus @ May 18 2009,07:44)
A couple more data points on chunkerz' denial of the obvious:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkerz at TT, November 24th, 2008 >

Hi all. I didn't really want to blog about ID. I just wanted a venue to publish my erotic Stargate fan-fiction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkerz at TT, August 23rd, 2007 >

Here are some sample questions for the extended interview [of Nick Matzke], chosen to stimulate / suppress the widest range of brain activity:
...9)Aren't you really leaving the NCSE because of your failed romance with Wesley Elseberry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that erotic stories and man-love fantasies are a long standing part of chunkerz' shtick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh. Dear.

Its hard to find that sort of projection outside of Fox News.
Posted by: J-Dog on May 18 2009,08:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 18 2009,08:18)
Quote (Gunthernacus @ May 18 2009,07:44)
A couple more data points on chunkerz' denial of the obvious:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkerz at TT, November 24th, 2008 >

Hi all. I didn't really want to blog about ID. I just wanted a venue to publish my erotic Stargate fan-fiction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkerz at TT, August 23rd, 2007 >

Here are some sample questions for the extended interview [of Nick Matzke], chosen to stimulate / suppress the widest range of brain activity:
...9)Aren't you really leaving the NCSE because of your failed romance with Wesley Elseberry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that erotic stories and man-love fantasies are a long standing part of chunkerz' shtick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh. Dear.

Its hard to find that sort of projection outside of Fox News.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe a poll to see what FAUX "personality" poster The Chuckster has up in his Mom's basement?

1.) Sean "Real Man" Hannity
2.) Glen "Yes I'm Totally Really This Crazy" Beck
3.) Bill "We'll Do It Live" O'Reilly
Posted by: ERV on May 18 2009,11:35

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 18 2009,08:18)
Quote (Gunthernacus @ May 18 2009,07:44)
A couple more data points on chunkerz' denial of the obvious:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkerz at TT, November 24th, 2008 >

Hi all. I didn't really want to blog about ID. I just wanted a venue to publish my erotic Stargate fan-fiction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkerz at TT, August 23rd, 2007 >

Here are some sample questions for the extended interview [of Nick Matzke], chosen to stimulate / suppress the widest range of brain activity:
...9)Aren't you really leaving the NCSE because of your failed romance with Wesley Elseberry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that erotic stories and man-love fantasies are a long standing part of chunkerz' shtick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh. Dear.

Its hard to find that sort of projection outside of Fox News.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What makes you think chunky doesnt work at FOX News?
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 18 2009,12:17

Quote (ERV @ May 18 2009,11:35)
What makes you think chunky doesnt work at FOX News?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or enjoy the occasional ocular teabag?


*cough* I'd wager Rich knows knows more than he lets on; his google-fu is fast as lightning. In fact it's a little bit frightening.
Posted by: Louis on May 18 2009,12:32

Waaaait a minute. Chunk analysis:

1) Whiny concern trollery style
2) Frequent exponent of hypocritical wank
3) Obvious and profound man-love and enjoyment of sweaty wrestler mens (and ocular teabagging...HT to Deadman for terminology)

Welcome back GoP, or at least welcome GoP-clone.

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 18 2009,13:05

really

i wonder if chunky isn't Banal Smith too.  or all of the trolls

hey drunkchz do you know VMartin?

what if you could convert Ace Frehley to Christ?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 19 2009,03:43

Somebody must have had a good or busy day at work Monday, or got the day off for working on the weekend.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 19 2009,10:08

BANNED by BRADFORD. Again.

I had to go back a month to find an open thread, < Open Thread: Pets >, that I haven't been banned from already. Open Thread: Jaguar BANNED. Open Thread: Pigs BANNED. Open Thread: Basket Kittens BANNED. (Due to the nature of the exchange, comments are found on two different threads.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: The question I asked several times was whether or not you can point to such a distinction. As you keep responding, but not answering, I took that as a tacit admission that you could not point to a such distinction. But you can correct that misimpression if you like.

< Bradford >: You made the false claim of attributing to me an admission I do not hold.

< Zachriel >: It was reasonable to assume you didn't have an answer, but I did invite you to correct the misimpression, and if you did, I would have been happy to correct my previous statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an interesting case, a < Catch-22 > bannination.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: You did not have a quote of me saying what you claimed because I do not hold that position. Learn from this. Bye.

< Zachriel >: Um, you apparently don't know what the word "tacit" means. You're asking me to point out something not actually expressed. < Catch-22 >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



tacit, implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually expressed.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 19 2009,11:16

Bradford wins another argument!

Bradford deleted my comment from the Open Thread. I understood the policy was to send unwanted comments to the Rabbit Hole.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Zach it is was reasonable to assume I didn't have an answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought so too.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Don't bother responding again or I'll ban you from every thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh my!
Posted by: keiths on May 19 2009,11:44

I think Bradford is feeling particularly grumpy today because he's getting his ass kicked on several threads simultaneously. You've got to wonder why that palooka keeps coming back for more punishment.  Is he a closet masochist?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 19 2009,11:56

Quote (keiths @ May 19 2009,11:44)
I think Bradford is feeling particularly grumpy today because he's getting his ass kicked on several threads simultaneously. You've got to wonder why that palooka keeps coming back for more punishment.  Is he a closet masochist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not just that, but he's been getting kicked about for about as long as I've been aware of TT really.

If it's not Zachriel destroying his "arguments" it's some other well informed level headed person. I've lost count of the number of threads where Zachriel appears to have had the last word and won the argument.

I'd be embarrassed to be a TT supporter. They are just a lower volume UD at this point, but with even less "science" content then UD if that's even possible.

Bradford:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no pessimism on my part only a humility, not shared by some critics, about our capacity to find ultimate answers based on empirical approaches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, go on then Bradford. Tell me a single thing about anything to do with ID or TT that's based on a empirical approach. Not an ultimate answer, not even close to an ultimate answer. Just any answer. At all.

Thought so...
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 19 2009,21:50

Quote (Zachriel @ May 19 2009,10:08)
BANNED by BRADFORD. Again.

I had to go back a month to find an open thread, < Open Thread: Pets >, that I haven't been banned from already. Open Thread: Jaguar BANNED. Open Thread: Pigs BANNED. Open Thread: Basket Kittens BANNED. (Due to the nature of the exchange, comments are found on two different threads.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: The question I asked several times was whether or not you can point to such a distinction. As you keep responding, but not answering, I took that as a tacit admission that you could not point to a such distinction. But you can correct that misimpression if you like.

< Bradford >: You made the false claim of attributing to me an admission I do not hold.

< Zachriel >: It was reasonable to assume you didn't have an answer, but I did invite you to correct the misimpression, and if you did, I would have been happy to correct my previous statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an interesting case, a < Catch-22 > bannination.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: You did not have a quote of me saying what you claimed because I do not hold that position. Learn from this. Bye.

< Zachriel >: Um, you apparently don't know what the word "tacit" means. You're asking me to point out something not actually expressed. < Catch-22 >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



tacit, implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually expressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You must be mistaken, Zach. Joy was assuring me this doesn't happen...

???
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 19 2009,22:18

and then everyone got drunk
Posted by: Joy on May 19 2009,23:01

Richardthughes:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You must be mistaken, Zach. Joy was assuring me this doesn't happen...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Guess Bradford changed the rules. Odd that you're surprised, while I am not. Those rules were mere "agreed-upons" in the first place. It's a private website, not the US government. So they can censor as they wish.

I've never been able to quite figure out why you guys think any ID sites have to tolerate your presence or play your games. Some have, others stopped tolerating sockpuppets years ago. Eventually the haves get to the intolerance point when the games have been played so many times they're boring to one and all. Not more or less boring than any 'amen' site on either side, so why bother?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 19 2009,23:27

Quote (Joy @ May 19 2009,23:01)
Richardthughes:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You must be mistaken, Zach. Joy was assuring me this doesn't happen...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Guess Bradford changed the rules. Odd that you're surprised, while I am not. Those rules were mere "agreed-upons" in the first place. It's a private website, not the US government. So they can censor as they wish.

I've never been able to quite figure out why you guys think any ID sites have to tolerate your presence or play your games. Some have, others stopped tolerating sockpuppets years ago. Eventually the haves get to the intolerance point when the games have been played so many times they're boring to one and all. Not more or less boring than any 'amen' site on either side, so why bother?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Zachriel's suck puppet, "Zachriel" is pure sophistry. Did those clever design detectives do an IP trace to find it was really Zachriel? And they were saying ID couldn't name the designer all this time!

See this we're doing, Joy? Dialogue. See what Zach can't do on TT? Dialogue.
Posted by: keiths on May 19 2009,23:57

Quote (Joy @ May 19 2009,21:01)
I've never been able to quite figure out why you guys think any ID sites have to tolerate your presence or play your games.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We don't.  They're free to ban us for any reason or for no reason at all, < and they do >.

We only complain about the bannings because they happen on blogs that are supposedly open to dissent. Also, threads become really boring when the moderation is heavy-handed.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Some have, others stopped tolerating sockpuppets years ago. Eventually the haves get to the intolerance point when the games have been played so many times they're boring to one and all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, what tends to happen is that the threads become really interesting when the moderation is light. Discussion is vigorous, and ID supporters start losing arguments right and left. When it gets bad enough the moderators will look for excuses to ban their critics.

They're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they ban intelligent critics, their readers wonder why they are unable to defend their ideas.  If they don't ban the critics, they get creamed again and again and their ideas look foolish.  Either of these outcomes defeats their goal of converting the lurkers.

UD's particular compromise seems to be to ban silently, whenever possible; to delete the offending comment, so that readers cannot judge for themselves whether the banning was warranted; and to always allow a few critics to hang around so as to maintain at least an appearance of openness.  It doesn't work very well, but it's the best they can do.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2009,00:02

Agree, Keiths. I think Chuckdz was looking for 'death by cop' when he came over here, but instead his claims addressed in a open an frank manner.
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 20 2009,04:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UD's particular compromise seems to be to ban silently, whenever possible; to delete the offending comment, so that readers cannot judge for themselves whether the banning was warranted; and to always allow a few critics to hang around so as to maintain at least an appearance of openness.  It doesn't work very well, but it's the best they can do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes. I wonder whether the most articulate critics are targeted for silent bannination, and the less incisive are allowed to continue to give a semblance of openness. I don't think my commenting at UD is effective, or my comments would be deleted, so I am staying in lurker mode unless something new emerges from the ID camp. I (sorry for boring repetition) still see nothing other than a decline into obscurity for the movement. Creationism may still remain a political force in the US, but they're not extending their influence.

ETA: Beelzebub seems to walk the fine line very ably, Keith. Reminds me of someone...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 20 2009,08:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 20 2009,01:02)
Agree, Keiths. I think Chuckdz was looking for 'death by cop' when he came over here, but instead his claims addressed in a open an frank manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


haha cough cough hack wheeeeeeeze ptooery

Um, I don't think that that was what he was looking for.

Now, it might have been "_ by cop" I wholeheartedly concur my good sir.  

Joy did it get cold over there?  I was going to ask you to check the bawaaaaaaaaaaahmeter
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 20 2009,08:39

Quote (keiths @ May 20 2009,00:57)
Quote (Joy @ May 19 2009,21:01)
I've never been able to quite figure out why you guys think any ID sites have to tolerate your presence or play your games.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We don't.  They're free to ban us for any reason or for no reason at all, < and they do >.

We only complain about the bannings because they happen on blogs that are supposedly open to dissent. Also, threads become really boring when the moderation is heavy-handed.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Some have, others stopped tolerating sockpuppets years ago. Eventually the haves get to the intolerance point when the games have been played so many times they're boring to one and all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, what tends to happen is that the threads become really interesting when the moderation is light. Discussion is vigorous, and ID supporters start losing arguments right and left. When it gets bad enough the moderators will look for excuses to ban their critics.

They're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they ban intelligent critics, their readers wonder why they are unable to defend their ideas.  If they don't ban the critics, they get creamed again and again and their ideas look foolish.  Either of these outcomes defeats their goal of converting the lurkers.

UD's particular compromise seems to be to ban silently, whenever possible; to delete the offending comment, so that readers cannot judge for themselves whether the banning was warranted; and to always allow a few critics to hang around so as to maintain at least an appearance of openness.  It doesn't work very well, but it's the best they can do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and the wonderful conclusion of that sequence of events, constraints and idiotic decision making is

SOCK PUPPET THEATER!!!!!!

and honestly who would have it any other way.  I wouldn't.  These morons can't get the power they crave, it appears, so I think we are safe to mock them mercilessly for their stubborn ignorance and craven morals


ETA  i suppose the sock bit goes mostly at UD.  I don't know what TT does except generate homoerotic christian fiction, and the occasional visit of the happy banjo picking clown gardner.
Posted by: deadman_932 on May 20 2009,09:28

Quote (Joy @ May 19 2009,23:01)
Richardthughes:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You must be mistaken, Zach. Joy was assuring me this doesn't happen...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Guess Bradford changed the rules. Odd that you're surprised, while I am not. Those rules were mere "agreed-upons" in the first place. It's a private website, not the US government. So they can censor as they wish.

I've never been able to quite figure out why you guys think any ID sites have to tolerate your presence or play your games. Some have, others stopped tolerating sockpuppets years ago. Eventually the haves get to the intolerance point when the games have been played so many times they're boring to one and all. Not more or less boring than any 'amen' site on either side, so why bother?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd suspect that what Zach wants (and me, and others) is a nice cozy place to discuss science without the (funny) dread of bannination for merely raising uncomfortable questions.

Where may I find such a place?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 20 2009,13:17

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 20 2009,04:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
UD's particular compromise seems to be to ban silently, whenever possible; to delete the offending comment, so that readers cannot judge for themselves whether the banning was warranted; and to always allow a few critics to hang around so as to maintain at least an appearance of openness.  It doesn't work very well, but it's the best they can do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes. I wonder whether the most articulate critics are targeted for silent bannination, and the less incisive are allowed to continue to give a semblance of openness. I don't think my commenting at UD is effective, or my comments would be deleted, so I am staying in lurker mode unless something new emerges from the ID camp. I (sorry for boring repetition) still see nothing other than a decline into obscurity for the movement. Creationism may still remain a political force in the US, but they're not extending their influence.

ETA: Beelzebub seems to walk the fine line very ably, Keith. Reminds me of someone...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't think Bill O'Reilly reads out the good critical emails, do you? He cherry picks bad ones he can address. Same on ID blogs.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 20 2009,21:28

I've been over there in a tasteful argyle posting with no difficulty. Everything gets through, no "in moderation" nonsense, no lost posts.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on May 21 2009,01:09

honestly i think i have too just to be fair.  it would have been a looooong time ago.  and not too many times.  

as UD, it's more fun to watch it from over here where the beer and pole dancers are.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 04 2009,18:39

In which Don Provan attempts to defend Richard Dawkins and makes an utter ass of himself :)





< http://telicthoughts.com/a-california-ruling/#comment-229226 >
Posted by: keiths on June 04 2009,18:46

Hi, chunk!  What a coincidence.  We were just < laughing at you >.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 04 2009,19:50

In which Zachriel accuses someone of being a political hack...by making up a lie about him!   :)


< http://telicthoughts.com/open-thread-tigris/#comment-232421 >
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 04 2009,21:43

In which upchunkiez < tries desperately to distract > from the fact that has nothing worth saying.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on June 04 2009,22:22

A disagreement about the interpretation of a quotemine of Dawkins and some hyperbole in a casual political discussion.  ID is going to become science any moment now.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 12 2009,16:13

In which Karl Popper kicks Don Provan's ass again.

< http://telicthoughts.com/a-california-ruling/#comment-229188 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 12 2009,16:17

Yay, Chuck is back. I've cleaned his litter box ready for him!   :)
Posted by: keiths on June 12 2009,17:34

Quote (chunkdz @ June 12 2009,14:13)
In which Karl Popper kicks Don Provan's ass again.

< http://telicthoughts.com/a-california-ruling/#comment-229188 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's interesting that Chunk feels compelled to prove himself to us.  He keeps posting links over here to what he imagines are his triumphs at TT. Why he is proud of the following is anyone's guess:

Don Provan wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, from the sceintific perspective, he's fine, since science always considers an explanation false until some evidence has been found to support it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chunk replied:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wrong again. Science considers explanations to be parsimoniously and tentatively accepted until falsified.

Scientism presumes that things which lack evidence are false or nonexistent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chunk,

First, you're using "parsimoniously" wrong.

Second, science does not "parsimoniously and tentatively accept" explanations until they are falsified.  If it did, then "500 years ago, the sentient lobster-like races of the Alpha Centauri system destroyed themselves in a nuclear holocaust" would be an accepted explanation for why SETI has not detected signals from that area.

Time to learn some philosophy of science, Chunkie.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 12 2009,19:17

Sorry Keiths, Chuckdz tinfoil hat picks up the signals from the sentient lobster-like races of the Alpha Centauri system, so there.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 12 2009,19:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science considers explanations to be parsimoniously and tentatively accepted until falsified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gravity is caused by gnomes.

I'll await my Nobel prize letter...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on June 12 2009,19:33

Chunky would like for this TT explanation of front-loading to be true.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Front-loading is the idea that the designer made the first organisms with the future in mind, and that the original design influenced the course of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But I'm unaware, as I said before, of any testable hypothesis that could arise from it.

Perhaps chunky, emboldened and fortified by his perceived vanquishing of Provan, can provide us with that testable hypothesis the next time he drops in.

Or not.

chirp chirp chirp
Posted by: Louis on June 12 2009,19:59

Oh good gravy are the merry trolls wending their oleaginous way back to us from the nether regions of the web?

What abject asshattery can we expect this time? Dare I even read? In my sleep deprived and brandy enhanced state would I simply become too angry and burst into a ball of bile and molten lava?

All these questions and more cannot be answered at your local branch of Badger-Sputumly-Daft-Ideas, or some other DI sponsored toilet.

Louis

P.S. Gravity is NOT caused by gnomes, it's pixies. Everyone knows that. Also, God is not the Great Front Loader, my Auntie Ethel is. She moves in mysterious ways and is particularly ineffable on Thursdays. I defy anyone to demonstrate differently.

P.P.S. Alpha Centuri has lizards not lobsters. Fool of a Hughes. Lobsters are Proxima Centuri and are a) blissfully unaware of us and b) uninterested even if they were aware. The lizards on the other hand rule the world hand in claw with the Illuminati.*

* One of my favourite (probably apocryphal) stories is that Jewish Defence League, IIRC, complained about David Icke's lunatic ideas about alien space lizards ruling the world, believing that "alien space lizards" was a code term for "Jews". When interviewed Mr Icke and his chums made it clear they meant no such thing and that the really did believe it was alien space lizards. The JDL left quietly, backing away and maintaining eye contact.
Posted by: Henry J on June 12 2009,21:50

Re "Gravity is caused by gnomes."

Nah; gravity happens because matter likes to socialize with other matter.

Re "But I'm unaware, as I said before, of any testable hypothesis that could arise from it."

Frequent overt exceptions to the nested hierarchy should be found in DNA if front loading happened.

Henry
Posted by: chunkdz on June 19 2009,10:03

In which Raevmo is jealous because an autistic scientist is more successful than him.



< http://telicthoughts.com/dr-temple-grandin-on-god/#comment-232441 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 19 2009,10:14

Allen's hat tip to induction was the only worthwhile point.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 19 2009,12:50

Quote (chunkdz @ June 04 2009,19:50)
In which Zachriel accuses someone of being a political hack...by making up a lie about him!   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, writing fiction is wrong? Or just wrong when someone besides C. does it?
Posted by: Dr.GH on June 19 2009,12:53

Quote (keiths @ June 12 2009,15:34)
"500 years ago, the sentient lobster-like races of the Alpha Centauri system destroyed themselves in a nuclear holocaust" would be an accepted explanation for why SETI has not detected signals from that area.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How did you find out? That was a secret!
Posted by: chunkdz on June 22 2009,12:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wes: "What, writing fiction is wrong? Or just wrong when someone besides C. does it?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly you can appreciate that there is a difference between the fiction of Jonathan Swift and the fiction of, say, Dan Rather? And of course, the fiction of an anonymous internet jackass should hardly merit attention.

But this brings a question to mind, Wes. You have taken time to address me, an anonymous internet jackass, on multiple occasions. Yet on a seemingly daily basis, some very prominent and respected scientists are trying very hard to marginalize the NCSE and theistic evolutionists such as yourself, even going so far as to publicly label Ken Miller a creationist.

While I represent virtually no threat at all, these critics are highly respected, influential, sell lots of books, and have the ear of the public. I understand that to confront them would be to risk being labeled a "creationist" in the press and the blogosphere by these heavy hitters in the science world - probably the worst thing that could happen to someone in your position. But I can't fathom why you would remain silent when there is a real threat out there that needs to be confronted.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 22 2009,13:04

Quote (chunkdz @ June 22 2009,12:46)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wes: "What, writing fiction is wrong? Or just wrong when someone besides C. does it?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly you can appreciate that there is a difference between the fiction of Jonathan Swift and the fiction of, say, Dan Rather? And of course, the fiction of an anonymous internet jackass should hardly merit attention.

But this brings a question to mind, Wes. You have taken time to address me, an anonymous internet jackass, on multiple occasions. Yet on a seemingly daily basis, some very prominent and respected scientists are trying very hard to marginalize the NCSE and theistic evolutionists such as yourself, even going so far as to publicly label Ken Miller a creationist.

While I represent virtually no threat at all, these critics are highly respected, influential, sell lots of books, and have the ear of the public. I understand that to confront them would be to risk being labeled a "creationist" in the press and the blogosphere by these heavy hitters in the science world - probably the worst thing that could happen to someone in your position. But I can't fathom why you would remain silent when there is a real threat out there that needs to be confronted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pssst...hey, chunkdz:

The real threat is stupid -- you're just a convenient example of it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 22 2009,13:07

Quote (chunkdz @ June 22 2009,13:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wes: "What, writing fiction is wrong? Or just wrong when someone besides C. does it?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly you can appreciate that there is a difference between the fiction of Jonathan Swift and the fiction of, say, Dan Rather? And of course, the fiction of an anonymous internet jackass should hardly merit attention.

But this brings a question to mind, Wes. You have taken time to address me, an anonymous internet jackass, on multiple occasions. Yet on a seemingly daily basis, some very prominent and respected scientists are trying very hard to marginalize the NCSE and theistic evolutionists such as yourself, even going so far as to publicly label Ken Miller a creationist.

While I represent virtually no threat at all, these critics are highly respected, influential, sell lots of books, and have the ear of the public. I understand that to confront them would be to risk being labeled a "creationist" in the press and the blogosphere by these heavy hitters in the science world - probably the worst thing that could happen to someone in your position. But I can't fathom why you would remain silent when there is a real threat out there that needs to be confronted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i doubt you are as anonymous as you think you are.  try publishing your "art" under your real name why don't you, Carlos?

or does "C" stand for "concern troll". as in the vapid appeal above?  I read that as a plea for Wesley to talk to you , say anything to you, even "get lost".  "Oh, if only I wasn't anonymous Wesley then would you then talk to ken miller for me?"

chunkdz is like the john kwok of militant homo message boards.


hey chunk I am sure that Fox News and your local church community have better things to worry about than whether or not you have come out of the closet.  you should just admit that you are gay, accept that wesley is not interested in your offering of man-love, and go find you a soulmate at an Exodus convention.  or stryper or bill gaither or whatever kinda praise music you are into these days since you don't rock as hard as you used to.  the bottom line is that you will be a much happier person when you are not living under this shadow of repression.  Hell, you might even change your mind opinion recorded message about biology and evolution!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 22 2009,14:44

Since I have long < self-identified as a creationist >, I'm not sure what damage having someone else call me that would do, nor why it should require me to do anything in particular.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 22 2009,15:31

requiring that ones fantasies comport with reality is kiiiiiiinky, chunkdz.  relax, don't try so hard.  if arden were here he'd run off to massachusetts with you.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 22 2009,15:48

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 22 2009,14:44)
Since I have long < self-identified as a creationist >, I'm not sure what damage having someone else call me that would do, nor why it should require me to do anything in particular.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please, don't spoil his stereotypes with your facts. Can I put scare-quotes on "facts"?
Posted by: keiths on June 22 2009,17:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How far can Joe G the Muslim Iraq veteran Marine Biologist fridge repairman go with his insults, ad hominems and brain vomit before the moderators wake up? Or is there a double standard here?

Comment by Raevmo — June 22, 2009 @ 9:32 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford, you didn't respond to my question why ID guy, aka Joe G and Joseph, can get away here with the most blatant insults and ad hom attacks, while ID critics that behave orders of magnitude less rude get banned without a warning.

Comment by Raevmo — June 22, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< link >, < link >
Posted by: chunkdz on June 22 2009,20:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wes: Since I have long self-identified as a creationist, I'm not sure what damage having someone else call me that would do, nor why it should require me to do anything in particular.

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


As it goes, on the personal level, I agree with you. I couldn't care less if Jerry or PZ called me a creationist either. But then, I am not a culture warrior and I'm not busy trying to convince theists to join my cause.

The point was that this faction of culture warriors is trying to marginalize your work at the NCSE and smear you professionally as a bunch of dishonest liars. I was just curious if your plan was to ignore these attacks or if you intend to confront them head on.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 22 2009,21:53

^ Concern troll is very concerned.

Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 22 2009,21:54

Chunkdz, after the "people would call Wes a creationist if..." epic fail, and after the "Wes tolerates vulgarity" ploy falls on its face (chunkdz is not a culture warrior - ROTFL), we get more reading incomprehension...

Quote (chunkdz @ June 22 2009,20:32)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wes: Since I have long self-identified as a creationist, I'm not sure what damage having someone else call me that would do, nor why it should require me to do anything in particular.

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


As it goes, on the personal level, I agree with you. I couldn't care less if Jerry or PZ called me a creationist either. But then, I am not a culture warrior and I'm not busy trying to convince theists to join my cause.

The point was that this faction of culture warriors is trying to marginalize your work at the NCSE and smear you professionally as a bunch of dishonest liars. I was just curious if your plan was to ignore these attacks or if you intend to confront them head on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How is the cabal going to marginalize half of the scientists?  

Why should the National Center of Science Education be concerned about something that would not affect the quality of science education?  It is one thing to state the empirical fact that there are very many religious scientists who think scientifically about evolution (the fundamentalists did not like that one bit and filed a lawsuit), and another to say that it has particular philosophical implications (caveat lector).
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 23 2009,07:02

About smearing... people should re-visit up-thread for C.'s last outing.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on June 23 2009,09:39

Its like some kind of bad Three Stooges routine, where chunkerz shows up and starts stepping on rakes.  Why does he keep coming back and slapping himself in the face with a long, hard....oh....nm.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,12:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should the National Center of Science Education be concerned about something that would not affect the quality of science education?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe this is precisely the point that Jerry Coyne made.

Whatever one thinks of Professor Coyne, he does have a valid point about the NCSE's hypocrisy.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,12:21

Oh look! It's nice Chuckdz, not sweary homo-erotica Chuckdz.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 23 2009,12:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 23 2009,13:21)
Oh look! It's nice Chuckdz, not sweary homo-erotica Chuckdz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's "Trying To Get In Your Pants by Being Mr Nice Guy In Public But Has Velvet Ankle-Cuffs and Furry Ball-Gag in Back of Van In Parking Garage Chuckdz" to you, mister.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,13:01

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,12:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should the National Center of Science Education be concerned about something that would not affect the quality of science education?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe this is precisely the point that Jerry Coyne made.

Whatever one thinks of Professor Coyne, he does have a valid point about the NCSE's hypocrisy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not really, no. And the only point you seem to have is what? Check under your beanie.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,13:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not really, no. And the only point you seem to have is what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes really, yes. It's clearly hypocritical to claim to be religion-neutral while actively recruiting the religious and offering them religious reading material and encouraging bible reading etc.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,13:35

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,13:21)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not really, no. And the only point you seem to have is what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes really, yes. It's clearly hypocritical to claim to be religion-neutral while actively recruiting the religious and offering them religious reading material and encouraging bible reading etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even if you recruit the non-religious as well?

Does he claim to be religion-neutral or religion-compatible?
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,13:43

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,13:21)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not really, no. And the only point you seem to have is what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes really, yes. It's clearly hypocritical to claim to be religion-neutral while actively recruiting the religious and offering them religious reading material and encouraging bible reading etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to fill that out with some specifics, Chunky...y'know, the kind of thing you always seem to lack.

(1) Demonstrate logically how it is hypocritical to say "the NCSE is itself non-religious but we actively reach out to both religious and agnostic/atheist individuals or groups to advance science education? "  Let's see your logical proof of this.

(2) Show (logically!) how it is hypocritical to say "we are not promoting religions, but since YOU may be a christian, here's something to consider":

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
' Contrary to what biblical literalists argue, the Bible was not intended by its authors to teach us about science' (direct quote from < "How Do I Read the Bible?" here >)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

Like I said, fill out your arguments with more than your usual hot air and handwaving.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 23 2009,13:47

We know that Chunky can't write anything over a paragraph without being drawn to his favourite subject....

Don't worry Chucky, nobody will judge* you here. Unlike your other hangouts where teh biblez seyz you are teh unnatural sinner.




*For your stupidity perhaps, but not your sexuality.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,13:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Even if you recruit the non-religious as well?

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


Religious or non-religious - neither should be a category for recruitment. That's Coyne's premise - leave religion out of it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does he claim to be religion-neutral or religion-compatible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The NCSE claims to have no position on religion. Yet they have a Faith Project, a clergy petition drive, biblical study materials, staff clergy, theological reading materials, and actively recruit people of faith.

Coyne is right - they are hypocrites.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,14:01

Let me see.. if you don't recruit the religious or the non-religious, who does that leave you with?

I has exposed your sly plan, Chuck.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,14:03

Quote (deadman_932 @ June 23 2009,13:43)
   
Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,13:21)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not really, no. And the only point you seem to have is what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes really, yes. It's clearly hypocritical to claim to be religion-neutral while actively recruiting the religious and offering them religious reading material and encouraging bible reading etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to fill that out with some specifics, Chunky...y'know, the kind of thing you always seem to lack.

(1) Demonstrate logically how it is hypocritical to say "the NCSE is itself non-religious but we actively reach out to both religious and agnostic/atheist individuals or groups to advance science education? "  Let's see your logical proof of this.

(2) Show (logically!) how it is hypocritical to say "we are not promoting religions, but since YOU may be a christian, here's something to consider":      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
' Contrary to what biblical literalists argue, the Bible was not intended by its authors to teach us about science' (direct quote from < "How Do I Read the Bible?" here >)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

Like I said, fill out your arguments with more than your usual hot air and handwaving.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahem. You seemed to have missed this, Chunkateabag.

Suppose I advocate (for) an ecological education entity that officially has no position on religion. It encourages believers and unbelievers alike to participate.

Suppose that organization nevertheless recognizes that the world has lots of religious people in it, and addresses how they might approach the ecological issues through their varied personal religious views...how am I a hypocrite?

I await your airtight logical demonstration.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 23 2009,14:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The NCSE claims to have no position on religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



claims right dahling?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet they have a Faith Project, a clergy petition drive, biblical study materials, staff clergy, theological reading materials, and actively recruit people of faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, those dirty people advertising to republicans AND democrats all the while claiming to be neutral.  I bet the NCSE doesn't 'reach out' to the atheists!  fuckers....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Coyne is right - they are hypocrites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



your heartfelt buttsong love poetry is a much higher quality,i think, than this whole angry repressed christian white guy who voted for bush twice desperate dramatic style of prose.
Posted by: k.e.. on June 23 2009,14:17

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 23 2009,22:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The NCSE claims to have no position on religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



claims right dahling?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet they have a Faith Project, a clergy petition drive, biblical study materials, staff clergy, theological reading materials, and actively recruit people of faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, those dirty people advertising to republicans AND democrats all the while claiming to be neutral.  I bet the NCSE doesn't 'reach out' to the atheists!  fuckers....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Coyne is right - they are hypocrites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



your heartfelt buttsong love poetry is a much higher quality,i think, than this whole angry repressed christian white guy who voted for bush twice desperate dramatic style of prose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At last!

One of the 29% backwash is here.

Hanging around sniffing teabags.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,14:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me see.. if you don't recruit the religious or the non-religious, who does that leave you with?

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


Umm, people who want to defend science.

You are making Coyne's point over and over. Religion should be left out of it.

Instead we find the NCSE actively targeting the religious.
Posted by: k.e.. on June 23 2009,14:21

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,22:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me see.. if you don't recruit the religious or the non-religious, who does that leave you with?

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


Umm, people who want to defend science.

You are making Coyne's point over and over. Religion should be left out of it.

Instead we find the NCSE actively targeting the religious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And your point?
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,14:24

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,14:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me see.. if you don't recruit the religious or the non-religious, who does that leave you with?

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


Umm, people who want to defend science.

You are making Coyne's point over and over. Religion should be left out of it.

Instead we find the NCSE actively targeting the religious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the non-religious! Heavens! they must all be atheists, too! Wait...they can't be X and ~X at the same time, can they? Damn fine logic there, chunk. On a par with the rest of your shit-for-brains gambits. Way to avoid my post above, too, Captain Courageous.
Posted by: Henry J on June 23 2009,14:24

I wonder if maybe the non-religious generally accept science and so nobody feels a need to "target" them for it?
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,14:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show (logically!) how it is hypocritical to say "we are not promoting religions, but since YOU may be a christian, here's something to consider":  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hypocritical to say "we have no position on religion, but we are going to actively recruit and reach out to Christian denominations, offer them theological reading materials, instruct them in biblical exegesis, and we are not going to offer any similar outreach services for atheists."
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,14:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And your point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That Jerry Coyne has a point, and Wesley apparently has no answer for it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,14:39

PREACH THE NOTROVSERY!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 23 2009,14:39

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,15:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show (logically!) how it is hypocritical to say "we are not promoting religions, but since YOU may be a christian, here's something to consider":  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hypocritical to say "we have no position on religion, but we are going to actively recruit and reach out to Christian denominations, offer them theological reading materials, instruct them in biblical exegesis, and we are not going to offer any similar outreach services for atheists."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well i will agree with you here just for shit's sake.  until NCSE has a Pastafari package for science education outreach then you are right they are being big hypocrite babies for not having an atheist outreach package.  

on THAT note you are correct.  and everything else you said is a piss-poor cover up for coming over and flirting with Wes.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 23 2009,14:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 23 2009,15:01)
Let me see.. if you don't recruit the religious or the non-religious, who does that leave you with?

I has exposed your sly plan, Chuck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


SILENCE THEM!!!!!!!1!!!!
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,14:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder if maybe the non-religious generally accept science and so nobody feels a need to "target" them for it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would require the NCSE to take a position on religion.

It's just as if they claimed to be race neutral, then specifically targeted a particular race for recruitment.

Hypocrisy.

Coyne is right. Is this why Wesley is silent?
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,14:42

Quote (Henry J @ June 23 2009,14:24)
I wonder if maybe the non-religious generally accept science and so nobody feels a need to "target" them for it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Complex cognition makes Chunkz green with envy.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,14:43

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,14:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder if maybe the non-religious generally accept science and so nobody feels a need to "target" them for it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would require the NCSE to take a position on religion.

It's just as if they claimed to be race neutral, then specifically targeted a particular race for recruitment.

Hypocrisy.

Coyne is right. Is this why Wesley is silent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False analogy. Teh fallacy. Address what I asked in my post(s) above.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,14:45

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,14:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show (logically!) how it is hypocritical to say "we are not promoting religions, but since YOU may be a christian, here's something to consider":  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hypocritical to say "we have no position on religion, but we are going to actively recruit and reach out to Christian denominations, offer them theological reading materials, instruct them in biblical exegesis, and we are not going to offer any similar outreach services for atheists."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Atheists aren't against the teaching of evolution. That's the focus of the NCSE.
Posted by: k.e.. on June 23 2009,14:59

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,22:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder if maybe the non-religious generally accept science and so nobody feels a need to "target" them for it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would require the NCSE to take a position on religion.

It's just as if they claimed to be race neutral, then specifically targeted a particular race for recruitment.

Hypocrisy.

Coyne is right. Is this why Wesley is silent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jerry Coyne is not you.

He is simply stating that religion is not their business and why should they be concerned with something that is tantamount to one's choice of tea

So again what is your point?

And before you reply, consider Jeremiah 2:9-13
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 23 2009,15:02

deadman said

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Suppose I advocate (for) an ecological education entity that officially has no position on religion. It encourages believers and unbelievers alike to participate.

Suppose that organization nevertheless recognizes that the world has lots of religious people in it, and addresses how they might approach the ecological issues through their varied personal religious views...how am I a hypocrite?

I await your airtight logical demonstration.

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



chunky....  air...tight...awaiting....demonstration....??...????
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 23 2009,15:09

< I > < think > < that > < I've > < been > < voluble >.

If C. wishes to argue with someone, he can do so directly. Since C. doesn't seem to know much about me, the notion that he has some great insight into what I must or must not do is risible.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,15:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheists aren't against the teaching of evolution. That's the focus of the NCSE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then you would think they would be trying to recruit the support of atheists everywhere. They don't. They target the religious, despite the fact that they claim to not have a position on religion.

Once again you support Coyne's argument.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,15:17

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,14:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder if maybe the non-religious generally accept science and so nobody feels a need to "target" them for it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would require the NCSE to take a position on religion.

It's just as if they claimed to be race neutral, then specifically targeted a particular race for recruitment.

Hypocrisy.

Coyne is right. Is this why Wesley is silent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a more accurate analogy, which you might strain your meager neurons and honesty to grasp:

(1) "The NSCE informs people on X, and has no position on race."  
(2) For those of you that are not racists and accept X, welcome.
(3) For those of you who are racists based on a flawed reading of some scriptural text and reject X, here's something you might want to consider: (insert "your scripture doesn't talk about X" here).

That might be a bit more of a valid analogy -- rather than the trifling false analogy you offered, Chucky.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,15:18

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,15:16)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheists aren't against the teaching of evolution. That's the focus of the NCSE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then you would think they would be trying to recruit the support of atheists everywhere. They don't. They target the religious, despite the fact that they claim to not have a position on religion.

Once again you support Coyne's argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Atheists (remember what the word means)  aren't running around rejecting the teaching of science and evolution based on their flawed religious views, Chucky.

See how this might bear on the issue of addressing those that DO reject evolution based on their skewed religious views?

Why not just admit that you're in fact a little culture warrior that has a love/hate crush?
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,15:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wes: "I think that I've been voluble."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, just not on the subject of the attacks from Coyne, Myers, Moran etc.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since C. doesn't seem to know much about me, the notion that he has some great insight into what I must or must not do is risible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chunkdz calls you hypocrite and you respond immediately. Jerry Coyne says you're a hypocrite and you remain mute. I'm not telling you what to do, Wes. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,15:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For those of you who are racists based on a flawed reading of some scriptural text and reject X, here's something you might want to consider:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That would require that the NCSE actually have a position on scriptural exegesis.

Nice try, deadman.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,15:32

"Jerry Coyne says you're a hypocrite" - substantiate or retract, please.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,15:35

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,15:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For those of you who are racists based on a flawed reading of some scriptural text and reject X, here's something you might want to consider:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That would require that the NCSE actually have a position on scriptural exegesis.

Nice try, deadman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So? Having a position on what the Bible says regarding "X" (science) doesn't require advocating the "truth" of what the Bible says in all things -- or advocating the Bible at all. Does it? I'd like to see a logical demonstration of that, too, since you've managed to avoid my other requests.

Do you actually use your brain or not?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,15:37

Get him with a tooth fairy or Easter-bunny example, Deadman.
Posted by: k.e.. on June 23 2009,15:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 23 2009,23:32)
"Jerry Coyne says you're a hypocrite" - substantiate or retract, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds of crickets chirping there I think RH.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,15:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 23 2009,15:37)
Get him with a tooth fairy or Easter-bunny example, Deadman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm afraid that might actually shoot right in one ear, through the vacuum, and right out.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,15:44

You have to admire the tenacity and zeal with which he's gyrating his dance of seduction, though. He *wants* it, baby.

ETA: I'm waiting for the g-string and pasties finale. Get back on that tabletop, Chucky.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,15:54

[homofiction]

Chuck slowly leaned forward. As the music began to take him, all of Bradford's lessons came flooding back.

'Imagine you have a piece of chalk in your ass and you're trying to draw an infinity sign on a chalkboard behind you'

Chuck's hips responded as the memories crystallized

[/homofiction]
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 23 2009,16:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since C. doesn't seem to know much about me, the notion that he has some great insight into what I must or must not do is risible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





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


glancing up from his computer screen, chuck realizes that he is excited that wes has noticed him.  his glands increase their manufacture of secretions in anticipation of a confrontation.  he notices, irritatingly, that his palms are sweaty again.  he thinks he smells his feet.  the realization that he might be on display now causes chuck to sit up more straightly and his eyes are alertly roving the room.  the noise of running footsteps far down the hall alert his attention to the shadow in the hall visible underneath the door...  

"This is a piss-poor time for that tosser Jehu to show up" thought Chuck.  "Wes is about to call and I am buck naked watching Glenn Beck.  Darn!  Of all the coincidences, surely this one means that Jesus wants me to be straight For Him.  Yet, PZ and Jerry Coyne and Wesley!!???!!  What should I do?

The knock at the door brought him back to his senses, at least the state which he believed that most people referenced when they said "senses".  chuck couldn't possibly know that this was in fact not true, he was not like most people, but he would not know this until after the viral outbreak had destroyed the planet and the hologram emerged from the body of a former lover.  But that is neither here nor there..... for someone stood in the hall, waiting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,16:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So? Having a position on what the Bible says regarding "X" (science) doesn't require advocating the "truth" of what the Bible says in all things -- or advocating the Bible at all. Does it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, deadman, to say that someone else's interpretation of the bible is "flawed", you would have to have a position on what you think is the "correct" interpretation of the bible.

Do you think it's the NCSE's job to interpret scripture?
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,16:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Jerry Coyne says you're a hypocrite" - substantiate or retract, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Wes wishes to now distance himself from the NCSE's hypocritical stance then I'll gladly retract.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,16:10

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,16:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Jerry Coyne says you're a hypocrite" - substantiate or retract, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Wes wishes to now distance himself from the NCSE's hypocritical stance then I'll gladly retract.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not what I asked. Substantiate or retract, please
Posted by: k.e.. on June 23 2009,16:11

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,00:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Jerry Coyne says you're a hypocrite" - substantiate or retract, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Wes wishes to now distance himself from the NCSE's hypocritical stance then I'll gladly retract.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You slobbering self righteous hopeless little cunt I hope you rot.

You are not worth spitting on.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,16:12

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,16:06)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So? Having a position on what the Bible says regarding "X" (science) doesn't require advocating the "truth" of what the Bible says in all things -- or advocating the Bible at all. Does it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, deadman, to say that someone else's interpretation of the bible is "flawed", you would have to have a position on what you think is the "correct" interpretation of the bible.

Do you think it's the NCSE's job to interpret scripture?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Saying "no, the Bible has nothing to say about the differential success of alleles" is simply fact -- Just as it is fact to say that Jesus never "directly" said anything about homosexuality in the Bible, though some would claim otherwise. Does pointing out any of this equate to advocacy of that religion? Necessitate it?

If you believe so, then you'll have to do better in demonstrating it, or go back to your safe little site where moderators ("Big Daddy Bradford") can protect you. You're not doing too well so far, sweetcheeks. Now get back on that table and dance.

ETA: And hike up those panties, plz.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,16:17

< Chucky, it all Jives. >
Posted by: JLT on June 23 2009,16:40

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 23 2009,22:03)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since C. doesn't seem to know much about me, the notion that he has some great insight into what I must or must not do is risible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

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


glancing up from his computer screen, chuck realizes that he is excited that wes has noticed him.  his glands increase their manufacture of secretions in anticipation of a confrontation.  he notices, irritatingly, that his palms are sweaty again.  he thinks he smells his feet.  the realization that he might be on display now causes chuck to sit up more straightly and his eyes are alertly roving the room.  the noise of running footsteps far down the hall alert his attention to the shadow in the hall visible underneath the door...  

"This is a piss-poor time for that tosser Jehu to show up" thought Chuck.  "Wes is about to call and I am buck naked watching Glenn Beck.  Darn!  Of all the coincidences, surely this one means that Jesus wants me to be straight For Him.  Yet, PZ and Jerry Coyne and Wesley!!???!!  What should I do?

The knock at the door brought him back to his senses, at least the state which he believed that most people referenced when they said "senses".  chuck couldn't possibly know that this was in fact not true, he was not like most people, but he would not know this until after the viral outbreak had destroyed the planet and the hologram emerged from the body of a former lover.  But that is neither here nor there..... for someone stood in the hall, waiting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


C. cleared his throat in order not to sound too eager.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,16:42

Chuckles is still on the board:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
43 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes
31 guests, 10 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>deadman_932 >chunkdz >JLT >GCT >Richardthughes >Tracy P. Hamilton >Hermagoras >Erasmus, FCD >Occam's Aftershave >khan  


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


I can smell those poor lonely neurons smokin', Chuckles
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 23 2009,16:45

Quote (deadman_932 @ June 23 2009,17:42)
Chuckles is still on the board:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
43 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes
31 guests, 10 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>deadman_932 >chunkdz >JLT >GCT >Richardthughes >Tracy P. Hamilton >Hermagoras >Erasmus, FCD >Occam's Aftershave >khan  


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


I can smell those poor lonely neurons smokin', Chuckles
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perhaps he is self-flagellating.  gideon or opus dei, chucky?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,16:47

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 23 2009,16:45)
perhaps he is self-flagellating.  gideon or opus dei, chucky?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Both - Opus Gei
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,16:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Saying "no, the Bible has nothing to say about the differential success of alleles" is simply fact
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!

Well, for all you theists desperately searching for the word "allele" in your Strong's Concordance, we at the NCSE advise you to instead enjoy the theological meanderings of Phina Borgeson, our resident priest.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jürgen Moltmann stresses God’s suffering with God’s people, drawing on the Hebrew concept of shekinah and the kabbalistic concept of zimzum along with the Christian understanding of the kenosis (self-emptying) of God (Moltmann 2001). WH Vanstone pointed out in prose and hymn that the image of God as a creator, omnipotently, serenely, and detachedly presiding, then occasionally condescending to manipulate things to his will, is totally incongruent with what Christians know in the divine self-emptying of Christ (Vanstone 1977).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But of course, the NCSE has "no position" on faith. We just want to teach everybody else how to correctly interpret Judeo-Christian scripture!
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 23 2009,16:47

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,16:09)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Jerry Coyne says you're a hypocrite" - substantiate or retract, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Wes wishes to now distance himself from the NCSE's hypocritical stance then I'll gladly retract.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, a double hypocrite accusation! So ineffective when not backed up with any argument or evidence.  When all is said and done, we will have another example of moral weakness on chunkdz's part - accusations without basis.

Careful with the plank in that eye - makes it seem like motes are everywhere!
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,16:48

I think he found your stories too fwappingly tempting.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,16:49

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,16:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Saying "no, the Bible has nothing to say about the differential success of alleles" is simply fact
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!

Well, for all you theists desperately searching for the word "allele" in your Strong's Concordance, we at the NCSE advise you to instead enjoy the theological meanderings of Phina Borgeson, our resident priest.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jürgen Moltmann stresses God’s suffering with God’s people, drawing on the Hebrew concept of shekinah and the kabbalistic concept of zimzum along with the Christian understanding of the kenosis (self-emptying) of God (Moltmann 2001). WH Vanstone pointed out in prose and hymn that the image of God as a creator, omnipotently, serenely, and detachedly presiding, then occasionally condescending to manipulate things to his will, is totally incongruent with what Christians know in the divine self-emptying of Christ (Vanstone 1977).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But of course, the NCSE has "no position" on faith. We just want to teach everybody else how to correctly interpret Judeo-Christian scripture!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you jumped the shark there, Chuckles. The issue is whether the NCSE's pointing out anything regarding varied opinions on the Bible equate to hypocritically promoting/advocating the Bible.

Here, let me help you: Suppose the U.S. had a bunch of ...oh, say Hindus propagandizing against the teaching of evolution. Would pointing out that the Gitas say nothing about it (evolution proper)  necessitate advocacy of the Gitas and Hinduism?

Think hard. I know you can do it.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 23 2009,16:50

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,16:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Saying "no, the Bible has nothing to say about the differential success of alleles" is simply fact
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!

Well, for all you theists desperately searching for the word "allele" in your Strong's Concordance, we at the NCSE advise you to instead enjoy the theological meanderings of Phina Borgeson, our resident priest.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jürgen Moltmann stresses God’s suffering with God’s people, drawing on the Hebrew concept of shekinah and the kabbalistic concept of zimzum along with the Christian understanding of the kenosis (self-emptying) of God (Moltmann 2001). WH Vanstone pointed out in prose and hymn that the image of God as a creator, omnipotently, serenely, and detachedly presiding, then occasionally condescending to manipulate things to his will, is totally incongruent with what Christians know in the divine self-emptying of Christ (Vanstone 1977).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But of course, the NCSE has "no position" on faith. We just want to teach everybody else how to correctly interpret Judeo-Christian scripture!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That passage is descriptive, not proscriptive.  

Keep flailing, chunkdz!
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,16:53

Sorry monkeys, gotta go. Eat some fiber tonight and in the morning your poo will be even easier to launch!

And somebody wipe the drool off of deadman's chin.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,16:55

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,16:53)
Sorry monkeys, gotta go. Eat some fiber tonight and in the morning your poo will be even easier to launch!

And somebody wipe the drool off of deadman's chin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you taking your ball with you?
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,17:03

Fail and bail.

I like that touch of "UR monkeys!" when people respond to the insults that he comes here to fling.

Another fail.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 23 2009,17:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That passage is descriptive, not proscriptive.  

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


Are you kidding me? Read the whole piece - she's refuting ID via metaphysical arguments.

Do you think that the NCSE should be interpreting scripture, or making metaphysical arguments about why a loving God would allow suffering?


We can talk more tomorrow.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 23 2009,17:08

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,17:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That passage is descriptive, not proscriptive.  

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


Are you kidding me? Read the whole piece - she's refuting ID via metaphysical arguments.

Do you think that the NCSE should be interpreting scripture, or making metaphysical arguments about why a loving God would allow suffering?


We can talk more tomorrow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eh.. But Chuck...didn't you get the memo? ID isn't about religion...
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 23 2009,17:28

I haven't read much of the Telic Tard stuff...does this sort of thing pass as sound thinking there? This isn't even up to AFDave standards.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 23 2009,19:33

Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,17:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That passage is descriptive, not proscriptive.  

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


Are you kidding me? Read the whole piece - she's refuting ID via metaphysical arguments.

Do you think that the NCSE should be interpreting scripture, or making metaphysical arguments about why a loving God would allow suffering?


We can talk more tomorrow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The purpose of the article, as stated by the author:

"NCSE members are well informed on the scientific objections to "intelligent design". Many may not be aware that a number of scholars and religious leaders have raised theological objections, too. Here is a brief review of some of those points. I offer it in the hope that it will be helpful especially to our supporters and activists who are people of faith, and to other grassroots organizers who have asked for approaches that can counter "intelligent design" theologically."

This is not the language one uses for saying you must read the Bible this way or that.  It would be strange for an organization that does not claim you even need to read the Bible at all, and a substantial percentage of the membership I expect are atheists.

More fail, please!  I am sure you will oblige...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 23 2009,19:34

Quote (deadman_932 @ June 23 2009,18:28)
I haven't read much of the Telic Tard stuff...does this sort of thing pass as sound thinking there? This isn't even up to AFDave standards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah.  chuck thinks if he can give this shpiel while sashaying around in a feather boa and some toe separators that somehow this will lend legitimacy to the stupid drivel coming out of his mouth.  

chucky the ONLY thing you are good for is writing second rate science fiction gay porn for promise keeper gospel rockers.  don't stray from the medium son.
Posted by: JohnW on June 24 2009,11:32

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 23 2009,17:34)
yeah.  chuck thinks if he can give this shpiel while sashaying around in a feather boa and some toe separators that somehow this will lend legitimacy to the stupid drivel coming out of his mouth get him Wesley's phone number.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That needed fixing, Erasmus.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,13:09

Good morning, monkeys.

Tracy wrote:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The purpose of the article, as stated by the author:

"NCSE members are well informed on the scientific objections to "intelligent design". Many may not be aware that a number of scholars and religious leaders have raised theological objections, too. Here is a brief review of some of those points. I offer it in the hope that it will be helpful especially to our supporters and activists who are people of faith, and to other grassroots organizers who have asked for approaches that can counter "intelligent design" theologically."

This is not the language one uses for saying you must read the Bible this way or that.  It would be strange for an organization that does not claim you even need to read the Bible at all, and a substantial percentage of the membership I expect are atheists.

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


Actually, it's exactly what would be expected. Good Lord, it's a talking points memo for "supporters, activists and grassroots organizers"!

Let's parse a couple of key paragraphs. Be aware that this is not an objective overview of various theological arguments. No, this is the opinion of Rev. Phina Borgeson, the NCSE's Priest, speaking on behalf of the NCSE.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The little we know about God from "intelligent design" is not congruent with an understanding of God that takes Hebrew and Christian scriptures seriously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those ID'ers don't understand God, but we at the NCSE do understand God. This is because the NCSE takes the Hebrew and Christian scriptures seriously - more seriously than Bill Dembski who doesn't take the scriptures as seriously as we do.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When we read the pivotal texts and explore the key themes of scripture — in fact, even when we read Genesis 1–3 — looking for metaphor and deep meaning, not empirical science, we find little or no emphasis on a God who is designer and artificer. Instead, when we read the scriptures as a whole, we find a God who is first and foremost relational, that is, a loving God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some ID'ers think that Genesis 1 and 2 talk about how God designed life and stuff, but they are wrong. God didn't design life, he LOVED it into existence. We know this because we take the scriptures very seriously, whereas ID'ers don't.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Christian scripture, the central way in which God is related to his creation is, of course, through Christ's redemption of the suffering of the world. Out of this emerges a theodicy that embraces as the price of the freedom God has bestowed on creation what we often read as the cruelty and caprice of nature. A designer God, though, must also be the designer of pain and death. In theological terms, "intelligent design" offers no articulation of how salvation is accomplished and constructs a God that is hard to square with the God who is steadfast love and suffering servant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here at the NCSE we know that a loving God would never have made suffering or pain or death. The next time some ID'er tells you that God designed life, just ask him why God would would make things die, because here at the NCSE we know that God would never make something that would die or suffer. How do we know this? Well it's because we take the Christian and Hebrew scriptures seriously whereas ID'ers do not take them as seriously as we do. This allows the NCSE to "understand" the scriptures whereas those ID'ers who do not take the scriptures seriously are not able to "understand" them.


Jerry Coyne was right. The NCSE pretends to be neutral on religion even as it presents it's version of biblical understanding and urges it's "activists" to use the NCSE's metaphysical stance as a tool for recruitment.

Not only are they pushing theology, but it's really dumb theology to boot. Really? Genesis 1 through 3 has little or no emphasis on a God who is an artificer or designer? LOL!

The agenda is so transparent it's laughable. Prof. Coyne has exposed you all for the ridiculous hypocrites you are.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 24 2009,13:12

Being 'neutral on religion' (being neither pro-religion nor anti-religion) is quite a different issue from what you're prattling on about.
Posted by: Louis on June 24 2009,15:19

Not all of "us" (a pretty diverse and undefined set) disagree with every aspect of Prof Coyne's comments about the NCSE's "religious neutrality".

Doesn't mean we agree with you though Chunky.

Louis

Edited once to add the italicised bits.
Posted by: k.e.. on June 24 2009,16:29

Quote (JohnW @ June 24 2009,19:32)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 23 2009,17:34)
yeah.  chuck thinks if he can give this shpiel while sashaying around in a feather boa and some toe separators that somehow this will lend legitimacy to the stupid drivel coming out of his mouth get him Wesley's phone number.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That needed fixing, Erasmus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you still here? you useless little cunt.

Go and get me a beer and take that fucken lipstick off.

And while your are my Bar Bitch you ate crow last time you were here.

So get your ass into gear NOW shit sack.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 24 2009,17:20

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,13:09)


Tracy wrote:


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The purpose of the article, as stated by the author:

"NCSE members are well informed on the scientific objections to "intelligent design". Many may not be aware that a number of scholars and religious leaders have raised theological objections, too. Here is a brief review of some of those points. I offer it in the hope that it will be helpful especially to our supporters and activists who are people of faith, and to other grassroots organizers who have asked for approaches that can counter "intelligent design" theologically."

This is not the language one uses for saying you must read the Bible this way or that.  It would be strange for an organization that does not claim you even need to read the Bible at all, and a substantial percentage of the membership I expect are atheists.

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



Actually, it's exactly what would be expected. Good Lord, it's a talking points memo for "supporters, activists and grassroots organizers"!

Let's parse a couple of key paragraphs. Be aware that this is not an objective overview of various theological arguments. No, this is the opinion of Rev. Phina Borgeson, the NCSE's Priest, speaking on behalf of the NCSE.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The little we know about God from "intelligent design" is not congruent with an understanding of God that takes Hebrew and Christian scriptures seriously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those ID'ers don't understand God, but we at the NCSE do understand God. This is because the NCSE takes the Hebrew and Christian scriptures seriously - more seriously than Bill Dembski who doesn't take the scriptures as seriously as we do.

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



These are fairly characterized as talking points.

Ways to to talk to people who object to evolution for religious reasons to consider points that theologians have made with respect to religion and evolution.  That is the whole point of reaching out - to get people on board, and some may even become so active that they write articles.

Claiming (as an organization) the Bible must be read way X?  No.  Saying that some might consider interpretation X as better?  Yes.  

Some call this pandering.  Some don't care.  Chunkdz trying to stir up trouble is futile.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,17:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Claiming (as an organization) the Bible must be read way X?  No.  Saying that some might consider interpretation X as better?  Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, The Priest of the NCSE has spoken. The God of Intelligent Design is "not congruent" with the God of the NCSE. The NCSE takes the bible "seriously", therefore the NCSE's reading of the holy scriptures is the correct interpretation, while Intelligent Design offers a flawed interpretation.

The Priest of the NCSE declares that God is Love, and that the God of ID brings suffering, pain and death. The two are "incongruent", so choose ye this day which God you will present to those you will proselytize in the name of the NCSE.

Blessed be the name of the NCSE.
Posted by: khan on June 24 2009,17:49

Does anyone else have no idea what chunkycheese is talking about?
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,17:49

In the words of Jerry Coyne:

"What gives the NCSE the right, or the authority, to suggest how people interpret the Bible?"
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,17:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are not lobbying for the NCSE to be a militantly atheist organization. I’d even agree that maintaining a careful neutrality is the best and most politically pragmatic approach for them to take.

The problem is that they aren’t neutral. They promote a moderate religion. We’re saying they SHOULD be neutral, and stop that.

-PZ Myers

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


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 24 2009,18:01

Chunk,
Do you actually have an opinion of your own? Or is regurgitating your party piece?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 24 2009,18:03

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,17:43)
The God of Intelligent Design is "not congruent" with the God of the NCSE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, "the designer" is not an alien then?

Glad you've cleared that up....
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,19:04

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,17:43)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Claiming (as an organization) the Bible must be read way X?  No.  Saying that some might consider interpretation X as better?  Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, The Priest of the NCSE has spoken. The God of Intelligent Design is "not congruent" with the God of the NCSE. The NCSE takes the bible "seriously", therefore the NCSE's reading of the holy scriptures is the correct interpretation, while Intelligent Design offers a flawed interpretation.

The Priest of the NCSE declares that God is Love, and that the God of ID brings suffering, pain and death. The two are "incongruent", so choose ye this day which God you will present to those you will proselytize in the name of the NCSE.

Blessed be the name of the NCSE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Louis on June 24 2009,19:10

Clearly Chunky thinks that because there is genuine disagreement over tactics (which is what any disagreement between the PZs/Coynes of this world and NCSE policy is) there must be disagreement over the data. He's wrong.

That plus shit stirring. He clearly thinks this place is some bastion of lock-step agreement with every word of the NCSE and that, because other "high priests" like PZ and Coyne disagree with some aspect of NCSE policy, that this is a rift in the lute. It isn't.

He's on yet another wind up mission. It's pathetic and fails to incorporate the idea that atheism/science/evolutionary biology/whatever are not religions, not hierarchical churches ruled from on high by an archimandrite or some such. Chunk is just playing his asinine trolling in group/out group bullshit. Standard fare, both intellectually and psychologically inept.

In the words of the interwebs: He's made of FAIL.

Louis
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,19:32

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,17:49)
In the words of Jerry Coyne:

"What gives the NCSE the right, or the authority, to suggest how people interpret the Bible?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be more than willing to discuss that with Jerry or P.Z. or anyone else. Lots of people would -- you see their responses and disagreements right where you found Jerry's remarks. Jerry has the right to say what he pleases.

BUT he can speak for himself AND he's not saying what YOU claimed he was.

You didn't support your claims that
(1) Jerry was calling anyone a hypocrite...although you'll creatively interpret it that way. Or that
(2) pointing to what any given scripture/text and  exegesis is in any way necessarily promoting/advancing/advocating that religion. Mentioning it, sure. Promoting it? No. See my point about Hinduism earlier in the thread. The one you refused to address. 

In short, you're back to your old tactic of lying. You are "interpreting" what others say...and making claims about them saying things that they themselves never said.

But even though you hang out at
(1) Telic Thoughts and give voice to your faith there...and
(2) you came over here to try to get a reaction....even going so far as to
(3) start making fun of medical problems to get that reaction...
and
(4) You're specifically arguing against things you find threatening

But you're not a "culture warrior," right?

Well, yeah, you are...and you're just a liar -- caught many times so far in this thread alone.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,19:48

Oh, and as to my own (repeat , OWN) perspective on this, I'd suggest simply placing the "offending" material offsite -- with a link, should others be interested in reading it. Jerry and PZ are reasonable and that might well satisfy. If not,  perhaps they can suggest some means of addressing those ideologies attacking science education and why they are attacking it. If not, well, tough shit, eh?

I'd also state clearly that the NCSE's mission objectives are to combat antievolution and the particular brand of literalist-fundamentalism that threatens it in the U.S. Those people aren't faceless and bereft of ideology/worldview. This requires addressing those issues. The only question is at what point should purity of intent end and pragmatism begin. Myself, I prefer to use every (reasonable) tool at my disposal, and I've found that the science alone is usually not enough. Sticks and carrots are useful. Good cop/bad cop works. A spectrum of invitations/entries is a good thing.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,20:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems to me that we can defend evolution without having to cater to the faithful at the same time. Why not just show that evolution is TRUE and its alternatives are not? Why kowtow to those whose beliefs many of us find unpalatable, just to sell our discipline? There are, in fact, two disadvantages to the "cater-to-religion" stance.

1. By trotting out those "religious scientists", like Ken Miller, or those "scientific theologians," like John Haught, we are tacitly putting our imprimatur on their beliefs, including beliefs that God acts in the world today (theism), suspending natural laws. For example, I don't subscribe to Miller's belief that God acts immanently in the world, perhaps by influencing events on the quantum level, or that God created the laws of physics so that human-containing planets could evolve. I do not agree with John Haught's theology. I do not consider any faith that touts God's intervention in the world (even in the past) as compatible with science. Do my colleagues at the NAS or the NCSE disagree?

2. The statement that learning evolution does not influence one's religious belief is palpably false. There are plenty of statistics that show otherwise, including the negative correlation of scientific achievement with religious belief and the negative correlation among nations in degree of belief in God with degree of acceptance of evolution. All of us know this, but we pretend otherwise. (In my book I note that "enlightened" religion can be compatible with science, but by "englightened" I meant a complete, hands-off deism.) I think it is hypocrisy to pretend that learning evolution will not affect either the nature or degree of one's faith. It doesn't always, but it does more often than we admit, and there are obvious reasons why (I won't belabor these). I hate to see my colleagues pretending that faith and science live in nonoverlapping magisteria. They know better.

-Jerry Coyne, "Must We Always Cater To The Faithful When Teaching Science?"


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


Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,20:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You didn't support your claims that
(1) Jerry was calling anyone a hypocrite...although you'll creatively interpret it that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See above.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2) pointing to what any given scripture/text and  exegesis is in any way necessarily promoting/advancing/advocating that religion. Mentioning it, sure. Promoting it? No. See my point about Hinduism earlier in the thread. The one you refused to address.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Picking one theodicy over another is showing a preference. It is not neutral.

Telling your activist supporters to use your theology when confronting ID'ers is promotion.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,20:09

* Scans for anything about "hypocrite" *

Nope, not there. Try again, sugarbritches.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,20:11

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,20:08)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You didn't support your claims that
(1) Jerry was calling anyone a hypocrite...although you'll creatively interpret it that way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See above.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2) pointing to what any given scripture/text and  exegesis is in any way necessarily promoting/advancing/advocating that religion. Mentioning it, sure. Promoting it? No. See my point about Hinduism earlier in the thread. The one you refused to address.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Picking one theodicy over another is showing a preference. It is not neutral.

Telling your activist supporters to use your theology when confronting ID'ers is promotion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The primary theodicy in this country attacking evolution ain't nothin' else but what is addressed.

Now, if it were Hinduism, and hindu scriptures were addressed without advocating Hinduism...does that mean promoting Hinduism? Yes or no?

Demonstrate the logical validity of your response ...Y'know....what you've been failing to do.

ETA: Getting caught lying so many times is not a good thing for you, Chucky.

The fact that you felt compelled to do so  may indicate that you were better off sniffing Bradford's crotch over at TT --  rather than posting here, where you have to rely on outright bullshit and Braddy-Daddy can't save you.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on June 24 2009,20:20

Quote (khan @ June 24 2009,17:49)
Does anyone else have no idea what chunkycheese is talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The DI's newest strategy, trotted out around the time of the Texas education standards hearings. Basically, they are following the same strategy that was used in the lawsuit against UC Berkeley and their Understanding Evolution website (a lawsuit that crashed and burned).  It goes like this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fundie: Evolution does not fit with my religion. God created the world.

NCSE: But many religious people reconcile evolution and religion.

DI: Ummm, your promoting religion, unlike we here at the Discotute, who are, like totally, interested in science!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense.

Edit to fix typo
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,20:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clearly Chunky thinks that because there is genuine disagreement over tactics (which is what any disagreement between the PZs/Coynes of this world and NCSE policy is) there must be disagreement over the data. He's wrong.

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


Nope. I don't think that.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That plus shit stirring. He clearly thinks this place is some bastion of lock-step agreement with every word of the NCSE and that, because other "high priests" like PZ and Coyne disagree with some aspect of NCSE policy, that this is a rift in the lute. It isn't.

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


Isn't it annoying when people tell you what you think? Usually they are very wrong.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's on yet another wind up mission. It's pathetic and fails to incorporate the idea that atheism/science/evolutionary biology/whatever are not religions, not hierarchical churches ruled from on high by an archimandrite or some such. Chunk is just playing his asinine trolling in group/out group bullshit. Standard fare, both intellectually and psychologically inept.

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


Nope again. I was responding to Wesley's comment about the merits of fiction. Then I asked why he takes so much time to respond to me but remains silent when big name scientists are calling the NCSE a bunch of lying hypocrites.

I still haven't got an answer, Wes is still cowering in the corner, and it seems that nobody else around here has a good answer either.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,20:26

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,20:23)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clearly Chunky thinks that because there is genuine disagreement over tactics (which is what any disagreement between the PZs/Coynes of this world and NCSE policy is) there must be disagreement over the data. He's wrong.

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


Nope. I don't think that.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That plus shit stirring. He clearly thinks this place is some bastion of lock-step agreement with every word of the NCSE and that, because other "high priests" like PZ and Coyne disagree with some aspect of NCSE policy, that this is a rift in the lute. It isn't.

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


Isn't it annoying when people tell you what you think? Usually they are very wrong.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's on yet another wind up mission. It's pathetic and fails to incorporate the idea that atheism/science/evolutionary biology/whatever are not religions, not hierarchical churches ruled from on high by an archimandrite or some such. Chunk is just playing his asinine trolling in group/out group bullshit. Standard fare, both intellectually and psychologically inept.

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


Nope again. I was responding to Wesley's comment about the merits of fiction. Then I asked why he takes so much time to respond to me but remains silent when big name scientists are calling the NCSE a bunch of lying hypocrites.

I still haven't got an answer, Wes is still cowering in the corner, and it seems that nobody else around here has a good answer either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're trying to speak for them again, Chuckles. Would it surprise you to find out that they disagreed with your claim about what they are saying? That you were in fact...lying about your claim?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Isn't it annoying when people tell you what you think? Usually they are very wrong. " -- Chuckles de Hogan's Heroes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Speaking of cowering, how're you doing on my questions?
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,20:36

You're becoming my favorite chew-toy, Chuckles.

You're *just* smart enough to think you're actually smart -- and just not smart enough to know you're not.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,20:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
* Scans for anything about "hypocrite" *

Nope, not there. Try again, sugarbritches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry I can't magically make you read the piece. Maybe you could have a friend read it for you.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The primary theodicy in this country attacking evolution ain't nothin' else but what is addressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you even know what a theodicy is?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, if it were Hinduism, and hindu scriptures were addressed without advocating Hinduism...does that mean promoting Hinduism? Yes or no?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the NCSE implied that they took the Hindu scriptures seriously, and that they had a better understanding of the Hindu God than Bill Dembski does, and that all NCSE activists should use their Hindu theology when confronting ID'ers - Then yeah, you betcha. It's promoting a certain brand of hinduism.


Is this really the extent of your defense of the NCSE? I think Wesley's cowering in the corner is more effective.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,20:43

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,20:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
* Scans for anything about "hypocrite" *

Nope, not there. Try again, sugarbritches.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry I can't magically make you read the piece. Maybe you could have a friend read it for you.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The primary theodicy in this country attacking evolution ain't nothin' else but what is addressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you even know what a theodicy is?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, if it were Hinduism, and hindu scriptures were addressed without advocating Hinduism...does that mean promoting Hinduism? Yes or no?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the NCSE implied that they took the Hindu scriptures seriously, and that they had a better understanding of the Hindu God than Bill Dembski does, and that all NCSE activists should use their Hindu theology when confronting ID'ers - Then yeah, you betcha. It's promoting a certain brand of hinduism.


Is this really the extent of your defense of the NCSE? I think Wesley's cowering in the corner is more effective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Explain in detail how merely pointing out alternative explanations held to be more accurate by authorities cited... = "promoting."

I'd like to see you justify that logically, Chuckie.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,20:44

Well it seems I have my answer. Wesley is not interested in defending his colleagues at the NCSE. I'll leave it to his minions to wonder why that is.

Thanks, you've all been fun.



Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,20:45

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,20:44)
Well it seems I have my answer. Wesley is not interested in defending his colleagues at the NCSE. I'll leave it to his minions to wonder why that is.

Thanks, you've all been fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fail and bail again. Damn, this is a theme.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2009,20:47

< Cowering? >

< Just more ignorance from C. >

Does C. ever get tired of writing fictions?
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,20:54

Eh, it's a good debate , trying to find that balance between "it's about the science" and the recognition that "it's also about the politics of the matter."

Chuckles flat-out lying about knowing what other people are saying (while simultaneously posting that speaking for others is usually wrong!!!) is pretty damned comical, though.

But he's "not a culture warrior."  What a maroon.
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,21:09

Thanks for the link Wes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wes: [to Russell Blackford] I don’t see any evidence that science advocacy organizations are favoring particular religious viewpoints. What I have seen done is noting the existence and extent of particular religious viewpoints, which is a rather different issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Everybody already knows that the NCSE expresses a preference for certain theological interpretations of scripture, and disseminates them to NCSE activists and grass roots organizers.

When I asked if you were going to defend against the charge of lying and hypocrisy, I figured that the proper response should have been one that didn't include more lying and more hypocrisy.

Coyne sure was right.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 24 2009,21:09

SHUT UP AND LISTEN CAUSE IM TALKIN.

I DONT CARE AT ALL ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND IT MEANS NOTHING TO ME WHICH IS WHY I'M GOING TO DO FLYBY RANTS EVER DAY. MY HOMOEROTIC FACINATION WITH WES ISNT BECAUSE I'M A FOX-NEWS REPUBLICAN STEREOTYPE BUT BECAUSE IM MAKING A CLEVER POINT ABOUT SOMETHING. IM GOING TO LINK TO SOUNDBITES AND TRY AND CAUSE DISSENT IN YOUR RANKS, BECAUSE THAT WHAT I THINK JESUS WANTS.


HOMOS.  :angry:
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,21:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wes: Coyne’s desiderata is that science organizations should shut up already when it comes to responding to the religious antievolutionist claim that accepting evolutionary science is the same thing as accepting atheism. How is it that RBH is wrong when he replies that it is appropriate for NCSE to take note of the facts that do counter that antievolution claim? I suppose they could lead with, “While a number of scientists and philosophers agree with the antievolutionists on this one point, …”, but somehow I don’t think that would either placate non-accommadationist atheists or help much with the particular problem the science organizations are trying to address.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No but it would at least be honest.

Ahh, but the culture war trumps honesty every time, no?
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,21:22

In which Olegt gets busted for MikeGeneophelia, then bans himself out of shame. :)

< http://telicthoughts.com/obsolete-critique/#comment-197347 >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2009,21:35

C.'s fault, of course, is having nothing to say, and saying it in the nastiest possible way. I don't have to fictionalize anything to be able to point that out.

And when pointing out C.'s fiction output, his response is to write more fictions.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,21:41

Quote (deadman_932 @ June 24 2009,20:43)
Explain in detail how merely pointing out alternative explanations held to be more accurate by authorities cited... = "promoting."

I'd like to see you justify that logically, Chuckie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're trying to speak for them again, Chuckles. Would it surprise you to find out that they disagreed with your claim about what they are saying? That you were in fact...lying about your claim?    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Isn't it annoying when people tell you what you think? Usually they are very wrong. " -- Chuckles de Hogan's Heroes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Speaking of cowering, how're you doing on my questions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What...no answer? color me shocked
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,21:45

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,21:22)
In which Olegt gets busted for MikeGeneophelia, then bans himself out of shame. :)

< http://telicthoughts.com/obsolete-critique/#comment-197347 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
olegt Says:

July 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pm Mike, since my presence clearly makes you uncomfortable, I will no longer comment at TT. You may untwist your panties.

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


Damn...not quite what the culture warrior claimed. Another shocker.

ETA: Since I'm the least intelligent person here, can I have this chew toy? He wants people better than me to respond, so...just askin'
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2009,21:46

It's like "Mike Gene/Julie Thomas" nails C. as collateral damage:



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

Instead of attacking me on your way out the door, the honorable thing would have been to admit that you were here to smear people, support your fellow trolls, and cause trouble. Because that is what the evidence tells us.

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


Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,21:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And when pointing out C.'s fiction output, his response is to write more fictions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sort of like when prominent scientists accuse you of lying and hypocrisy and you respond with...lies and hypocrisy?
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,21:52

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,21:51)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And when pointing out C.'s fiction output, his response is to write more fictions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sort of like when prominent scientists accuse you of lying and hypocrisy and you respond with...lies and hypocrisy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Logical justification of your claims sans the "speaking for others" that you also claimed is the height of inaccuracy, plz

[quote=deadman_932,June 24 2009,20:26]
Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,20:23)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clearly Chunky thinks that because there is genuine disagreement over tactics (which is what any disagreement between the PZs/Coynes of this world and NCSE policy is) there must be disagreement over the data. He's wrong.

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


You're trying to speak for them again, Chuckles. Would it surprise you to find out that they disagreed with your claim about what they are saying? That you were in fact...lying about your claim?    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Isn't it annoying when people tell you what you think? Usually they are very wrong. " -- Chuckles de Hogan's Heroes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Speaking of cowering, how're you doing on my questions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 24 2009,21:55

I seem to have missed C.'s apology for the lies he told about me earlier.

Anybody else see it?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 24 2009,21:59

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2009,21:55)
I seem to have missed C.'s apology for the lies he told about me earlier.

Anybody else see it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the makers of zero wavelength radiation, zero point font!
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,22:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Instead of attacking me on your way out the door, the honorable thing would have been to admit that you were here to smear people, support your fellow trolls, and cause trouble. Because that is what the evidence tells us.

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


Actually, Wes, I really only came here to respond to the mean things you said about me.

It's clear though that my short story about a young grad student and his brush with superstardom has deeply offended you. For that I sincerely apologize. So now I'll do the right thing and correct my mistake.





All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.


I will now ban myself out of shame. :)
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,22:05

Quote (deadman_932 @ June 24 2009,21:45)
 
Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,21:22)
In which Olegt gets busted for MikeGeneophelia, then bans himself out of shame. :)

< http://telicthoughts.com/obsolete-critique/#comment-197347 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
olegt Says:

July 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pm Mike, since my presence clearly makes you uncomfortable, I will no longer comment at TT. You may untwist your panties.

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


Damn...not quite what the culture warrior claimed. Another shocker.

ETA: Since I'm the least intelligent person here, can I have this chew toy? He wants people better than me to respond, so...just askin'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Charles. Mwah! How ya doin' sugahbritches?
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,22:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I seem to have missed C.'s apology for the lies he told about me earlier.

Anybody else see it?

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


Sorry Wes, but It did take you more than two days to provide an answer.

You're not a cowering mute. You are just a lying hypocrite.
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,22:12

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,22:11)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I seem to have missed C.'s apology for the lies he told about me earlier.

Anybody else see it?

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


Sorry Wes, but It did take you more than two days to provide an answer.

You're not a cowering mute. You are just a lying hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You also said that others (who didn't say that, and demonstrably so) ...said the same.

Who to believe...who to believe.

How's that culture war goin', sugahbritches?
Posted by: chunkdz on June 24 2009,22:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who to believe...who to believe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Believe PZ Myers when he says "Yes, The NCSE is lying."
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,22:18

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,22:17)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who to believe...who to believe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Believe PZ Myers when he says "Yes, The NCSE is lying."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Full context, plz.

Culture warriors need to put things in perspective, right? Otherwise (as before) you might be ....lying
Posted by: deadman_932 on June 24 2009,22:21

I have a request, Charles...more homoeroticism of the sort you seem to favor. C'mon. you can do it. You wrote a whole bit on it to disparage your cultural "enemies"

Maybe you could tell me (again) how Chrones = "my bleeding rectum"...you did so well on that, earlier in the thread.

P.S. Feel free to contact me here. I'd like to discuss your views and approaches.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 25 2009,00:28

Quote (deadman_932 @ June 24 2009,21:54)
Eh, it's a good debate , trying to find that balance between "it's about the science" and the recognition that "it's also about the politics of the matter."

Chuckles flat-out lying about knowing what other people are saying (while simultaneously posting that speaking for others is usually wrong!!!) is pretty damned comical, though.

But he's "not a culture warrior."  What a maroon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it's really not that funny to me.  kinda like watching a sad clown get run over by a steamroller really slowly.  

chuck you should stick to the gay teenie emo-porn, it's a much better voice.  suits your strong points.  namely that you are on fire for jesus and other men.

i think the specifics of this particular distraction are more boring than watching chuck try to peek up wes's shorts so wake me up when he writes some more do-me-twice-in-the-elevator-shaft-during-coffe-break-breathless-gay-fantasy
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 25 2009,00:30

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,23:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I seem to have missed C.'s apology for the lies he told about me earlier.

Anybody else see it?

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


Sorry Wes, but It did take you more than two days to provide an answer.

You're not a cowering mute. You are just a lying hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


written 2 months ago you buffoon

the part where wes responds to your every whim is a fantasy chuckie you starting to lose the distinction?  keep those edges nailed down, flame-tosser.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 25 2009,07:41

I suspect the reason we're seeing so much of Chunk is the fact that TT is dying.

It's Here Thread: 2 comments. One of which is not positive at all about the book.

Open Thread  Lioness: 1 comment.

It's not Reserved Only for Cosmology thread: No comments

Contentment thread: 15 comments since the 22nd, what that's under 4 a day?

Pondering Optimal thread: 79 comments, last comment by our friend Denial


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, the only way to find out for sure is for the ID crowd to drop the debate about origins and attempt to do some real science from their God-centered assumptions. Until that happens, were just guessing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which seems to have stone cold killed the thread.

Embedded Ideology thread: 62 comments the first of which is


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This place is starting to feel like Uncommon Descent Lite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An except from the last comment


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, the premise of this OP is false. That's something that no qualifier will fix.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So Chunk, getting bored of your echo chamber are you? Uncommon-Descent lite indeed.

TT must be up to what, a few dozen page views a day! :)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 25 2009,08:06

Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,22:11)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I seem to have missed C.'s apology for the lies he told about me earlier.

Anybody else see it?

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


Sorry Wes, but It did take you more than two days to provide an answer.

You're not a cowering mute. You are just a lying hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's just how long it takes to fire up the time machine to jump back to April and write the stuff C. claimed I hadn't, apparently. At least, that's a possible stance for fiction writers, so long as one avoids thinking about if I had a time machine, I could have planted the older bits and responded instantly to C. as well.

Disagreeing with C. isn't grounds for charges of "lying" or "hypocrisy". Disagreeing with C., given his record, is positively correlated with truth-telling.

Anybody else notice how earlier what mattered was not that I respond to C., but that I go public with disagreement with others?

C:

     

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

But this brings a question to mind, Wes. You have taken time to address me, an anonymous internet jackass, on multiple occasions.

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



C. tips his hand above as to how seriously that should be taken; my actual record and history of participation (of which C. was  obviously ignorant when he told his falsehoods about me having been "silent" and "cowering") does not count, only how promptly I responded to C.

C. doesn't understand the meaning of anonymous. C. isn't anonymous. Since C. has made an issue of this, I'll point out that anybody with a little skill with Google can know precisely who C. is, where C. works, and various other interesting details of C.'s life. C. is pseudonymous.

As for that other assertion of C.'s...

     

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

Actually, Wes, I really only came here to respond to the mean things you said about me.

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



We do have the record. Let's replay that...

C. at TT:

     

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

Nick briefly remembered the weekend in San Simeon with Wesley. The feelings were similar but Wes seemed like a child now. Like some old children's TV show that Nick could barely recall. But here was a real man. Even when The Dawk didn't speak his very presence was burning a memory into Nicks mind fast and hot. Nick tried to hide his discomfort by taking long gulps of coffee. Where was the damn waitress?

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



Not precisely complimentary to anyone, is that? The evidence is that C. came here to continue with the denigration started elsewhere. I seem to recall that C. tried this dodge before and got his wrist slapped for his trouble.

The only one demonstrated to be telling falsehoods here has been C. Tell us some more fiction, C. It seems to be all that C. has.
Posted by: Louis on June 25 2009,08:40

Quote (chunkdz @ June 25 2009,02:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clearly Chunky thinks that because there is genuine disagreement over tactics (which is what any disagreement between the PZs/Coynes of this world and NCSE policy is) there must be disagreement over the data. He's wrong.

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


Nope. I don't think that.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That plus shit stirring. He clearly thinks this place is some bastion of lock-step agreement with every word of the NCSE and that, because other "high priests" like PZ and Coyne disagree with some aspect of NCSE policy, that this is a rift in the lute. It isn't.

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


Isn't it annoying when people tell you what you think? Usually they are very wrong.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He's on yet another wind up mission. It's pathetic and fails to incorporate the idea that atheism/science/evolutionary biology/whatever are not religions, not hierarchical churches ruled from on high by an archimandrite or some such. Chunk is just playing his asinine trolling in group/out group bullshit. Standard fare, both intellectually and psychologically inept.

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


Nope again. I was responding to Wesley's comment about the merits of fiction. Then I asked why he takes so much time to respond to me but remains silent when big name scientists are calling the NCSE a bunch of lying hypocrites.

I still haven't got an answer, Wes is still cowering in the corner, and it seems that nobody else around here has a good answer either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hush now sweetie, your betters are talking.

You're too transparent to claim to be "misread".

Louis
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 25 2009,11:26

"Mike Gene/Julie Thomas" in the < comments >:

   

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

It goes back to chapter 6 – it’s all about perception and tending to see what you expect to see. You came to this forum after reading my book. While we disagree on the arguments, you have the wisdom to recognize that I am one person sincerely trying to move this debate out of the culture war and you recognize that I am not part of the ID movement. Thus, we can argue substance without questioning each others motives or sincerity. We can have heated arguments that don’t evolve into personal or psychological attacks.

But many of the other critics have not read my book and probably never will. From their perspective, I am part of the ID movement and I have a secret agenda. That’s all they see. Thus, they are not interested in my arguments; they are interested only in discrediting me and this blog.

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



Mike Gene/Julie Thomas in the opening post:

   

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

John Moore from the National Post attempts to define ID. Yet when his claims are viewed from the perspective of The Design Matrix, he's shooting blanks:

   ID is often referred to as Creationism light. In fact it's more Creationism in drag.

Cute, but false. The Design Matrix does not argue against evolution, it explores the manner in which evolution may have been shaped by design.

   Though its proponents claim scientific neutrality, they are usually overtly religious people affiliated with overtly religious institutions.

False. While I am a theist, I am not overtly religious. Furthermore, I am not affiliated with any overtly religious institution, any religious institution, or any institution. I come to the table as a truly independent voice.

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



Is there any reason why someone writing a general essay on "intelligent design" creationism should take the "perspective of The Design Matrix"? Other than making MG/JT happy, that is? It seems to me that most people interacting with "intelligent design" creationism are dealing with Charles Thaxton, Phil Johnson, the Discovery Institute, Ohio's SEAO, and IDNet in Kansas and New Mexico. MG/JT is likely unknown to even most people who have some notion that "intelligent design" creationism exists, and on those grounds doesn't merit an article in the National Post kowtowing specifically to the MG/JT idiosyncratic take on things.

< John Moore > when considered from the perspective of the "intelligent design" creationism advocacy people have actually encountered:



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

ID is often referred to as Creationism light. [True.] In fact it's more Creationism in drag. [Opinion.] Though its proponents claim scientific neutrality, they are usually overtly religious people affiliated with overtly religious institutions. [True.] They have written essays and books about why ID is science. [True.] And yet when all the sophistry is boiled down, the theory amounts to "living things are complicated. Some-one must have made them." [True.] It may be a sublime idea worthy of religious and philosophical contemplation, but it fails to meet the definition of science. [True.] It can't be proven and it can't be tested. [True.] Complaining that science won't take ID seriously is like grieving the fact that mathematicians won't consider a flower pot to be a number. [Opinion I can get on board with.]

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


Posted by: Richardthughes on June 25 2009,11:46

It's all one big handwave over there.
Posted by: Raevmo on July 02 2009,11:55

Onlookers, TT's resident closeted homo chunkdz is now deleting all posts with the slightest reference to his erotic gay fantasy prose.

For shame.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 02 2009,22:35

Quote (Raevmo @ July 02 2009,12:55)
Onlookers, TT's resident closeted homo chunkdz is now deleting all posts with the slightest reference to his erotic gay fantasy prose.

For shame.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hahahahahahahaha

i think my eyeball has blood in it.

it won't be long before he <gulp> rises to the occasion and can't resist a good one hand type about Wesley and Richard Dawkins tag teaming Lucifer while chunkdz clutches his beads AND his rosary and trembles
Posted by: Louis on July 03 2009,09:24

Quote (Raevmo @ July 02 2009,17:55)
Onlookers, TT's resident closeted homo chunkdz is now deleting all posts with the slightest reference to his erotic gay fantasy prose.

For shame.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Teh Funneh. He cawzes it!

Louis
Posted by: Moorit on July 03 2009,22:08

My!  Chunk's ignorant of how Google cache works, too?  So, to sum up and make sure I'm caught up: he's ignorant about biology, the scientific method, and logical fallacies; he lies, quote mines and reinterprets the words of others, and dodges and handwaves any questions directed at him, is that about right?  Sounds like they should be offering him a Board seat at DI any day now.  

Oops!  Forgot the whole "forbidden love that I mustn't indulge, but it feels too good and forgive me, Father, for I have sinned" angle.  Yeah, definitely DI Board material.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 04 2009,09:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: : My answer is you're done here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You cut someone off from a discussion because he asked a relevant question about a topic you yourself introduced on an open thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford (quoting): One might conclude that HR 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act, exists for no other purpose than to destroy the American economy as we know it and bring it all under government control.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bradford, do you actually believe that GW is a scientific hoax intended to destroy the American economy?
Posted by: Zachriel on July 04 2009,09:17

Quote (Zachriel @ July 04 2009,09:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: : My answer is you're done here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You cut someone off from a discussion because he asked a relevant question about a topic you yourself introduced on an open thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford (quoting): One might conclude that HR 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act, exists for no other purpose than to destroy the American economy as we know it and bring it all under government control.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bradford, do you actually believe that GW is a scientific hoax intended to destroy the American economy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That didn't take long. My comment disappeared.
Posted by: Henry J on July 04 2009,16:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That didn't take long. My comment disappeared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, you should be ashamed of yourself for not saying whatever it was that you didn't say over there after all after whatever it was got unsaid.

Henry
Posted by: Todd Berkebile on July 06 2009,18:48

Banned!  Hehe, I guess I pointed out Bradford's inconsistencies one time too many and now I'm banned from TT.  Where will I go for my daily dosage of stupid now?
Posted by: keiths on July 06 2009,21:39

Quote (Todd Berkebile @ July 06 2009,16:48)
Banned!  Hehe, I guess I pointed out Bradford's inconsistencies one time too many and now I'm banned from TT.  Where will I go for my daily dosage of stupid now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Todd,

Welcome to the club.  Don't fret -- there's plenty of tard to go around.

Hard-core addicts go < here >.

Is your comment still up at TT?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 06 2009,22:17

welcome todd.  there is all kinds of stupid here. you will love the swamp
Posted by: Todd Berkebile on July 06 2009,22:43

Wow keiths, that thread you linked contains highly concentrated dosages of stupid. I could OD on all the stupid collected in there!  Thanks for the link.

No, Bradford deleted my last few posts.  I was sort of surprised, I had been insulting 0112358 for days with no response but then I started a genuine discussion and he banned me.  I would have thought my blatant mockery would have done it, not my raising of actual questions.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 06 2009,23:52

Quote (Todd Berkebile @ July 06 2009,18:48)
Banned!  Hehe, I guess I pointed out Bradford's inconsistencies one time too many and now I'm banned from TT.  Where will I go for my daily dosage of stupid now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hola Todd. Welcome!
Posted by: Raevmo on July 07 2009,00:11

Hey Todd,

It's a shame Bradford banned you across the board. I'm just banned from most threads.

TT has been getting more stupid (yes, it's hard to believe) and more boring since Mike Gene left and let the intellectually challenged Bradford run the circus. It's unfortunate that Bradford - with his right-wing political brain vomit - even managed to alienate master of tard Joy. Ah, I miss Joy.

Bradford has been increasing the frequency of summarily deleting and banning, like his creepy buddy and connaisseur of man-love chunkdz has been doing all along. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that OOL research has been making some remarkable progress lately, thus destroying Bradford's main shtick?
Posted by: Todd Berkebile on July 07 2009,08:48

First he banned me from all the threads where real discussions were taking place, but not the threads where I was actually mocking and insulting 0112358 and themayan.  When I asked about it he banned me from the open thread.  When I inquired further he deleted my posts and gave me the boot. Then he started a new thread in response to points I had made, which I guess proves that my questions where WAY out of line. ;)

Yeah, since Mike left there is no one left there to have a real discussion with. I didn't realize Joy had been chased off but I did notice she wasn't posting any more. Progressively more incompetent people are certainly slowly replacing the old guard.

I thought it was very ironic when your post of research showing that homophobes get wood from gay porn was quickly deleted. Talk about a dead give away.  I wonder if this is why theists think morality comes from god, not from humans, because they all want to suck a slong but they can't accept their own desires so they hand over their decision making authority to something else.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 07 2009,09:43

I need Jebus to stop teh gay!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 07 2009,09:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Progressively more incompetent people are certainly slowly replacing the old guard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and then they blame us for the tone of the mockery.  bunch of hypocrites
Posted by: Henry J on July 08 2009,10:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Progressively more incompetent people are certainly slowly replacing the old guard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Peter Principle at work?
Posted by: Joy on July 08 2009,20:20

Did you call? Sorry, I've been busy with real life recently. I will say it's true Bradford has made TT unwelcoming to those of us who aren't amen-ers to participate in, and that's why I left.

But I'd ask you why you still care. Seems pretty obsessive to me, and not very healthy. Do you honestly believe that people who are ID supporters and have found themselves on the left side of wannabe mind-tyrants like Brad will suddenly become something they're not, just because Bradford's an ass?

Maybe when you grow up you'll realize things aren't so neatly black and white. Took grandson the Nordic-type to visit the Heavner Runestone last week, on a visit to try and convince great-grandma to check herself into an assisted living situation before she falls and breaks something serious enough to remove her choices. No luck with that, she's in the hospital now with minor heart attack. Probably because we visited.

He wanted to be a paleontologist, all his life. Worked hard, did well in sciences, starred in biology. But we're poor, nobody's going to pay for him to go and daughter still owes so much for her student loans she'll never see black. So now he wants to be just another starving artist. Biology's loss, starvation's gain. I think that's extremely sad. He jokes that the creos made it all too weird, fun when it was tens of millions of years, no fun when it's just a few thou. I guess if you can't go to college because the whole economy fell apart and didn't care one whit for you, you might as well make a joke out of it.

Wake me up whenever y'all figure out this is a dead-end game. Then maybe we can talk.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 08 2009,20:24

Quote (Joy @ July 08 2009,20:20)
He wanted to be a paleontologist, all his life. Worked hard, did well in sciences, starred in biology. But we're poor, nobody's going to pay for him to go and daughter still owes so much for her student loans she'll never see black. So now he wants to be just another starving artist. Biology's loss, starvation's gain. I think that's extremely sad. He jokes that the creos made it all too weird, fun when it was tens of millions of years, no fun when it's just a few thou. I guess if you can't go to college because the whole economy fell apart and didn't care one whit for you, you might as well make a joke out of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy

Perhaps this is news to you, but most biology graduate programs actually pay tuition and a stipend to their graduate students. If your grandson has the qualifications (decent grades and a degree from a good undergraduate program), he can probably get paid and get a graduate degree in biology.
Posted by: Joy on July 08 2009,21:02

He's just 19, A. Trying to get his undergrad degree, not much likely to get there. They do have scholarships here, he just doesn't qualify because of dreadlocks. Go figure. He'll do fine whatever he ends up doing. I figure his will be the generation that gets stiffed across the board for Goldman-Sachs' bonuses. Maybe his kids will have more opportunities.
Posted by: deadman_932 on July 08 2009,21:05

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 08 2009,20:24)
Perhaps this is news to you, but most biology graduate programs actually pay tuition and a stipend to their graduate students. If your grandson has the qualifications (decent grades and a degree from a good undergraduate program), he can probably get paid and get a graduate degree in biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By going to a community college first, getting good grades (say, anything above 3.5 GPA) then transferring to a State College, then a University, most people can get the financial aid they need, even today.

On various campuses, I worked my way through as a chef, groundskeeper, librarian,  maintenance worker and  one year, a secretary in a financial aid office. By Grad school, I was a T.A. at UCLA (and they basically covered the entire 15-grand/yr costs).

Check with the financial aid offices and look for smart counselors. Change them if need be, or go around them. It still works, and there's a lot of grants, scholarships and stipends that exist in most places that I've ever heard of. Talk to secretaries, who *Really* run the show. People from poor backgrounds shouldn't face insuperable obstacles.
Posted by: Joy on July 08 2009,21:10

Deal works like this - Pell grant will pay the entire tuition at the local community college, we just have to come up with about $500 a semester for books. Which we can maybe swing if we don't visit grandma again any time soon. He has some credits taking on line courses, we'll still pay for some more for fall. Pell must be full time, we must pay up front, he might get it next semester. If there's still a community college, since too many would-be students here are in the same situation.

Daughter's a UNC grad, we were hoping to get him there when he gets his 2 years in, maybe be in line for all sorts of help. But now that's looking dim as well. He's always been a great artist. He can make a meager living here sculpting and painting. Other than professional camp counselor, it's pretty much all there is. It's okay. He's impressive on all fronts.
Posted by: deadman_932 on July 08 2009,21:26

Used books and sites like this one: < http://www.textbooksrus.com/ > will help a little during the first quarter/semester/trimester until he can join (with good grades) in one of the academic clubs/scholastic societies that award small stipends.  

Those stipends are usually bequests of former students  or teachers and don't vanish over the years if properly managed. I used to get $250 - 500 a year out of those at a community college. Check with the financial aid counselors on that topic? Working for the school, declaring a major immediately to take advantage of departmental stipends and poking around as much as possible all help.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 08 2009,21:32

Joy glad to see you are still slumming around.

Haywood Tech in Clyde NC is a fantastic 2 year degree institution for folks who are into forestry and fisheries and wildlife.  they have connections with all sorts of other places and the faculty are great.  the students usually whup ass on all the other southeastern fisheries and wildlife schools at the annual meeting.  

AND you can commute from asheville.

AND if your grandson is a serious hard worker I know folks that will put him to work in that part of the world.  

AND you can be a dreadneck.  now, patchouli smelling crystal healing dreadlock trustafarian, no.  and asheville has enough of those folks and i encourage everyone to keep theirs where they belong, i.e. somewhere else.

if he is serious PM me.
Posted by: Joy on July 09 2009,01:50

deadman, they've got a whole serious scam going with textbooks. If he takes the online course, he MUST buy the new book, so he can get the code for the online course. It's quite the bullshit, we've found, but we live 40 miles from the CCs, no matter which direction we go. The books cost more than tuition. Which we struggle to pay. Put both our kids through college, but one died two years in, the other developed epilepsy and can't work in her field. Still owing student loans, we're not going there this time.

I understand that colleges need money to function. But we're SOL these days. Our region is "depressed" in the best of times, we're flirting 30% unemployment right now. It will get worse. We could maybe move to a city, but won't. Grandson whom we've raised since birth probably won't either. You're much better off here if you can work on engines. But in the meantime, I'm thinking of getting a few horses or mules.

Most of our friends and daughter's friends are college profs. They're hurting as much as we are right now, it's circular. I'm really not too concerned about the grandson(s) - yes, I've more than one - they'll do okay. Just as we will. But damn. I've never seen anything like this. So I ask grandma, who did live through a similar situation. Rodeo queen, barrel racer. You just have to get right back on that horse.
Posted by: Joy on July 09 2009,01:59

Ras, let me get all the togethers together, we've been family-ing for a few weeks and now she's hospitalized and we may have to go back to Indian Territory soon. That's a serious hold on fall semester. For which we're really trying for Pell. I'll PM you, I know CCs near WCU are good, but so is AB-Tech (where he is now, and where we know the faculty). Arts and sciences. Have already exchanged emails with the geo-paleo prof at UNC-Chappel Hill, who wants him badly. But nobody's got any money right now. Bad timing, I guess.
Posted by: Joy on July 09 2009,02:24

By the way, did I bother to link to < my past life? >

Just so you know, and all. I'm looking for a literary agent, maybe it's time.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on July 09 2009,10:37

Money does make a difference, but academic funding has been tight before. Even when I was getting my undergraduate degree, I remember the graduate students doing whatever they could to extend their time in school to continue the support they got that way. When Diane and I went back to grad school, we applied to six different schools and programs. Two of those applications went nowhere, at two of them we got turned down on money issues despite faculty campaigning for bringing us in, and we got two acceptances. One of those offered a tuition waiver, but no other support in one of the highest cost-of-living areas in the nation, and the other came up with two substantial bits of financial aid each.
Posted by: Joy on July 09 2009,13:49

I hear you, Wesley. Guess the most important thing is for HIM to decide his own future, because if he isn't willing to work hard to make it happen, there's no point. He's quite brilliant, aced calculus in his advanced high school classes, which is much better than I did and I graduated #2 of 364. He's also very artistically gifted, started replacing his broken dino's limbs with clay at the age of 2, by the time he was 5 he was drawing crowds with his on-the-spot dragons and dinosaurs made from the handful of clay he always carried around. Has every version of Godzilla toy ever invented (his Dad owns a stable of collectible/comic shops in Florida), and he knows all the dinosaur names by heart. Was the only 3-year old to stand on the seat when Jurassic Park was released cheering on that T-rex to eat 'em all!

Always thought if he did go into paleontology he could dig up the bones and then sculpt the critter perfectly. Maybe make maques for animation, a job that probably pays much better. But being that smart and talented, I really am not too worried about his future. He's adaptable, will do whatever he'll do with it. I am so done raising kids! My own and other people's, too many to count at this point. Now I can be concerned about my own future, the SS and Medicare taxes we paid faithfully since we were 16, that they now tell us the three generations behind us can't afford. Bullshit!

Of my kids (2 of my own, 3 adopted, many strays), I can boast a dozen grandchildren. I can't afford to make their paths easy. Besides, it wouldn't be doing them any favors even if I could. This world is changing fast, they have to figure it out for themselves. Maybe one or more of them will get rich (though God knows money has never been one of our obsessions). Then they can take care of us for a change! §;o)
Posted by: Joy on July 09 2009,15:19

Quote (Joy @ July 09 2009,15:16)
I hear you, Wesley. Guess the most important thing is for HIM to decide his own future, because if he isn't willing to work hard to make it happen, there's no point. He's quite brilliant, aced calculus in his advanced high school classes, which is much better than I did and I graduated #2 of 364. He's also very artistically gifted, started replacing his broken dino's limbs with clay at the age of 2, by the time he was 5 he was drawing crowds with his on-the-spot dragons and dinosaurs made from the handful of clay he always carried around. Has every version of Godzilla toy ever invented (his Dad owns a stable of collectible/comic shops in Florida), and he knows all the dinosaur names by heart. Was the only 3-year old to stand on the seat when Jurassic Park was released cheering on that T-rex to eat 'em all!

Always thought if he did go into paleontology he could dig up the bones and then sculpt the critter perfectly. Maybe make maques for animation, a job that probably pays much better. But being that smart and talented, I really am not too worried about his future. He's adaptable, will do whatever he'll do with it. I am so done raising kids! My own and other people's, too many to count at this point. Now I can be concerned about my own future, the SS and Medicare taxes we paid faithfully since we were 16, that they now tell us the three generations behind us can't afford. Bullshit!

Of my kids (2 of my own, 3 adopted, many strays), I can boast a dozen grandchildren. I can't afford to make their paths easy. Besides, it wouldn't be doing them any favors even if I could. This world is changing fast, they have to figure it out for themselves. Maybe one or more of them will get rich (though God knows money has never been one of our obsessions). Then they can take care of us for a change! §;o)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hmmm... how do I edit to remove the double?
Posted by: deadman_932 on July 09 2009,17:30

The tougher roads can be more gratifying in the long run, in my experience; I like to think it made me into a pretty decent human bean. Anyways, I sincerely wish you and yours the best, Joy. And good luck on the book.
Cheers, Joseph.
Posted by: Joy on July 09 2009,21:33

Quote (deadman_932 @ July 09 2009,17:30)
The tougher roads can be more gratifying in the long run, in my experience; I like to think it made me into a pretty decent human bean. Anyways, I sincerely wish you and yours the best, Joy. And good luck on the book.
Cheers, Joseph.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, Joseph. We all want the best and most promising opportunities for our offspring (and theirs). But I've got only one delineated goal in life. I want to dance at my great-grandwhatever's wedding.

Anything after that is gravy! §;o)
Posted by: Todd Berkebile on July 09 2009,22:28

Quote (Joy @ July 08 2009,20:20)
But I'd ask you why you still care. Seems pretty obsessive to me, and not very healthy. Do you honestly believe that people who are ID supporters and have found themselves on the left side of wannabe mind-tyrants like Brad will suddenly become something they're not, just because Bradford's an ass?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy, oddly I find it good to hear that you are still in one piece.  This economy is certainly a bitch, I hope all your young-uns find a path to a decent education.

I originally went to TT because a friend of mine was a friend of Mike Gene and recommended it. At first I stayed because although I disagreed with most of what Mike offered I enjoyed discussions with him. But then I got hooked on that smug feeling of superiority that can only come from interacting with truly delusional people. Now if I don't get an occasional dosage of stupid from time to time I get the shakes.

As to changing people's views, that's like teaching a pig to sing.  No, its just about tweaking them to squeeze out more stupid so that I can point and laugh.  :p
Posted by: keiths on July 11 2009,13:08

< Bradford blows his top > and then wipes out the evidence:
Quote (hrun @ July 11 2009,13:07)
Bradford wrote in another thread:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hrun you are a moron. If you or anyone else wants to prove that my caim is erroneous you can do so. There is nothing to admit to jerk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford, I think it is fine that you ban me from a thread that has become uncomfortable to you. But it is a little embarrassing that you don't have the guts to at least memory hole our exchange, but rather make it disappear completely. It wouldn't have something to do with the fact that rather than supporting your claim you resort to name-calling?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on July 11 2009,13:14

< Raevmo calls him on it >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford, calling people moron and deleting their posts doesn't help your credibility. Man up and admit you're wrong.

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


< Bradford issues a notpology >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was wrong to call someone a moron. It is also wrong to allege that I should admit I'm wrong about Denton. If you think I am supply the evidence and links. I'm not going to allow ciber stalking. That's wrong too.

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


Posted by: Louis on July 11 2009,17:10

Quote (Todd Berkebile @ July 10 2009,04:28)
[SNIP]

But then I got hooked on that smug feeling of superiority that can only come from interacting with truly delusional people.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, I don't get anything like that. I get a sense of utter despair followed by some gritty resolve to do something about it then usually followed by either annoyance at the moron or annoyance at myself for interacting with the moron and even grittier resolve to avoid it if possible in the future.

I don't always manage the last part, but I do try!

Louis
Posted by: Zachriel on July 11 2009,21:57

Quote (keiths @ July 11 2009,13:14)
< Raevmo calls him on it >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford, calling people moron and deleting their posts doesn't help your credibility. Man up and admit you're wrong.

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


< Bradford issues a notpology >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was wrong to call someone a moron. It is also wrong to allege that I should admit I'm wrong about Denton. If you think I am supply the evidence and links. I'm not going to allow ciber stalking. That's wrong too.

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


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


Looks like Bradford closed the Die Hards thread. Ironically, I was about the tentatively withdraw my previous statement.
Posted by: Todd Berkebile on July 13 2009,23:34

It seems now hrun has been banned from TT as well. < Link. > I guess Bradford has decided TT should be a back-patting forum where only proper like minded people can post.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on July 14 2009,00:53

that would be about par for the rest of the course.
Posted by: Badger3k on July 15 2009,15:01

Looking through all the Kwok-posts on the Intersection blog, I was wondering if we could get Chunky to write a tale of Kwok and Miller.  I think it'd be a best seller. :O
Posted by: keiths on July 18 2009,15:31

From Salvador Cordova's < latest >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Furthermore, intelligent beings have been known to make cobbled, drunken, and klugy designs. Therefore such arguments cannot be used against ID. The leaning tower of Pizza and GM cars are such examples of such intelligent designs.

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


The "leaning tower of Pizza"? Jesus.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can life be defined without the possibility or the reality of death?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Easily.  Crack a book, doofus.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This would be like trying to define positive integers without any reference to negative integers. I don't know that it could even be possible in principle!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal, the positive integers and the natural numbers are the same thing.

Poor Salvador.  Can you imagine how confusing life must be to him?
Posted by: Zachriel on July 21 2009,07:01

Aiguy has made some rather insightful contributions to Telic Thoughts that might be worth a read. A few snips:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< aiguy >: you need to understand that in my discipline the label "intelligence" has no formal meaning, and it is of no importance whatsoever whether anyone annoints a system intelligent or not...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientist: Behold! My computer can discuss politics, economics, and religion at expert levels, write fascinating novels and plays, compose beautiful music, and develop new scientific theories!

Student: Yes, but is it intelligent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... It does not matter if we grant that these systems are intelligent or not, because it is merely a matter of definition! It is not a matter of fact! Philosophers would say that you are dealing with an analytic question rather than a synthetic question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Aiguy has made these points on Telic Thoughts previously, but you know how it goes.)
Posted by: Zachriel on July 22 2009,07:14

Do we have this ID Argument in the archives?

Thermometer Attesting the Reification of the Deity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: There is sufficient consistency in observational results, including the use of multiple observers, varying methodologies, and instrumentation, to make objectivity a reasonably well-defined category.

fifth monarchy man: if that is all that is necessary is God's existence and nature are definitely objective facts. but we've been over this before

Zachriel: What scientific instrumentation did you use?

< fifth monarchy man >: Telescopes and microscopes and thermometers among other things are used to observe the works of God.

Zachriel: Unfortunately, that's not objective evidence of God's existence as you claimed. What you have is objective evidence about the universe. We might agree that the temperature in Paris is a mild 18° C. That doesn't constitute objective evidence of God's existence. Do you see the difference?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: olegt on July 30 2009,15:39

If anyone is in need of a signature, < here > is a pearl from Bradford:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All theories are analogous in nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zarquon on July 30 2009,15:56

Umm, he's right.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Aug. 01 2009,05:47

At < a Telic Thoughts thread "Narratives" >, a commenter, Computerist, tells us "FCSI is relatively easy…"
and adds his calculation. Someone should tell Gordon he has been scooped.
Posted by: Todd Berkebile on Aug. 01 2009,09:14

So what do people think about using Blerp to point out the stupid on creationist sites? It has the bonus of being tied directly to the stupidity but the disadvantage of not concentrating our mockery all in this one convenient package. I can't decide whether I think Blerp will survive past beta.

< http://www.blerp.com/d....Script= >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 01 2009,09:26

computerist can't provide any examples either



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
computerist Says:
August 1st, 2009 at 7:15 am
Yes, I will provide you with the links (I don't have them saved on my laptop)

So, why the need for a calculation when it is all a matter of belief?

Because everything is a matter of belief.

Comment by computerist — August 1, 2009 @ 7:15 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



EVERYTHING is a matter of belief.  gotcha.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alan Fox Says:
August 1st, 2009 at 7:24 am
Yes, I will provide you with the links

that show how to calculate or measure "functionally complex specified information" such that you can distinguish designed from evolved biological systems?

I can't wait!!!

Comment by Alan Fox — August 1, 2009 @ 7:24 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
computerist Says:
August 1st, 2009 at 9:23 am
Alan Fox, to make FCSI calculation more clear, here is a C++ generated output for the calculation of FCSI: (note that Ce is constant at 1)

Calculate reference upper bound for what natural processes can reasonably generate:

-log2(1 / pow(10, 43) = 142.843 fits of functional information on 10 ^ 43 trials

upb: 142.843 fits of functional information

Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)10000 (10 ^4) - possible search space Fp: 13.2877 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+007 (10 ^7) - possible search space Fp: 23.2535 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+010 (10 ^10) - possible search space Fp: 33.2193 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+013 (10 ^13) - possible search space Fp: 43.1851 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+016 (10 ^16) - possible search space Fp: 53.1508 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+019 (10 ^19) - possible search space Fp: 63.1166 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+022 (10 ^22) - possible search space Fp: 73.0824 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+025 (10 ^25) - possible search space Fp: 83.0482 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+028 (10 ^28) - possible search space Fp: 93.014 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+031 (10 ^31) - possible search space Fp: 102.98 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+034 (10 ^34) - possible search space Fp: 112.946 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+037 (10 ^37) - possible search space Fp: 122.911 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+040 (10 ^40) - possible search space Fp: 132.877 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+043 (10 ^43) - possible search space Fp: 142.843 Fits

* reached upper bound of 142.843 fits of functional information *

Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+046 (10 ^46) - possible search space Fp: 152.809 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+049 (10 ^49) - possible search space Fp: 162.774 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+052 (10 ^52) - possible search space Fp: 172.74 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+055 (10 ^55) - possible search space Fp: 182.706 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+058 (10 ^58) - possible search space Fp: 192.672 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+061 (10 ^61) - possible search space Fp: 202.638 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+064 (10 ^64) - possible search space Fp: 212.603 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+067 (10 ^67) - possible search space Fp: 222.569 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+070 (10 ^70) - possible search space Fp: 232.535 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+073 (10 ^73) - possible search space Fp: 242.501 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+076 (10 ^76) - possible search space Fp: 252.467 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+079 (10 ^79) - possible search space Fp: 262.432 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+082 (10 ^82) - possible search space Fp: 272.398 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+085 (10 ^85) - possible search space Fp: 282.364 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+088 (10 ^88) - possible search space Fp: 292.33 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+091 (10 ^91) - possible search space Fp: 302.295 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+094 (10 ^94) - possible search space Fp: 312.261 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+097 (10 ^97) - possible search space Fp: 322.227 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+100 (10 ^100) - possible search space Fp: 332.193 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+103 (10 ^103) - possible search space Fp: 342.159 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+106 (10 ^106) - possible search space Fp: 352.124 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+109 (10 ^109) - possible search space Fp: 362.09 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+112 (10 ^112) - possible search space Fp: 372.056 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+115 (10 ^115) - possible search space Fp: 382.022 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+118 (10 ^118) - possible search space Fp: 391.988 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+121 (10 ^121) - possible search space Fp: 401.953 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+124 (10 ^124) - possible search space Fp: 411.919 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+127 (10 ^127) - possible search space Fp: 421.885 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+130 (10 ^130) - possible search space Fp: 431.851 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+133 (10 ^133) - possible search space Fp: 441.816 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+136 (10 ^136) - possible search space Fp: 451.782 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+139 (10 ^139) - possible search space Fp: 461.748 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+142 (10 ^142) - possible search space Fp: 471.714 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+145 (10 ^145) - possible search space Fp: 481.68 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+148 (10 ^148) - possible search space Fp: 491.645 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)1e+151 (10 ^151) - possible search space Fp: 501.611 Fits

Comment by computerist — August 1, 2009 @ 9:23 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
computerist Says:
August 1st, 2009 at 9:45 am
The following generated output Ce is doubled at each interval (giving greater possibilties out of the systems search space that will be "functional"):

-log2(1 / pow(10, 43) = 142.843 fits of functional information on 10 ^ 43 trials

upb: 142.843 fits of functional information

Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1 Cp: (possible configs)10000 (10 ^4) - possible search space Fp: 13.2877 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)2 Cp: (possible configs)1e+007 (10 ^7) - possible search space Fp: 22.2535 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)4 Cp: (possible configs)1e+010 (10 ^10) - possible search space Fp: 31.2193 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)8 Cp: (possible configs)1e+013 (10 ^13) - possible search space Fp: 40.1851 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)16 Cp: (possible configs)1e+016 (10 ^16) - possible search space Fp: 49.1508 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)32 Cp: (possible configs)1e+019 (10 ^19) - possible search space Fp: 58.1166 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)64 Cp: (possible configs)1e+022 (10 ^22) - possible search space Fp: 67.0824 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)128 Cp: (possible configs)1e+025 (10 ^25) - possible search space Fp: 76.0482 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)256 Cp: (possible configs)1e+028 (10 ^28) - possible search space Fp: 85.014 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)512 Cp: (possible configs)1e+031 (10 ^31) - possible search space Fp: 93.9798 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1024 Cp: (possible configs)1e+034 (10 ^34) - possible search space Fp: 102.946 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)2048 Cp: (possible configs)1e+037 (10 ^37) - possible search space Fp: 111.911 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)4096 Cp: (possible configs)1e+040 (10 ^40) - possible search space Fp: 120.877 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)8192 Cp: (possible configs)1e+043 (10 ^43) - possible search space Fp: 129.843 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)16384 Cp: (possible configs)1e+046 (10 ^46) - possible search space Fp: 138.809 Fits

* reached upper bound of 142.843 fits of functional information *

Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)32768 Cp: (possible configs)1e+049 (10 ^49) - possible search space Fp: 147.774 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)65536 Cp: (possible configs)1e+052 (10 ^52) - possible search space Fp: 156.74 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)131072 Cp: (possible configs)1e+055 (10 ^55) - possible search space Fp: 165.706 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)262144 Cp: (possible configs)1e+058 (10 ^58) - possible search space Fp: 174.672 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)524288 Cp: (possible configs)1e+061 (10 ^61) - possible search space Fp: 183.638 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1.04858e+006 Cp: (possible configs)1e+064 (10 ^64) - possible search space Fp: 192.603 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)2.09715e+006 Cp: (possible configs)1e+067 (10 ^67) - possible search space Fp: 201.569 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)4.19430e+006 Cp: (possible configs)1e+070 (10 ^70) - possible search space Fp: 210.535 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)8.38861e+006 Cp: (possible configs)1e+073 (10 ^73) - possible search space Fp: 219.501 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1.67772e+007 Cp: (possible configs)1e+076 (10 ^76) - possible search space Fp: 228.467 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)3.35544e+007 Cp: (possible configs)1e+079 (10 ^79) - possible search space Fp: 237.432 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)6.71089e+007 Cp: (possible configs)1e+082 (10 ^82) - possible search space Fp: 246.398 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1.34218e+008 Cp: (possible configs)1e+085 (10 ^85) - possible search space Fp: 255.364 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)2.68435e+008 Cp: (possible configs)1e+088 (10 ^88) - possible search space Fp: 264.33 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)5.36871e+008 Cp: (possible configs)1e+091 (10 ^91) - possible search space Fp: 273.295 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1.07374e+009 Cp: (possible configs)1e+094 (10 ^94) - possible search space Fp: 282.261 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)2.14748e+009 Cp: (possible configs)1e+097 (10 ^97) - possible search space Fp: 291.227 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)4.29497e+009 Cp: (possible configs)1e+100 (10 ^100) - possible search space Fp: 300.193 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)8.58993e+009 Cp: (possible configs)1e+103 (10 ^103) - possible search space Fp: 309.159 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1.71799e+010 Cp: (possible configs)1e+106 (10 ^106) - possible search space Fp: 318.124 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)3.43597e+010 Cp: (possible configs)1e+109 (10 ^109) - possible search space Fp: 327.09 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)6.87195e+010 Cp: (possible configs)1e+112 (10 ^112) - possible search space Fp: 336.056 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1.37439e+011 Cp: (possible configs)1e+115 (10 ^115) - possible search space Fp: 345.022 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)2.74878e+011 Cp: (possible configs)1e+118 (10 ^118) - possible search space Fp: 353.988 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)5.49756e+011 Cp: (possible configs)1e+121 (10 ^121) - possible search space Fp: 362.953 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1.09951e+012 Cp: (possible configs)1e+124 (10 ^124) - possible search space Fp: 371.919 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)2.19902e+012 Cp: (possible configs)1e+127 (10 ^127) - possible search space Fp: 380.885 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)4.39805e+012 Cp: (possible configs)1e+130 (10 ^130) - possible search space Fp: 389.851 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)8.79609e+012 Cp: (possible configs)1e+133 (10 ^133) - possible search space Fp: 398.816 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1.75922e+013 Cp: (possible configs)1e+136 (10 ^136) - possible search space Fp: 407.782 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)3.51844e+013 Cp: (possible configs)1e+139 (10 ^139) - possible search space Fp: 416.748 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)7.03687e+013 Cp: (possible configs)1e+142 (10 ^142) - possible search space Fp: 425.714 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)1.40737e+014 Cp: (possible configs)1e+145 (10 ^145) - possible search space Fp: 434.68 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)2.81475e+014 Cp: (possible configs)1e+148 (10 ^148) - possible search space Fp: 443.645 Fits
Ce: (configs known to achieve effect)5.6295e+014 Cp: (possible configs)1e+151 (10 ^151) - possible search space Fp: 452.611 Fits

Comment by computerist — August 1, 2009 @ 9:45 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



why bother with all that?  just believe it!
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 19 2009,20:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< aiguy >: Still, I think ID theory is very confused, because it relies on a number of implicit and unfounded assumptions about intelligent causes.

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


Bradford allowed a post by aiguy about the misuse of the term "intelligent" in Intelligent Design. Aiguy has been smashing arguments left and right. I even tossed him one, but he hit it over the fence and I had to go chase after it. He's about done with chunkdz, though.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< aiguy >: Try again, and this time say something relevant... Otherwise, concede the point... Another of your cognitive deficits is that you apparently have no short-term memory... Now, perhaps you consider yourself to be a leading theorist of ID and Stephen Meyer to be a minor player. If so, we may add "delusional" to the growing list of your cognitive deficits... It's not as if you are intelligent or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch.

Overall, it has been a good conversation and several good points were made. I think the discussion didn't come too close to any sore spots and met with most IDers interest in metawhatevers, so maybe some of it sunk in.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 20 2009,00:00

From your poat at TT:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What if we had a "black box" that recognizes a valid word? And every member of the evolving population has to be a valid word. No near words allowed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But of course language doesn't work that way in practice, as any internet discussion demonstrates.

Every aspect of language evolves: spelling, grammar, denotation, connotation, and so forth.
Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 20 2009,21:57

What, you mean words aren't just poofted into existence fully formed by some unanomous unnamed designer? Blastphemy!!!11!one!two!!

Henry
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 21 2009,08:38

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 20 2009,00:00)
From your poat at TT:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What if we had a "black box" that recognizes a valid word? And every member of the evolving population has to be a valid word. No near words allowed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But of course language doesn't work that way in practice, as any internet discussion demonstrates.

Every aspect of language evolves: spelling, grammar, denotation, connotation, and so forth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That reminds me of a discussion with Bradford about the < evolution of the letter j >. It took generations to occur with no intention to create a new letter. Scribes merely added a bit of a curve to help make double letter i's more readable.



It j-just sort of happened.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 28 2009,06:59

On a thread about The Plausibility of the RNA World. The paper we're discussing is Unrau & Bartel, RNA-catalysed nucleotide synthesis, Nature 1998.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: I placed a drugged mouse under the basket. When I turned the crank, the basket eventually fell and trapped the mouse. Is Milton Bradley's MOUSETRAP a plausible catcher of mice?

< Zachriel >: I'm not an expert on Milton Bradley's MOUSETRAP, so I have no idea.

< chunkdz >: Then I'll give you the answer. It's NO.

Unfortunately, your boring and evasive obfuscations mean you lose your turn. See ya!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had yet to read chunkdz's last comment, so after some thought, I posted this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: Trying again. Milton Bradley's MOUSETRAP is a board game for children and not meant to act as a mousetrap. You are drugging the mouse to represent helping the game in the process of catching the mouse. Without this help, the game would not be a plausible mousetrap. And that's apparently your point.

Of course, that is not the situation with RNA-catalyzed nucleotide synthesis. Given random nucleotide sequences, these ribozymes occur naturally. They will catch mice (catalyze nucleotide synthesis) without any help whatsoever. Furthermore, as part of an evolving network, they will be naturally selected, i.e. amplified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I posted the comment I saw this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are not allowed to comment on this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So I posted on < Open Thread: Hippo >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: ...

I did attempt to answer chunkdz's rather obtuse question about a game I am unfamiliar with. Something about a drugged mouse. He might have simply rephrased his question, but I may have finally stumbled on his point. Because the experiment is in vitro it is irrelevant. Sort of like when Galileo rolled balls down inclines. Totally useless to explaining the trajectory of cannon balls.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A piece of wooden moulding or scantling, about 12 cubits long, half a cubit wide and three finger-breadths thick, was taken; on its edge was cut a channel a little more than one finger in breadth; having made this groove very straight, smooth, and polished, and having lined it with parchment, also as smooth and polished as possible, we rolled along it a hard, smooth, and very round bronze ball.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chunkdz never did respond to the substantive points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hard to be off-topic on an open thread, but the comment was deleted. As usual, I tried to add something of value with the quote from Galileo's Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche, intorno a due nuove scienze.

They must not be fans of Galileo. I responded again on Open Thread: Hippo.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: So you lock me out of the thread where I was clearly making on-topic posts. Then you delete my comment on the open thread. Then you continue to respond on the thread I am locked out of.

Such is the way of The Argument Regarding Design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 28 2009,09:04

Chunkdz is the worst sort of coward.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 28 2009,09:19

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 28 2009,10:04)
Chunkdz is the worst sort of coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what do you get when you anagram that?
Posted by: Amadan on Aug. 28 2009,10:59

I like these:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Shrewd Orthodontist fucks czar: Ow!
Frustration! Czech Dr who'd toss wok.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 28 2009,12:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< don provan >: The important point is that the RNA world is plausible in specific, concrete ways. We can consider what such a world was like, we can consider how such a world could lead to a DNA world, etc.

< chunkdz >: Really? I'd like to see the specifics, Provan.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you wouldn't. When provided specifics, an empirical test of an aspect of RNA World, you responded by locking out further discussion. You are only pretending to be interested in those specifics.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 28 2009,12:10

I was going to answer GringoRoyale's question.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< GringoRoyale >: I've been reading about how Linus Pauling had a different theory as to how the bases in DNA would be on the outside, while Crick believed that the bases would be on the inside of DNA.

Does anyone know what lead to who believing what? I just can't find Crick's reason for assuming they would be on the inside, because Pauling's seems so much more intuitive….
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crick and Watson had access to Rosemary Franklin's < secret of photo 51 >.

But now I'm locked out of the Open Thread, and my previous comment was deleted.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: More teaching…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, chunkdz is an < admitted troll >, so his motives are hardly educational.
Posted by: Raevmo on Aug. 29 2009,05:25

Is there any evidence that chunkdz is not a pedophile preying on little boys?
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 29 2009,08:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< computerist >: Since there is much talk about weasel (plus JAD's request) I thought I'm probably missing out on all the hype and fun so to pass up on the opportunity to code a weasel implementation would be like a kid passing up the opportunity to bag candy during halloween.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except it's not a Weasel implementation, but a Dembskian misrepresentation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< computerist >: If you find a weasel program/algorithm that doesn't run on top of a intelligently designed system please give me a shout. If weasel simulates evolution in any way it should also be true that the same algorithm applies to explain all the pre-existing hardware and software its running on top of.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone else who doesn't grasp the distinction between the model and the implementation. Yes, computerist. You have to take your computer out in the rain to simulate the weather. Simulating volcanic eruptions can be rather tricky too.
Posted by: Reed on Aug. 29 2009,20:19

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 29 2009,06:59)
Someone else who doesn't grasp the distinction between the model and the implementation. Yes, computerist. You have to take your computer out in the rain to simulate the weather. Simulating volcanic eruptions can be rather tricky too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's shocking that the DOE wastes billions developing and operating some of the largest compute clusters in the world. They think this allows them to simulate atomic weapons without actually doing live testing, but if they would just pay attention to ID science, they'd know that the simulation isn't accurate without a real nuke going off in the middle of the data center.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 30 2009,20:05

Nullasalus thinks this strengthens his argument.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: You have three options. A) Provide the scientific test and result that demonstrated God's non-existence and/or God's inaction in evolution, B) Concede that no such test exists, or is possible in principle, C) Enjoy your threadban. A non-answer (Squirming and saying 'not disproven but superfluous' when atheism and atelic views are superfluous to the theory as well would be an example here) entails C.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, dance to his tune, or you're banned.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: I'm an unfair fascist tyrant when it comes to thread-adminning by my own admission.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And a < troll >.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 30 2009,20:42

Nullasalus has taken to deleting holing my comments.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: I ask Zach a point-blank question and he answers with a question and a punt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no questionmark there. That wasn't a question. It was a demand. Please define "God" as you used it above.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: If you want to insist that science has disproved teleology, the existence of God, or the actions of God through evolution, that's fine. And I'm going to call on you to either put up or shut up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just to be clear, you suggested I had "insisted" such-and-such. And I said that I had not insisted such-and-such. That was a direct response to your clear misrepresentation of my views.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 30 2009,20:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: "truly random"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be "truly random" would mean to be uncorrelated with respect with every possible influence, even those we don't know about or can't detect. Similarly with "truly unguided", which would mean unguided by every possible influence, even those we don't know about or can't detect.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: "God did it all 6000 years ago" involves claims that can be investigated to a large degree – but the "God did it" part cannot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not only did many scholars think the Earth was only a few thousand years old, but they also believed that species were created kinds and immutable. And that was the environment Darwin found himself in. He had to answer those objections. More importantly, the modern Theory of Evolution has come a long way since Darwin's day. Other than cultural ID, there is no scientific argument about the mutability of species.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 30 2009,22:39

< I'm with you >, Zachriel.
Posted by: Raevmo on Aug. 31 2009,01:25

Seems like I was silently (or preemptively) banninated from nullasalus' thread.

I enjoyed how he declared himself with lots of fanfare and self-importance to be no longer a Darwinist. Who gives a shit?
Posted by: Quack on Aug. 31 2009,03:00

Quote (Raevmo @ Aug. 31 2009,01:25)
Seems like I was silently (or preemptively) banninated from nullasalus' thread.

I enjoyed how he declared himself with lots of fanfare and self-importance to be no longer a Darwinist. Who gives a shit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems to me like comments are silently closed on that thread?

I just went there to point out that the "the Darwin hypothesis is a minority viewpoint" hardly can be construed as anything but a creationist's denigrative refusal to refer to "the theory of evolution" and is in fact talking about evolutionary theory. I have always thought the ID assumption was the minority viewpoint?
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 31 2009,06:42

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 30 2009,22:39)
< I'm with you >, Zachriel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But considering your criticism of nullasalus' view on chance & science, I find your excuse for backing off, shall we say, conveennient.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: But considering your criticism of my view on chance & science totally missed the mark, I find your excuse for backing off convenient.

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


Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 31 2009,07:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: I won't be reading your AtBC responses, of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course not. Because you can't shut down the discussion.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: But if for some wild reason you want to participate in a thread of mine in the future, be ready to respond when called out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anyone following the thread can see that my responses were reasonable and on-topic. Nor will I change my behavior to suit an "unfair fascist tyrant" and an admitted troll.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: If you want to insist that science has disproved teleology, the existence of God, or the actions of God through evolution, that's fine. And I'm going to call on you to either put up or shut up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You suggested a view I do not hold, and I clearly repudiated your suggestion. Of course, that's based on a common understanding of "God".

I have participated on Telic Thoughts for more than two years and have always endeavored to add to these discussions. Now, you and others on Telic Thoughts have shown yourselves unwilling to engage in an honest discussion.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: Philosophy can be obscure enough without working obfuscations and shell games into the mix.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reading literally, not only was your demand not a question, but as I don't "insist", the balance of your demand is inapplicable.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 31 2009,07:31

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 31 2009,06:42)
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 30 2009,22:39)
< I'm with you >, Zachriel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But considering your criticism of nullasalus' view on chance & science, I find your excuse for backing off, shall we say, conveennient.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: But considering your criticism of my view on chance & science totally missed the mark, I find your excuse for backing off convenient.

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


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


I suppose this means I don't get the < last beer >.
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 31 2009,07:45

nullasalus is an interesting case.  He is well read, but he is also among the least gracious among the TT denizens.  Seems unable to ever concede a point, however minor.  

The < navel-gazing thread >, meanwhile, is attracting crackpots.  < Ulrich Mohrhoff > makes an appearance.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 31 2009,17:23

It's understandable being banned from Bilbo's < Plausibility of the RNA World > thread for not playing Milton Bradley's MOUSETRAP game. It's even comprehensible being banned from Bradford's < Open Thread > thread for being, um, off-topic. But being banned from the < Navel-Gazing > thread, well, it's, it's unfathomable.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 31 2009,19:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: Way to go with the Zach challenge. I wish that kind of thing would happen more here. I think it would make for better discussion from both sides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some discussion for both sides—when one side is not allowed to speak. It's hard to believe that you can't see the irony of your statement.

I'm sorry, fifth monarchy man, my estimation of you has gone way done.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 31 2009,22:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: The sad irony is that some folks mistake calls for honesty and consistency in exchange for the privilege of posting on a private blog as denial of free speech rights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never said you didn't have the right to be a hypocrite or a fool or to maintain your false pretense of open-mindedness. I said I was disappointed in you.

What has transpired is recorded on this thread. Anyone can review the circumstances when commenters have been banned, and the times when comments simply disappeared. To suggest that the repeated actions of Telic Thoughts is intended to lead to a "better discussion for both sides" is simply laughable.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 01 2009,04:26

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 31 2009,02:45)
nullasalus is an interesting case.  He is well read, but he is also among the least gracious among the TT denizens.  Seems unable to ever concede a point, however minor.  

The < navel-gazing thread >, meanwhile, is attracting crackpots.  < Ulrich Mohrhoff > makes an appearance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you are, being the kind and gentle soul you are, overly generous in your assessment of nul as "well read". I think he just reads up on stuff to re-spout it in a sort of "blinding you with philosophy" sort of way. His comments that I have read contain no new insights or novel thoughts. Allowing dialogue would rapidly make that obvious, hence the hiding behind moderation.

I have often advocated a boycott at UD by ID critics as the undiluted stupidity of commenters like Gordon, upright biped, BA^77  et alis would stand out more starkly without sane commenters giving the impression that there are ID arguments worthy of rebuttal.

Why not try an experiment on a smaller scale? I suggest nobody responds to nul's threads or comments. And, since, as Oleg points out, he is congenitally unable to concede points, the saving of wasted time is also a bonus!
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 01 2009,05:18

JOHN_A_DESIGNER:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was null’s banning of zachriel ethical? If there is no objective basis for ethics then that is a pointless question, isn’t it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In other words: if you don't believe in the baby Jeebus, then you can have no legitimate reason to question the ethics of banning.

What a moron.
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 01 2009,05:35

Hi Alan,

To be well read does not directly translate into an ability to generate new ideas.  Nullasalus is not ignorant, he is arrogant.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 01 2009,06:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have often advocated a boycott at UD by ID critics as the undiluted stupidity of commenters like Gordon, upright biped, BA^77  et alis would stand out more starkly without sane commenters giving the impression that there are ID arguments worthy of rebuttal.

Why not try an experiment on a smaller scale? I suggest nobody responds to nul's threads or comments. And, since, as Oleg points out, he is congenitally unable to concede points, the saving of wasted time is also a bonus!

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


I've often been thinking similar thoughts. It would be an interesting experiment to leave the UcD and TT crowds to themselves for, say a month or so and see what would happen. I believe we might get some laughs out of that too. (After all, the purpose of UcD is to "serve the ID community.")
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 01 2009,07:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: Was null’s banning of zachriel ethical?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The banning was designed to intimidate and limit reasonable disputation. The specific ban was due to a plurium interrogationum demand. Other comments on the thread were simply hypocritical.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: Nullasalus is in charge (he has the power and authority) therefore he can do whatever he wants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, he can. Just as I can point out that his behavior was "unfair".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: In other words, might makes right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly. "Unfair" is the antithesis of "right", especially being an admittedly "unfair fascist tyrant" and troll. But nullasalus doesn't have to be fair. I don't expect him to be.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: But how can you have rights if there is no objective basis for morals or ethics?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because if *you* really believed in rights, then you would defend them, even for those you disagree with. Nullasalus even said he was being "unfair", so there is no need to find justification. Now we know the limits of your tepid "objective morals".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: Is it something that can be established by an appeal to natural science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course not. When the moment came to decide what was fair, you punted.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: As for whether null was acting ethically. I think he was. I have long been frustrated by what I thought were zachriels obfuscating responses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, so obfuscation is a banning offense at Telic Thoughts. I thought the whole Telic Thoughts exercise was one of obfuscation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: I would argue then that such questions are much more than navel gazing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then you're off-topic!
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 01 2009,07:21

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 31 2009,07:45)
nullasalus is an interesting case.  He is well read, but he is also among the least gracious among the TT denizens.  Seems unable to ever concede a point, however minor.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't feel obligated to boycott Telic Thoughts. What happened to me was bound to happen. They've revealed their true colors.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 01 2009,07:46

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 01 2009,02:21)
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 31 2009,07:45)
nullasalus is an interesting case.  He is well read, but he is also among the least gracious among the TT denizens.  Seems unable to ever concede a point, however minor.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't feel obligated to boycott Telic Thoughts. What happened to me was bound to happen. They've revealed their true colors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw c'mon!

It doesn't have to be for ever. Let's experiment!

ETA: Thanks for your support, Quack.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 01 2009,07:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: It was the discovery of intron "self splicing" that caused biologists to take seriously an "RNA World"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The RNA World Hypothesis was taken seriously before the discovery that < the ribosome is a ribozyme >, even before Cech and Altman discovered the first < extant ribozymes >. It's been taken seriously since work by Crick, Orgel and Woese a generation ago. Few scientists now doubt that an RNA world existed—in some sense, we live in < RNA World today >—, but RNA First and RNA Only are still open questions.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 01 2009,08:00

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 01 2009,07:46)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 01 2009,02:21)
 
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 31 2009,07:45)
nullasalus is an interesting case.  He is well read, but he is also among the least gracious among the TT denizens.  Seems unable to ever concede a point, however minor.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't feel obligated to boycott Telic Thoughts. What happened to me was bound to happen. They've revealed their true colors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw c'mon!

It doesn't have to be for ever. Let's experiment!

ETA: Thanks for your support, Quack.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's always been a scientific controvery as to whether tardology is best studied with controlled experiments, where we poke and prod the subject, or with natural experiments, where we observe from afar.

The naturalists say that the experimentalists make their work all the more difficult by disturbing the subjects in their given environment, wallowing in the tard of self-satisifed complacency. The experimentalists think the naturalists just don't want to get their hands dirty in the tard-mines.

Still others think they can choke out the infestation by depriving tard of light and oxygen. But this has been shown to be ineffective. Tard thrives on ignorance.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 01 2009,08:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: This is a warning to everyone. The new policy at Telic Thoughts is if you are banned from a thread and you go to another to complain, you will be site banned. You've been warned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So complaining about moderation policy is not allowed on Open Threads. So complaining about moderation policy is simply not allowed at Telic Thoughts.

Gotcha.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 01 2009,08:34

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 01 2009,03:00)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 01 2009,07:46)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 01 2009,02:21)
   
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 31 2009,07:45)
nullasalus is an interesting case.  He is well read, but he is also among the least gracious among the TT denizens.  Seems unable to ever concede a point, however minor.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't feel obligated to boycott Telic Thoughts. What happened to me was bound to happen. They've revealed their true colors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw c'mon!

It doesn't have to be for ever. Let's experiment!

ETA: Thanks for your support, Quack.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's always been a scientific controvery as to whether tardology is best studied with controlled experiments, where we poke and prod the subject, or with natural experiments, where we observe from afar.

The naturalists say that the experimentalists make their work all the more difficult by disturbing the subjects in their given environment, wallowing in the tard of self-satisifed complacency. The experimentalists think the naturalists just don't want to get their hands dirty in the tard-mines.

Still others think they can choke out the infestation by depriving tard of light and oxygen. But this has been shown to be ineffective. Tard thrives on ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But this has been shown to be ineffective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a bald assertion, Sir! Quote your evidence.

In rebuttal, I would cite the Overwhelming Evidence site, ISCID, John Davison's blog...
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 01 2009,09:54

JOHN_A_DESIGNER seemed like a sensible guy so far, but this unsubtle dig about the lack of objective basis for morals and ethics shows that he, too, is fubar.  No, John, I don't think that there is an objective basis for those, but I think it makes sense to have them anyway.  We can haz rights nao?  

Anyway, with the school year upon us, I have little time for TT.  Now that JoeG has joined the fun, there are plenty of deep thinkers in that thread.  And if they have specific questions, they should feel free to visit teh swamp.  Joy did and look how it turned out!
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 01 2009,18:50

That didn't take long. New TT contributor Alexei got comments deleted and was silently banned very quickly, despite being quite civil.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 01 2009,19:29

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 01 2009,06:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have often advocated a boycott at UD by ID critics as the undiluted stupidity of commenters like Gordon, upright biped, BA^77  et alis would stand out more starkly without sane commenters giving the impression that there are ID arguments worthy of rebuttal.

Why not try an experiment on a smaller scale? I suggest nobody responds to nul's threads or comments. And, since, as Oleg points out, he is congenitally unable to concede points, the saving of wasted time is also a bonus!

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


I've often been thinking similar thoughts. It would be an interesting experiment to leave the UcD and TT crowds to themselves for, say a month or so and see what would happen. I believe we might get some laughs out of that too. (After all, the purpose of UcD is to "serve the ID community.")
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that poking them with sticks is the best course. Before UD became more open, I always thought that most IDists were reasonably intelligent but misguided. Now anybody looking at the threads can see that ALL of them are Batshit crazy.

I think that if you did a study of the posters at UD and removed the anti-IDists and the obvious Poes that the number of real posters at UD has dropped compared to six months ago.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 02 2009,09:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Weasel is programmed to select a particular message.

< don provan >: This is imprecise to the point of being deceptive. Weasel is programmed to guess randomly about a particular message in a way that allows it to learn which guesses are better than others. Again, this is just like real life. The process itself is mindless and undirected even though the desired result is predefined.

< Bradford >: This is deceptive to the point of being wicked. The only randomness simulated is the 1 in 26 possibility for each position during each iteration (itself a departure from real life where odds are considerably longer). Then that randomness ceases when the predefined desired letter appears and no further variation occurs. The outcome is predetermined at the outset and the only variable is the number of iterations required to get there. The process is not mindless but rather programmed to artificially stop "mutations" when the desired letter appears in the designated location.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently, Bradford doesn't understand how Weasel works either. Why doesn't that evoke surprise?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: There is no variable environment in weasel. The environment is static and guaranteed to generate only one possible outcome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's easy enough to make the target < drift randomly >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: The whole bit is typical of the intellectual dishonesty of Darwinists (as opposed to evolutionists) who seek to insert their non-scientific views through a science door.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because Bradford's ignorance is evidence of dishonesty in others.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 02 2009,09:52

the ability to completely misunderstand "weasel" and simultaneously conflate that with "evil darwinists" is like a badge of honor for these neo-creationists

its like a race to the dumbest idea.

i did however think bradford was smarter than that.  now i know mo bettah
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 02 2009,10:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< don provan >: And the problem you face but are not addressing is how to distinguish what you consider a plausible notion from what we all agree are nonsensical notions.

< kornbelt888 >: Wrong. I have no burden at all to demonstrate anything of the sort to anyone. My only interest in this matter is the clear of elucidation within science curricula of the limits of the scientific method, and the exposure of non-scientific propaganda masquerading as science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you can't or won't distinguish plausible from nonsensical, then you can't hope to elucidate the limits of the scientific method.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 02 2009,10:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: The weasel approach only demonstrates cumulative selection. It is of no benefit whatsoever, if the search is open ended, in determining whether the variation generator is sufficient to generator the right values for the target string.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you think the hypothesis that mutations could have a < molecular basis > might be fruitful?
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 02 2009,12:57

Hi Guts, I'm sure you know I can't respond. Is your nick meant "ironically"?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Crick: It is tempting to wonder if the primitive ribosome could have been made entirely of RNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That doesn’t predict the rRNA is carrying out the peptidyltransferase activity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the ribosome made proteins and it is constructed entirely of RNA, then ribosomal-RNA made proteins. If you read the paper, Crick wrongly presumed that proteins had coopted the transferase activity for greater precision.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: If it had turned out that proteins played the catalytic role, Zach would probably be quoting Crick to defend the RNA world – "he predicted “the presumed polymerase, may now be protein, having been replaced because a protein could do the job with greater precision.""
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes! Now you got it. Even in 1968, even while thinking that many of the functions of protein synthesis had been coopted by proteins, the evidence was such that Crick was already suspecting that the ribosome may have once been made entirely of RNA. Since then, we've seen the discovery of ribozymes, and the determination that the ribosome *is* a ribozyme.

RNA World is alive and well.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 02 2009,13:05

For emphasis.

Crick did not suggest that modern ribosomes were based on RNA. He clearly stated, as I quoted, that he thought these functions were coopted by proteins. It turns out, though, that his conjecture that ancient ribosomes were based on RNA has been largely confirmed. Not only did RNA World once exist—it still exists.

It's an RNA World. We just live in it.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 02 2009,14:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: 26^8 = 208,827,064,576
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Math is hard.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: So of a total number of 208,827,064,576 possibilites you got there in 3850 tries correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dawning realization.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: I'm asking why you arrive at a target having the enormous number of possible pathways we see in the above figures in so few tries. Luck or something more to this program you are not telling?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a trick I tell you! A < dwarf in the machine >!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Consider this:

65. BRWDFORD
66. BRBDFORD

8 letters. All free to "mutate" yet only one does. How incredible is that!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! Isn't that amazing. You're only looking at the winners, Bradford, from a population of mutant offspring, most of which strongly resemble the parent.

(The real question is how long this can continue before Bradford shuts down all inputs to minimize the cognitive dissonance.)
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 02 2009,14:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Tom MH >: Unfortunately, the model I've linked to in the above posts only shows the one survivor at each generation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Attitude Weasel > records every child of every generation, and lists letter reversions and step-backs. It only does the one string though, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL." (Oughta fix that one day.)
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 02 2009,14:28

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 02 2009,12:57)
Hi Guts, I'm sure you know I can't respond. Is your nick meant "ironically"?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Crick: It is tempting to wonder if the primitive ribosome could have been made entirely of RNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That doesn’t predict the rRNA is carrying out the peptidyltransferase activity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the ribosome made proteins and it is constructed entirely of RNA, then ribosomal-RNA made proteins. If you read the paper, Crick wrongly presumed that proteins had coopted the transferase activity for greater precision.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: If it had turned out that proteins played the catalytic role, Zach would probably be quoting Crick to defend the RNA world – "he predicted “the presumed polymerase, may now be protein, having been replaced because a protein could do the job with greater precision.""
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes! Now you got it. Even in 1968, even while thinking that many of the functions of protein synthesis had been coopted by proteins, the evidence was such that Crick was already suspecting that the ribosome may have once been made entirely of RNA. Since then, we've seen the discovery of ribozymes, and the determination that the ribosome *is* a ribozyme.

RNA World is alive and well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cech, mate!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 02 2009,14:31

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 02 2009,15:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: 26^8 = 208,827,064,576
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Math is hard.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: So of a total number of 208,827,064,576 possibilites you got there in 3850 tries correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dawning realization.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: I'm asking why you arrive at a target having the enormous number of possible pathways we see in the above figures in so few tries. Luck or something more to this program you are not telling?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a trick I tell you! A < dwarf in the machine >!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Consider this:

65. BRWDFORD
66. BRBDFORD

8 letters. All free to "mutate" yet only one does. How incredible is that!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! Isn't that amazing. You're only looking at the winners, Bradford, from a population of mutant offspring, most of which strongly resemble the parent.

(The real question is how long this can continue before Bradford shuts down all inputs to minimize the cognitive dissonance.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you can lead a tard to water if you start to make him drink he'll ban you
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 03 2009,06:59

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 02 2009,14:01)
(The real question is how long this can continue before Bradford shuts down all inputs to minimize the cognitive dissonance.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The door slams shut.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: So then all letters are not free to mutate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sort of a Sisyphean process.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: Weasel shows that cumulative search reaches the peak of fitness much, much, much faster than does random search. Do you have any objection against that? No? I thought so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A simple question.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: It was not intended to be a realistic model of natural selection. If you want to investigate how that works in a model that better represents evolution in a population of organisms, write your own god-damned model.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A gentle suggestion.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: Dawkins used Weasel to made a simple point: cumulative search works better than random search. Do you agree with that point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They must have missed the question the first umpteen times.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: Just answer my question.

Pretty please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very special pleading. That's a fallacy. And you forgot the cherry on top!
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 03 2009,07:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: But why not produce a search methodology that utilizes intermediate fitness values en route to the target. Or is that too challenging?

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


Or better yet, no specific target.

< >
< Word Mutagenation. >
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 03 2009,07:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: Sorry, Don, but you're coming awfully close to sounding like an idiot or a troll. I'm just sayin'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


kornbelt888 doesn't know the meaning of < troll >. A troll has ulterior motives. For < instance >. Next kornbelt888 will be complaining that don provan brings up pixies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster on a thread about navel-gazing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: You've repeatedly brought ideas like pixies and FSMs into the picture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: Well, you are welcome to your views. From my angle you're merely a shameful bigot with a cultural agenda. You're fooling nobody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that I'm gone, the conversation has become quite elevated. Though it takes quite a bit of talent to be ejected from a thread about navel-gazing. {Zachriel bows to thunderous applause that only he can hear, the sound of a thousand angel wings beating at once.}


-
Edited for the betterment of all.

Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 03 2009,07:21

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 02 2009,10:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< don provan >: And the problem you face but are not addressing is how to distinguish what you consider a plausible notion from what we all agree are nonsensical notions.

< kornbelt888 >: Wrong. I have no burden at all to demonstrate anything of the sort to anyone. My only interest in this matter is the clear of elucidation within science curricula of the limits of the scientific method, and the exposure of non-scientific propaganda masquerading as science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you can't or won't distinguish plausible from nonsensical, then you can't hope to elucidate the limits of the scientific method.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought I had seen that somewhere before.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: I offer my assessments and opinions when I think appropriate. I you want a case made, talk to someone who is interested in making a case to your satisfaction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zachriel: I'll try to keep in mind that you admit to making assertions that you are unwilling to support.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 03 2009,08:12

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 03 2009,07:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: But why not produce a search methodology that utilizes intermediate fitness values en route to the target. Or is that too challenging?

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


Or better yet, no specific target.

< >
< Word Mutagenation. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about intermediate fitness values to no particular target?

< http://itatsi.com >
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 03 2009,08:29

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 03 2009,08:12)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 03 2009,07:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: But why not produce a search methodology that utilizes intermediate fitness values en route to the target. Or is that too challenging?

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


Or better yet, no specific target.

< >
< Word Mutagenation. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about intermediate fitness values to no particular target?

< http://itatsi.com >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! That's rather an entertaining game!
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 04 2009,00:32

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 02 2009,08:52)
i did however think bradford was smarter than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you kidding?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 04 2009,08:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey! That's rather an entertaining game!

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



Yeah, but at least half of each generation is implicitly latched. It's pretty blatant.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 04 2009,12:39

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 04 2009,01:32)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2009,08:52)
i did however think bradford was smarter than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you kidding?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no just ignorant
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 04 2009,21:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I wish to emphasize that the subject matter to which the law refers- objects, motion, direction, speed and force- were all commonly observed phenomenon prior to Newton's formulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was well known that objects tend to come to rest, not keep in motion. If the horse stops pulling the wagon it will eventually come to rest. That's the observation. It was careful experiments by Galileo that teased out what we call inertia, Newton's First Law of Motion. You think it's intuitive, but like the round Earth, it's simply the result of familiarity with the concept.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 06 2009,20:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: At best, any conjectures about OOL can only describe what may have happened. They cannot tell us what in fact happened, and they can have no practical benefit to humans now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact, the hypothesis that functional primordial proteins originated from random sequences led to experiments to determine how common such sequences are, and that has led to a technological innovation of creating novel functional proteins through artificial evolution.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 07 2009,00:02

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 04 2009,21:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I wish to emphasize that the subject matter to which the law refers- objects, motion, direction, speed and force- were all commonly observed phenomenon prior to Newton's formulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was well known that objects tend to come to rest, not keep in motion. If the horse stops pulling the wagon it will eventually come to rest. That's the observation. It was careful experiments by Galileo that teased out what we call inertia, Newton's First Law of Motion. You think it's intuitive, but like the round Earth, it's simply the result of familiarity with the concept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, that's one of the things I remember from high school physics that it used to be *obvious* that everything eventually stops.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 07 2009,08:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: For example, the existence of a house of cards is not in-and-of-itself a violation of physical law, but its assembly is not consistent with simple repeatable physical mechanisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crystals, molecules and geology often form such structures; sometimes strongly bound, like this diamond; other times weakly bound, like a house of cards.

< >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: It is certainly more believable that ID is the answer with respect to a house of cards because we know and see with our own eyes who the intelligent designers are, and we know they are capable and motivated to construct such artifacts. So even if I don't see a human in the act of making a house of cards, when I stumble upon a house of cards, I presume:

1. it is the product of ID
2. humans are the intelligent designer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Kings and Queens might be a clue.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: The work of OOL researches is comparable to finding simple mechanisms for the formation of house of cards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: I just don't think it is reasonable to assume ordinary mechansims can spontaneously construct computational, information processing systems which we see in life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What you think is not an argument. It's what you can show. We already know that organisms can evolve new "computational, information processing systems".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: I would postulate the "god particle" in the search for OOL is intelligence, not any mechanism we see in operation today….
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem is that your "postulate" is vacuous. It doesn't entail any empirical implications. It's just a place to put your incredulity.
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 08 2009,17:44

Try to get into a serious population genetics argument with Sal at TT (< link >) and you get silently banninated.

I know they can't prove* that JarrodF was Raevmo's sock, so apparently they prefer to risk banning "innocent" contributors rather than to give the benefit of the doubt and see wherever the discussion may lead.

Losers.

*Or can they? At most they can prove you're using a proxy server, right?
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 08 2009,18:12

< Bradford: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fitness functions are intrinsically teleological. The best an anti-telican can do is argue for a causal source for an initial, stable replicator that is grounded in "brute forces of nature." IOW, predefined as non-telic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Anti-telican? A mutant anti-pelican?

Whenever (i.e, always) Bradford is losing an argument, he brings up the OOL if he doesn't ban you outright.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 08 2009,20:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: Suppose one day you decide to ask our physicist friend olegt if the Higgs Boson exists. He immediately answers “yes.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They just can't seem to get a grip on the distinction between a hypothesis, a theory and a fact.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: John, you are making a fool of yourself. I am < on the record > saying that the existence of the Higgs boson is yet to be confirmed experimentally. I already asked you twice not to make stuff up about me. That ought to be enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch! JOHN_A_DESIGNER should have used a pseudonymous speaker, such as Salviati.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: I think that is what is going on with irreducibly complex sub-cellular structures. The experts can’t presently answer the question but believe that eventually there will be explained by natural selection. But that is not science, that is crystal ball gazing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A lot is already known about the evolution of many sub-cellular structures, so it's not crystal ball gazing.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 09 2009,02:51

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 08 2009,12:44)
Try to get into a serious population genetics argument with Sal at TT (< link >) and you get silently banninated.

I know they can't prove* that JarrodF was Raevmo's sock, so apparently they prefer to risk banning "innocent" contributors rather than to give the benefit of the doubt and see wherever the discussion may lead.

Losers.



*Or can they? At most they can prove you're using a proxy server, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just thought I'd post this  at TT. (I know, I'm not taking my own advice. So, sue me.)    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see JarrodF. is claiming elsewhere that his posting privileges have been withdrawn. I note Zachriel and Raevmo have not been posting recently. Has the laager been drawn a bit tighter recently? Might I suggest a brief comment announcing any bans would be preferable to the "empty chair" arguments that ensue, assuming that the mods are concerned about integrity, of course. If not, never mind.

With Bradford now talking about "poo boys", I guess I don't need to ask the question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA:

How mysterious! I am no longer able to post at Telic Thoughts. Should have taken my own advice!

ETA

It may be just a glitch. I can add short comments but longer ones don't appear.

ETA

< link >
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 09 2009,15:28

< Bradford: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To the contrary, the mind is the explanation. It is nueral activity that is superfluous in addition to being poorly understood and not linkable to an explanation for consciousness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good lord. This is stupid on so many levels. But then again, I guess in Bradford's case neural activity is really superfluous. And yet - yet I crave this kind of tard. What is wrong with me? (don't answer that please)
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 10 2009,12:12

Sal is still < talking to my sock >, even though it was silently banned days ago.

Maybe someone (Alan?) can go there and invite Sal to continue the discussion here. Is there a Walter Remine/Haldane's Dilemma thread?
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 10 2009,12:53

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 09 2009,13:28)
< Bradford: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To the contrary, the mind is the explanation. It is nueral activity that is superfluous in addition to being poorly understood and not linkable to an explanation for consciousness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good lord. This is stupid on so many levels. But then again, I guess in Bradford's case neural activity is really superfluous. And yet - yet I crave this kind of tard. What is wrong with me? (don't answer that please)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"My name is Raevmo, and I'm a tardaholic." Do they have 12-step programs in the Netherlands?

Someone should ask Tardford why the Designer gave us enormous brains that burn 20% of our energy generating "superfluous" neural activity.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 10 2009,13:11

so, can you tell me in seven sentences or less why you do the TT?

as opposed to the UD?

just wondering, for some reason I have never been that excited about Telic Tards.  Perhaps it's because they don't have D-d--d-d-d-d-embski, perhaps it's the ghost of Dave Tard, perhaps it's because most of them aren't as IMMEDIATELY transparently godbotters.  

I do enjoy this thread though.
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 10 2009,13:39

keiths:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"My name is Raevmo, and I'm a tardaholic." Do they have 12-step programs in the Netherlands?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, but not for tardaholics. Perhaps I should start one. Hmmm, or maybe better a commercial tard-rehab facility for rich tardaholics. Why should only the tard-dealers get rich on tard?
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 10 2009,13:48

'Ras:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
so, can you tell me in seven sentences or less why you do the TT?

as opposed to the UD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I started out with UD but got banned quickly. So I moved on to TT, the next richest tard mine as far as I knew. It's too much trouble for me to focus on more than one mine. I try to have a life sometimes and I can read and laugh about UD here. Besides, much better miners than myself are making fools of the tards there. But perhaps I will go back to UD - which is much more fun now than it used to be - having mastered the art of hiding behind proxy servers.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 11 2009,20:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< CJYman >: Is it your goal to move up the hill? Is that why you are intelligently paying attention to the slant of the ground and including that information in your decision making?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an analogy. It's a fitness landscape that represents differential reproductive success. It's not actually a hill, so you don't have to "include that information in your decision making". There is no decision making, just differential reproduction.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< CJYman >: But how do you know that the slant will help you in the first place?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no *knowing*. It's an analogy. The replicators will traverse the landscape if they can, otherwise they won't.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< CJYman >: What if the environment consists of a bunch of small molehills and you "get stuck" atop one of them in your attempt to reach the top of the hill — if that is indeed what you are attempting to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no *attempting*. It's an analogy. Yes, the replicators may end up on a local maximum. But the biological fitness landscape is such that fish can evolve into mammals.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 12 2009,06:29

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 10 2009,07:12)
Sal is still < talking to my sock >, even though it was silently banned days ago.

Maybe someone (Alan?) can go there and invite Sal to continue the discussion here. Is there a Walter Remine/Haldane's Dilemma thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, Ravmo, my daughter was visiting so no computer time recently.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alan Fox Says:
September 12th, 2009 at 7:19 am
@ Sal,

JarrodF is "no longer with us". You have the option to carry on dialogue with him < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 12 2009,07:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: About a year ago I came in possession of a small orange cat. He is the first pet that I have ever had as an adult so I have developed something of a semi-scientific curiosity in his behavior...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: My observation is that my cat has more adaptability and problem solving capability and than he needs to survive in the wild. This simply does not make sense from a selfish gene perspective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cats have to outsmart their prey, and compete against other cats, and domestic cats also interact with humans. The cat become smarter to outsmart the mouse, the mouse becomes smarter to outsmart the cat. Cats become smarter to outsmart each other. And cats become smarter to outsmart their humans (which is apparently the case here).

< >

"It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."


-
Edited to add context.

Posted by: olegt on Sep. 12 2009,08:02

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 10 2009,12:12)
Sal is still < talking to my sock >, even though it was silently banned days ago.

Maybe someone (Alan?) can go there and invite Sal to continue the discussion here. Is there a Walter Remine/Haldane's Dilemma thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal < sends regrets >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I saw the hyperlink pointing to ATBC. I have a policy of not going there anymore. Haven't visited since 2008 or so. It's a real cesspoll and waste of time IIRC.

What happened to Jarrod? On what grounds is he not here?

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


Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 12 2009,08:28

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 12 2009,08:02)
   
Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 10 2009,12:12)
Sal is still < talking to my sock >, even though it was silently banned days ago.

Maybe someone (Alan?) can go there and invite Sal to continue the discussion here. Is there a Walter Remine/Haldane's Dilemma thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal < sends regrets >:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I saw the hyperlink pointing to ATBC. I have a policy of not going there anymore. Haven't visited since 2008 or so. It's a real cesspoll and waste of time IIRC.

What happened to Jarrod? On what grounds is he not here?

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


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


Grounds? It has been carefully explained that when it comes to banning, the stated policy is "< unfair fascist tyranny >" with moderation effected by < admitted > < trolls >. Grounds are not required. Nor is < criticism > allowed.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 12 2009,17:53

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 12 2009,08:28)
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 12 2009,08:02)
   
Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 10 2009,12:12)
Sal is still < talking to my sock >, even though it was silently banned days ago.

Maybe someone (Alan?) can go there and invite Sal to continue the discussion here. Is there a Walter Remine/Haldane's Dilemma thread?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal < sends regrets >:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I saw the hyperlink pointing to ATBC. I have a policy of not going there anymore. Haven't visited since 2008 or so. It's a real cesspoll and waste of time IIRC.

What happened to Jarrod? On what grounds is he not here?

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


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


Grounds? It has been carefully explained that when it comes to banning, the stated policy is "< unfair fascist tyranny >" with moderation effected by < admitted > < trolls >. Grounds are not required. Nor is < criticism > allowed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I made the mistake of following that link. Sal pontificating on Paleoanthropology and the Dmanisi finds made me LoL for quite a long time since these finds were made in the late 1990's and the implications for human evolution have been debated ever since.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 12 2009,20:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: Behe, Common Descent, & UD

First, let me quote part of Michael Behe's argument, from his book, The Edge of Evolution, that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin {pseudogene data}.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


No single comparison is sufficient to draw a conclusion of Common Descent. (Notably, you can't construct a nested hierarchy with just two points.) Rather, there are many separate strands of evidence pointing to the same conclusion.

But leaving that aside, this is the important part.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: But I do expect fellow proponents of ID to pay attention. That brings me to the blog, Uncommon Descent. There are many critics of common descent at UD. No surprise there. They very often refer to people who believe in common descent as "98 percenters." And the tone they use toward these people seems to be a bit, well, snooty, and occasionally downright hostile. Again, no big surprise there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My Goodness! Some IDers don't accept Common Descent!! How tardological can they be?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< bFast >: Hi Bilbo, I appreciate your frustration with Uncommon Descent when it comes to common ancestry. There are many, including Cornelius Hunter, who regularly equate common ancestry with neo-Darwinism. I would also say that there are many on UD that are highly religously motivated... If the ID community doesn't truly let the evidence lead, then it truly is creationism in a cheap tuxedo... However, UD has an abundance of commenters, and more than a few posters, who have not separated their religious committment from their science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is very interesting. Telic Thinkers may have discovered tard. This could disprove the hypothesis that those who dwell in tard can't smell the tard. (Cognitive dissonance may lead to a memory block, which would salvage the hypothesis. We'll have to wait and see.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Mike Enge dovatseac front oldaing.

Can you make that out?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh, yeah.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Pez >: Hi Bilbo, is it possible to be an ID proponent and not accept the evidence for common descent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not just possible, it's a fact. We have the data archived at AtBC.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< computerist >: John A. Davison said:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh my. He's citing Davison.


< >
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 13 2009,08:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >:  I'm an unfair fascist tyrant when it comes to thread-adminning by my own admission.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: We have ID critics here, and full-blown proponents of 'unguided, unintelligent' Darwinism as well. I'm asking them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. You can ban anyone you want, for any reason you want, but it is hypocritical to then claim you are providing an open forum for critics. For instance, Telic Thoughts banned JAM, a biologist specializing in the study of myosins in mammals.


< >
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 13 2009,08:49

This quote applies to Uncommon Descent, as well as to Telic Thoughts. When having these discussions, I always insist that we start with what we can establish with some certainty, and that certainly includes Common Descent as it applies to most taxa and traits.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< computerist >: As an ID proponent I have indeed thought about UCD at multiple resolutions. I have concluded that its completely irrelevant to the issue of whether Darwinian processes or an Intelligent Designer was involved. This irrelevance blows UCD through the roof simply from the fact that these organisms are each carriers of prescribed "blueprint" information slowly but surely waiting for their next "release" state.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Common Descent is the most important unifying pattern in biology. Just pretending it isn't there doesn't make it go away. When IDers "provisionally" allow for Common Descent, then ask for the mechanisms, it doesn't take long before it is apparent they don't really allow for Common Descent.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 15 2009,06:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< AnaxagorasRules > (quoting Behe): Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not “turned on” In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.) Additionally, suppose the designer placed into the cell some other systems for which we cannot adduce enough evidence to conclude design. The cell containing the designed systems then was left on autopilot to reproduce, mutate, eat or be eaten, bump against rocks, and suffer the vagaries of life on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Had almost forgotten Behe's 'hypothesis'. It looks exactly like evolution—except those aspects just beyond Behe's ability to discern.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< AnaxagorasRules >: The reason why he believes this is because he is a biochemist and can't figure out how the complex functions in the cell could have gradually evolved, and all the evidence at his disposable indicates irreducible complexity (for some of the systems) such that they couldn't have gradually evolved. Also, just as importantly, neither can anyone else figure it out. Essentially he's making an inference based on what he does know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, he's making an inference based on what he doesn't know. It's a measure of his ignorance. The less Behe knows (or acknowledges), the stronger the 'design inference'.
Posted by: Leftfield on Sep. 15 2009,10:04

I got a little snarky with ChunkyD and Bradford when they accused me of hypocrisy in one of the political threads. In case it doesn't show up there, I at least want to refute the charge here.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gentlemen:
My post was not an example of hypocrisy. Your posts are examples of shooting your mouths off based on partisan sour grapes without regard for the facts of the situation. Or would it be more charitable to suggest that you don't know that U.S. Supreme Court Justices have lifetime tenure?
Please note the following sentence from my three sentence post (It was three sentences long! You don't have the attention span to read and understand three sentences without going off on a partisan accusation of hypocrisy?):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let him appoint who he wants to bureaucratic/political positions that the next president can replace.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were not nominated for bureaucratic/political positions that the next president could replace.
Cass Sunstein was nominated for a posiiton that the next president could replace.
Can you understand why that makes a difference?

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


Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 17 2009,12:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >:  it has lead the "standard model" to become "surprised" by such discoveries as this



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< The Design Matrix >:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Hox/HOM genes also play a similar role in body patterning in both insects and vertebrates, specifying anteroposterior position along the body axis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The most spectacular finding….was unsuspected as recently as 5 years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Yes, spectacular confirmation of the Theory of Evolution. Bilaterians share many of the genes that control bilateralism. Evolution encompasses development.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: Incidently, evolutionary theory is itself changing
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guts discovers something remarkable. A robust theory changes, and can be extended, modified, and become more detailed. Entire new fields of study spawned from Darwin's original insight.
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 17 2009,13:10

Zachriel, have you been site-banned there? Or have the rigours of tard-mining sidelined you for a while?

edited for orthographic rectitude
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 17 2009,14:35

Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 17 2009,13:10)
Zachriel, have you been site-banned there? Or have the rigours of tard-mining sidelined you for a while?

edited for orthographic rectitude
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was banned on several consecutive threads. Also, complaining about the bans, even on Open Threads, has been banned. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble unless they enact a consistent moderation policy. But I may yet post again.

Meanwhile, I still haul up tard into the light of AtBC.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 17 2009,15:14

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 17 2009,15:35)
Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 17 2009,13:10)
Zachriel, have you been site-banned there? Or have the rigours of tard-mining sidelined you for a while?

edited for orthographic rectitude
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was banned on several consecutive threads. Also, complaining about the bans, even on Open Threads, has been banned. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble unless they enact a consistent moderation policy. But I may yet post again.

Meanwhile, I still haul up tard into the light of AtBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and for that you shall have 72 virgins
Posted by: ppb on Sep. 17 2009,15:26

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 17 2009,16:14)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 17 2009,15:35)
 
Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 17 2009,13:10)
Zachriel, have you been site-banned there? Or have the rigours of tard-mining sidelined you for a while?

edited for orthographic rectitude
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was banned on several consecutive threads. Also, complaining about the bans, even on Open Threads, has been banned. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble unless they enact a consistent moderation policy. But I may yet post again.

Meanwhile, I still haul up tard into the light of AtBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and for that you shall have 72 virgins
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, here at ATBC, we're offering 100 virgins.


Still have to be dead to collect though.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 22 2009,06:44

Slightly off topic, but I have received another bannination, at least I think I have, this time from Jerry Coyne's blog. It is odd because I have only commented there, at most, ten times --and never anything especially rude, tasteless or offensive (nor was I purple, obsequious or clairvoyant). Mostly I commented on a few of his "fatheist" and "only one way of knowing" threads.

But the last two times I tried to post--nothing--the comment was disappeared into the aether.

If so, it is a low-class banning, since I was never warned, no shot across the bow, and never told. Is that what you guys call a silent banning?

Are all people in Chicago so bloody insecure? Hughes, any comment?
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 22 2009,21:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the comment was disappeared into the aether.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And here I thought that aether theory had gotten dropped a long time ago...

Henry
Posted by: sledgehammer on Sep. 22 2009,22:58

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 22 2009,19:56)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the comment was disappeared into the aether.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And here I thought that aether theory had gotten dropped a long time ago...

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


The aether theory is still alive and well with the cranks and crackpots (like Louis Savain a.k.a. < Mapou >)
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2009,11:52

I am pleased and flattered to announce my bannination at Telic Thoughts.

My last comment

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thomas Huxley, who coined the term abiogenesis to denote the idea that life evolved from non-living matter, gave a lecture at Edinburgh in 1868 called "On the Physical Basis of Life." In it he posited the term protoplasm as a fundamental substance to life. In the ensuing years can you cite a well supported theory for life from non-life?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'd be the first to say there isn't one, nor is there likely to be any time soon. So what? Doesn't promote ID theories of how life started. Which are...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



gets

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /wp-comments-post.php on this server.

Apache/2.0.54 Server at telicthoughts.com Port 80
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ETA correct formatting
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2009,11:54

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 22 2009,01:44)
Slightly off topic, but I have received another bannination, at least I think I have, this time from Jerry Coyne's blog. It is odd because I have only commented there, at most, ten times --and never anything especially rude, tasteless or offensive (nor was I purple, obsequious or clairvoyant). Mostly I commented on a few of his "fatheist" and "only one way of knowing" threads.

But the last two times I tried to post--nothing--the comment was disappeared into the aether.

If so, it is a low-class banning, since I was never warned, no shot across the bow, and never told. Is that what you guys call a silent banning?

Are all people in Chicago so bloody insecure? Hughes, any comment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now I've time on my hands, I'll take up the cudgel for you if you like.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2009,11:57

Wow, IP banned, can't even view the site. Must have hit a nerve!
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 23 2009,12:00

Sorry, but I don't think that's evidence of bannination, Alan. I've been banninated several times at TT, and what happens is that posts simply disappear into thin air.

Try something slightly more insulting (but at the same time more realistic) and see what happens then. May I suggest simultaneously bringing up Bradford's rock bottom IQ and chunkdz's fondness for hairy men?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2009,12:07

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 23 2009,07:00)
Sorry, but I don't think that's evidence of bannination, Alan. I've been banninated several times at TT, and what happens is that posts simply disappear into thin air.

Try something slightly more insulting (but at the same time more realistic) and see what happens then. May I suggest simultaneously bringing up Bradford's rock bottom IQ and chunkdz's fondness for hairy men?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am on a dynamic IP so they only blocked the current IP. I refreshed and the site is visible. I can log in and submit, but the comment disappears. I think poking Paul Nelson with his own quote might have done it.

It's a site ban, Raevmo, not a thread ban. Can't post on any thread. Considering I am a rank amateur in comparison to the professionals like you and Keiths (though Zach seems to have been readmitted) I really do take it as a compliment!
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 23 2009,12:18

I guess I was wrong then. Congratulations! I am on a few fixed IP's (home and work), and I can log in but posts never see the light of day.

They have become quite sensitive at TT lately. I wonder what made them change policy. Now they have become a more boring version of UD with only a few "critics" allowed to comment.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 23 2009,14:02

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 23 2009,11:54)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 22 2009,01:44)
Slightly off topic, but I have received another bannination, at least I think I have, this time from Jerry Coyne's blog. It is odd because I have only commented there, at most, ten times --and never anything especially rude, tasteless or offensive (nor was I purple, obsequious or clairvoyant). Mostly I commented on a few of his "fatheist" and "only one way of knowing" threads.

But the last two times I tried to post--nothing--the comment was disappeared into the aether.

If so, it is a low-class banning, since I was never warned, no shot across the bow, and never told. Is that what you guys call a silent banning?

Are all people in Chicago so bloody insecure? Hughes, any comment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now I've time on my hands, I'll take up the cudgel for you if you like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No need, but a sincere thanks for the offer.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2009,14:03

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 23 2009,07:18)
I guess I was wrong then. Congratulations! I am on a few fixed IP's (home and work), and I can log in but posts never see the light of day.

They have become quite sensitive at TT lately. I wonder what made them change policy. Now they have become a more boring version of UD with only a few "critics" allowed to comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder what made them change policy. Now they have become a more boring version of UD with only a few "critics" allowed to comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe the fact that nothing has changed since Paul Nelson said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" – but as yet no general theory of biological design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and nothing is going to.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 23 2009,14:06

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 23 2009,14:03)
Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 23 2009,07:18)
I guess I was wrong then. Congratulations! I am on a few fixed IP's (home and work), and I can log in but posts never see the light of day.

They have become quite sensitive at TT lately. I wonder what made them change policy. Now they have become a more boring version of UD with only a few "critics" allowed to comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder what made them change policy. Now they have become a more boring version of UD with only a few "critics" allowed to comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe the fact that nothing has changed since Paul Nelson said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" – but as yet no general theory of biological design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and nothing is going to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Alan, does this mean you'll be flouncing out of the debate again real soon?  You seem to do so every 6 months or so.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 23 2009,14:08

Don't blame me for Telic Thoughts shenanigans. I'm just a cultural ambassador here in Chicago...
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2009,15:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, Alan, does this mean you'll be flouncing out of the debate again real soon?  You seem to do so every 6 months or so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, nobody is ever cured of tard addiction. I take it one day at a time.
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 23 2009,15:33

Unfortunately for tard addicts, as < Dr Dave points out >, you can now use Google < sidewiki > to keep commenting even if you're banninated. I wonder if site owners can do anything about that.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 23 2009,15:44

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 23 2009,10:33)
Unfortunately for tard addicts, as < Dr Dave points out >, you can now use Google < sidewiki > to keep commenting even if you're banninated. I wonder if site owners can do anything about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh bugger!

Not very internet savvy but I'm downloading. Strange it can't be used with Google Chrome.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 23 2009,16:01

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 15 2009,06:45)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< AnaxagorasRules > (quoting Behe): Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not “turned on” In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.) Additionally, suppose the designer placed into the cell some other systems for which we cannot adduce enough evidence to conclude design. The cell containing the designed systems then was left on autopilot to reproduce, mutate, eat or be eaten, bump against rocks, and suffer the vagaries of life on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Had almost forgotten Behe's 'hypothesis'. It looks exactly like evolution—except those aspects just beyond Behe's ability to discern.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< AnaxagorasRules >: The reason why he believes this is because he is a biochemist and can't figure out how the complex functions in the cell could have gradually evolved, and all the evidence at his disposable indicates irreducible complexity (for some of the systems) such that they couldn't have gradually evolved. Also, just as importantly, neither can anyone else figure it out. Essentially he's making an inference based on what he does know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, he's making an inference based on what he doesn't know. It's a measure of his ignorance. The less Behe knows (or acknowledges), the stronger the 'design inference'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess it is a bit post festum to comment on Behe's (and a few others) babble about front loading.

Seems to me a ridiculous idea if it presupposes intent; a future goal of creating mankind.

Doesn't take no genius to figure out that it would be impossible to encode in DNA and have that take care of changes in environment over 4 billion years. And that includes continental drift, ice ages, meteorite hits and much more. I find the idea idiotic.

So much for front loading. What's left is for the designer to keep busy all through the history of life on the planet, not least during the crucial last five million years to keep hominids alive during a number of close encounters with extinction.

Extinction is a common fate for species. What if mankind had not survived? There's something fatally flawed with front loading.

That's just my innocent bystander's opinion on the subject but I don't suppose I am far off guessing that the question has been disposed of by people who knows such things.

It beats me how Behe or Mike Gene can believe such nonsense. As for Slimy Sal, he is capable of believing whatever he fancies.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,01:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It beats me how Behe or Mike Gene can believe such nonsense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Is Behe a front loader? Mike Gene seems equivocal:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 I myself am skeptical of my own views, having admitted there is a good chance I could be wrong about it all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< link >

Sal's not the only quote miner on the planet  ;)
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 24 2009,03:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is Behe a front loader?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hard to tell when dealing with those guys, they have something in common with jellyfish.

I saved this from ARN some years ago:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From a transcript made at the DDD3 conference in 2002:

Question from the audience: I’d be interested in hearing you tell us a little bit about what your theory of intelligent design is, as opposed to what evolution isn’t.

Behe replies: Well, that’s a great question, and I know folks on the other side who are sceptical of intelligent design often get frustrated, but I try to be as conservative as I can and I don’t go out beyond what the data can support because I think overreaching is the bane of theories of design. You say that flagellum looks designed so everything is designed, or that everything that looks complex was designed, or something like that.

I think the short answer to your question is, for all of those things, I don’t know.

There not enough data. For the elephant, we have primelephus, the ancestral elephant of the Asian and African elephant, and mammoth. Well, could that happened by random mutation and natural selection? My instinctive answer is sure - it sure looks like it. It doesn’t look like any big deal.

The more careful answer, the actual answer, is I don’t know - cause I don’t know what’s involved in making one versus the other. I don’t know what molecular changes are necessary to make the small anatomical differences in those different species.

Suppose one believed that those things could have happened by natural selection, but maybe the origination of mammals needed some extra information - how would that have happened - how would the designer have done that? Would it have been, say, information embedded into nature at the big bang, or whenever nature started, or might it have been manipulations along the way, or some sort of input along the way?

The short answer is “I don’t know.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Behe in a nutshell: "I don't know."

(My bold)
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 24 2009,06:31

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 23 2009,12:07)
(though Zach seems to have been readmitted)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're taking it slowly at first. They spook easily.
Posted by: khan on Sep. 24 2009,12:00

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,07:31)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 23 2009,12:07)
(though Zach seems to have been readmitted)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're taking it slowly at first. They spook easily.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zach: The TARD Whisperer
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 24 2009,14:17

I see that Slimy Sal is still spreading his usual bullshit about population genetics on the Weasel Thread, despite having been corrected numerous times. Perhaps someone can point him to < this link >.

Could someone also try to leave a sidewiki comment on that thread? A really friendly one as a control. I tried some more nasty ones, but they seem to disappear. Perhaps I did something wrong. I hate to think they can just delete such comments. Or maybe Google accepts all claims of abuse and deletes automatically. They couldn't possibly investigate all claims.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,14:51

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 24 2009,09:17)
I see that Slimy Sal is still spreading his usual bullshit about population genetics on the Weasel Thread, despite having been corrected numerous times. Perhaps someone can point him to < this link >.

Could someone also try to leave a sidewiki comment on that thread? A really friendly one as a control. I tried some more nasty ones, but they seem to disappear. Perhaps I did something wrong. I hate to think they can just delete such comments. Or maybe Google accepts all claims of abuse and deletes automatically. They couldn't possibly investigate all claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's strange, Raevmo, I tried leaving a comment on sidewiki and can't seem to find it now. So can anyone edit out comments?
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 24 2009,14:59

It's weird. Alan, maybe you could try it again, but not on a link to a specific comment, but rather on the link to the entire thread. I'll have a look to see if that works (just in case one cannot see one's own comments for some bizarre reason).

I did manage to see the sidewiki comment left by Wes on the UD Weasel thread.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,15:08

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 24 2009,09:59)
It's weird. Alan, maybe you could try it again, but not on a link to a specific comment, but rather on the link to the entire thread. I'll have a look to see if that works (just in case one cannot see one's own comments for some bizarre reason).

I did manage to see the sidewiki comment left by Wes on the UD Weasel thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have a look now
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 24 2009,15:22

Nothing, Alan. I just posted one myself ("I really like this thread"), reloaded, and saw my comment. I also saw a recent regular comment by Oleg. Then I reloaded again, and both my comment and Oleg's "real" comment had disappeared.
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 24 2009,15:25

Heh, it seems like the TT admins are afraid of teh Swamp: if you link to AtBC your comment is treated as spam.  Petty and insecure.

P.S.  Raevmo, mine disappeared after I added a link to your comment here in which you say hello to Sal.  Coincidence?
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 24 2009,15:26

How about posting a sidewiki comment on this thread and reporting abuse. Maybe it will disappear automatically as well.
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 24 2009,15:27

I don't know, Oleg. I did see your comment for a few seconds. It seems it was deleted actively.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,15:28

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 24 2009,10:25)
Heh, it seems like the TT admins are afraid of teh Swamp: if you link to AtBC your comment is treated as spam.  Petty and insecure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Olegt, with your superior intellect (you have to explain tenselessness when you have chance) you could try Sidewiki and make it work.

ETA

I noticed your comment in the sidebar has now disappeared.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,15:30

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 24 2009,10:22)
Nothing, Alan. I just posted one myself ("I really like this thread"), reloaded, and saw my comment. I also saw a recent regular comment by Oleg. Then I reloaded again, and both my comment and Oleg's "real" comment had disappeared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Weird, 'cos I can find my comments, now!

ETA

Don't see your comment, Raevmo.
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 24 2009,15:35

Don't see yours either, Alan. You still see yours?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,15:41

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 24 2009,10:35)
Don't see yours either, Alan. You still see yours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Want to try with another site?

< My old blog > for example?
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 24 2009,15:58

Il marche dans ton site.
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 24 2009,16:02

Tried again. Still works. How come I can't see your sidewiki at the Weasel thread at TT?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,16:02

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 24 2009,10:58)
Il marche dans ton site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


mais tu peux enrégistrer chelquechose aussi?

< link to UD >

ETA

< link to TT >
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 24 2009,16:07

Hmmm, "Guts" just < wrote this >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell Raevmo/Jure/JarrodF/Hammerstein and the rest of his multiple personalities I said hello as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is it possible that he can remove sidewiki's based on the originating IP ?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,16:08

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 24 2009,11:07)
Hmmm, "Guts" just < wrote this >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell Raevmo/Jure/JarrodF/Hammerstein and the rest of his multiple personalities I said hello as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is it possible that he can remove sidewiki's based on the originating IP ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nelson's not that bright IMO
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 24 2009,16:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
mais tu peux enrégistrer chelquechose aussi?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ben oui. You didn't see it?

Now I did see your stuff on TT and UD, via your links.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,16:15

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 24 2009,11:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
mais tu peux enrégistrer chelquechose aussi?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ben oui. You didn't see it?

Now I did see your stuff on TT and UD, via your links.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, don't see anything on sidewiki at my own blog except my own comment. Maybe we need a five year old child to explain how this works.

Hey, Nelson!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 24 2009,16:20

Sidewiki is gash.I've got it installed, I can see some comments but it wont let me sign in.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,16:21

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2009,11:20)
Sidewiki is gash.I've got it installed, I can see some comments but it wont let me sign in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They must have already heard about you!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 24 2009,16:31

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 24 2009,16:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2009,11:20)
Sidewiki is gash.I've got it installed, I can see some comments but it wont let me sign in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They must have already heard about you!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Everyone's got it in for me these days! It's envy and jealousy I tells ya.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 24 2009,22:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Everyone's got it in for me these days! It's envy and jealousy I tells ya.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just because yer paranoid doesn't mean they ain't out ta ban ya! :p

Henry
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 25 2009,11:08

Whilst browsing < Mike Gene's blog >* I noticed the in the comments that both Hrun and Todd Berkebile were "silently" banned at Telic Thoughts recently (July). Just thought I'd note it here for the record.

(*In case anyone is wondering why, Nelson Alonzo referred me there claiming scientific evidence for "front loading" could be found.)
Posted by: SLP on Sep. 25 2009,11:16

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 24 2009,14:17)
I see that Slimy Sal is still spreading his usual bullshit about population genetics on the Weasel Thread, despite having been corrected numerous times. Perhaps someone can point him to < this link >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't bring myself to read sleazy Sally's stuff anymore.

I do recall once, several years ago on KCFS, he set up an 8-letter 'analogy' to a genome, set up a scenario in which it 'mutated' one letter each generation, then 'demonstrated' that in only 8 generations, the entire sequence of letters was different, therefore, evolution cannot happen AND molecular phylogenetics was shown to be fatally flawed...

I was very tempted at the time to employ the word "retard", but I felt that it would be frowned on...
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 29 2009,16:44

TT closet case chunkdz:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FMM, I feel compelled to remind you that you are arguing with Zachriel, a man who believes that witnessing a 900 foot tall Jesus over the skies of Manhattan would be positive evidence for the existence of God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he confuses Zach with Jerry Coyne. Or are you Jerry Coyne, Zach? Fess up!
chunky continues:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These are not rational people we are dealing with. I simply can't stress this important fact enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This from one of the most retarded TT contributors. Hey chunk, I know you're reading this, why don't you admit you'd love a 900 foot Jesus to show you some really hard positive evidence up yours.
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 29 2009,16:59

More < sick stuff from chunky >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bilbo, God has found many inventive and creative ways to destroy humans in the past with no help from Satan. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that God might also be creative in making humans sick as well?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No stretch at all.
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 29 2009,17:03

Angryoldfatman adds:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I feel dirty now after having to contemplate religion on the same level of Raevmo's puerile theological comprehension. Or his demonstrated comprehension, which may or may not be facetious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, I have been banned long ago from TT.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 29 2009,17:07

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 29 2009,17:44)
TT closet case chunkdz:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FMM, I feel compelled to remind you that you are arguing with Zachriel, a man who believes that witnessing a 900 foot tall Jesus over the skies of Manhattan would be positive evidence for the existence of God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Evidence of mushroom poisoning, more likely.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 29 2009,17:22

I just finished reading Poul Anderson's A Chapter of Revelation, which has something bigger than a 900 foot Jesus.

At the request of prayers to stop a global nuclear war, God stops the rotation of the earth for 24 hours.

Results are not particularly positive.

< http://www.sfreviews.net/dialogue.html >
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 01 2009,02:24

chunky-the-closet-boy just < can't help hisself >. He had to graphically express his desire to nail don provan from behind.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 01 2009,02:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it's not clear that Satan would actually be creating life from scratch. It could be that he simply takes some pre-existing non-harmful microorganisms and genetically alters them so that they are now harmful. If we allow the Satanic-design hypothesis, it might help explain the problem of natural evil a little better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://telicthoughts.com/satanic-design >

WTF?

EDIT: Slimey Sal chimes in


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe God front loaded some serious capability in biology to inflict some serious misery if Adam sinned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, not the "designer" then, just god?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe the Plagues of Egypt were God's design, ergo God makes pathogens with full knowledge and intent. He made the flagellum of pathogens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might believe it but you can't know it Sal, and you *know* it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 01 2009,03:02

Daniel Smith opens his mouth but nothing comes out
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This shows a temporal earthly mindset. If the children who suffer so terribly in this life (which is but a mist – a vapor) will live forever with God in a world without pain and suffering, how is it that you can't imagine Jesus allowing it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, Daniel, this "temporal earthly mindset" that you say is sooo bad, that's what keeps people trying to make a difference.

If we all sat around and waited for our reward in heaven we'd be living in caves still. But I guess you'd like that huh Mr Smith?

It's all so clear to Mr Smith


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those who chose evil will forever get to live with their choice and those who chose good (or more correctly those who admit that they have chosen evil, accept God's provision for forgiveness, and chose good from then on) will forever get to live with theirs. If God did not do this, then he is not omnipotent nor is he omniscient, and the whole of Christianity: good and evil, sin and righteousness, and heaven and hell, is a lie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oddly this sounds a lot like the plot of < Daywatch >. Great film(s).
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 01 2009,07:30

Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 01 2009,03:24)
chunky-the-closet-boy just < can't help hisself >. He had to graphically express his desire to nail don provan from behind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ahahahahahahahaha

chunk would be happier if he would just admit it

"SHOW ME YOUR GLORY, CHARLES!!!1!!"
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 02 2009,03:04

fifth monarchy man < speaks for the rest of the world: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You only think so because you begin with the assumption that it’s possible that God does not exist. You have not presented one iota of evidence that this is the case. You just assert it and expect the rest of the world to agree.

We don’t
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a lunatic.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 02 2009,12:21

Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 02 2009,01:04)
fifth monarchy man < speaks for the rest of the world: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You only think so because you begin with the assumption that it’s possible that God does not exist. You have not presented one iota of evidence that this is the case. You just assert it and expect the rest of the world to agree.

We don’t
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a lunatic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"You only think so because you begin with the assumption that there's no teapot in orbit around the Earth. You have not presented one iota of evidence that this is the case. You just assert it and expect the rest of the world to agree.

We don’t"
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 04 2009,14:36

Salvador Cordova once again unwittingly < flaunts his maths ignorance >, amidst other nonsense:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Example: "do all the square roots of the numbers in a set obeying field axioms exist in that field? Yes or no?"

That statement cannot be answered yes or no deterministically from field axioms alone. One must make a free will choice of what additional faith axiom one wishes to invoke.

If one chooses a field like the rationals, the answer is "no". I one chooses the field of the reals, the answer is yes. There is not deterministic answer to the question if ones starting point is field axioms. Free will is needed to resolve the mathematical question: "do all the square roots of the numbers in a set obeying field axioms exist in that field? Yes or no?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, what's the square root of the real number -1 again?

Is free will needed to resolve the question: "Is Salvador Cordova a pompous idiot? Yes or no?" Yes or no?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 04 2009,17:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Um, what's the square root of the real number -1 again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That question is either imaginary, irrational, transcendental, unreal, or irreducibly complex.

Henry
Posted by: rossum on Oct. 05 2009,06:47

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2009,17:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Um, what's the square root of the real number -1 again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That question is either imaginary, irrational, transcendental, unreal, or irreducibly complex.

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


So is that imaginary faith, irrational faith, transcendental faith, unreal faith, or irreducibly complex faith?

rossum
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 05 2009,10:27

Hey, finally found someone who agrees with Joseph from Intelligent Reasoning and Uncommon Descent about the nested hierarchy.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >:

< Evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. >

< Common descent does not predict a nested hierarchy. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Precise agreement actually.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 05 2009,10:43

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 05 2009,05:27)
Hey, finally found someone who agrees with Joseph from Intelligent Reasoning and Uncommon Descent about the nested hierarchy.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >:

< Evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. >

< Common descent does not predict a nested hierarchy. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Precise agreement actually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The subtlety of Joe's disguise was confusing for a while, but... :p

Was Joe banned from TT at some stage?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 05 2009,10:55

Talking of bans, prior to banning me at TT, Nelson Alonzo permalinked my signature to < this thread > at Mike Gene's blog, < telling me > I would find evidence of front loading there.

I took him at his word and have been in "communication" with Mike Gene. So far, evidence of front loading (and some of my comments) have not emerged.
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 05 2009,15:26

Alan, you're saying guts = Nelson Alonzo? Never heard of him. What are his "creodentials"?

I read your exchange with Mike Gene. Same old tired Mike accusing anyone of being "closed-minded" whenever they don't buy his front-loading "clues". Any idea who Mike is? He's clearly not a scientist working in a, let's say, quantitative field, since he doesn't have the first clue about data analysis and probability. He might be some second rate psychoanalyst or dentist I'm guessing.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 05 2009,15:30

Quote (Alan Fox @ Oct. 05 2009,09:43)
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 05 2009,05:27)


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy:

Evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy.

Common descent does not predict a nested hierarchy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Precise agreement actually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Well, common descent by itself doesn't imply a nested hierarchy. It's populations that are genetically isolated will diverge independently of each other; without that isolation you get a family tree with mergers between branches (i.e., recombination).

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 05 2009,15:32

Quote (Alan Fox @ Oct. 05 2009,11:43)
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 05 2009,05:27)
Hey, finally found someone who agrees with Joseph from Intelligent Reasoning and Uncommon Descent about the nested hierarchy.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >:

< Evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. >

< Common descent does not predict a nested hierarchy. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Precise agreement actually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The subtlety of Joe's disguise was confusing for a while, but... :p

Was Joe banned from TT at some stage?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is this really joe?  i don't read Telic Tards enough to notice if idguy has threatened to whup anybody or told them how they don't know shit.
Posted by: bfish on Oct. 05 2009,16:30

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,13:32)
is this really joe?  i don't read Telic Tards enough to notice if idguy has threatened to whup anybody or told them how they don't know shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Got to be.

We'll know for sure when he gets condescending and says, "Ya see, Zachriel"....
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 05 2009,16:41

IDguy did the "Ya see" many times already on TT. There is no doubt (p<1/10^150) he is Joe G, despite his silly lies that he is "Jim". Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig up a link to a "ya see" moment.
Posted by: bfish on Oct. 05 2009,17:24

Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 05 2009,14:41)
IDguy did the "Ya see" many times already on TT. There is no doubt (p<1/10^150) he is Joe G, despite his silly lies that he is "Jim". Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig up a link to a "ya see" moment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Behold the power of the Design Inference.

Does that mean that Joe has CSI? Maybe FCSI?
Posted by: bfish on Oct. 05 2009,17:27

And I see that you've been < riding that train > for months. Good on ya.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 05 2009,18:37

Here is Joe Gallien on his blog < Intelligent Reasoning >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see Rich with arhaeology and forensics FIRST they determine agency involvement- ie design- and THEN they set out to see if they can dupicate it and therefore figure out a mechansim."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And here is ID guy at < Telic Thoughts >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see it is exactly as I have already stated- first we determione murder or not and THEN we invewstigate to figure out the who.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can haz a design inference?
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 08 2009,08:02

Jeez, olegt & Zachriel, don't you guys ever get enough of < "debating" nested hierarchies > with poor old masochistic Joe?

(edit: haha, Joe is calling olegt trollegt)
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 08 2009,13:59

Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 08 2009,08:02)
Jeez, olegt & Zachriel, don't you guys ever get enough of < "debating" nested hierarchies > with poor old masochistic Joe?

(edit: haha, Joe is calling olegt trollegt)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha, trollegt advised us not to.

(But why doesn't the Telic Community protest his inane babbling?)
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 08 2009,14:13

Paul Nelson came to visit.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Paul Nelson >: I awakened early this morning thinking about easy (quick) ways to illustrate the problems with inferring the monophyly of Woese’s domains ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Things were quite genial for the first few rounds of comments. Then suddenly!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Paul Nelson >: I thought that using a graph paper exercise might get us past the verbal equivocations, but -– no such luck. The equivocations are prospering, and having offspring.

In Oleg’s statement, the following terms and words carry multiple, logically incompatible meanings:

– numerous organisms with a shared origin
– crossed the threshold together
– communal evolution
– eukarya
– once

In this Lewis Carroll world, cells (which are not really cells as we see them today) share (and yet do not share) common ancestry...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not that there is anything wrong with that.

By the way, is P A Nelson the same as Paul Nelson?
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 08 2009,15:29

Zachriel asks


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(But why doesn't the Telic Community protest his inane babbling?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beats me. Tardmaster Bradford, who is only slightly less stupid than Joe G, seems to support anyone on his side, no matter how rude and/or stupid. I can't recall a single counterexample out of dreadfully many. Maybe they think a < black knight > is better than no knight?
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 09 2009,07:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: this is how science deals with imaginary entities like angels and divine foresight. It does not disprove them, just makes them irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let us dispense with the first-person plural for a moment and talk about Zachriel. In the old days, being a planetary angel was a high status profession, and relevant. Sure Zachriel is only Second Heaven, but we had the satisfaction of being involved in an joint effort to keep the planets on their preordained paths, to coordinate with the other angels to time conjunctions with significant events on Earth. The clockwork of the Heavens!



But then someone, in the interest of modernization, thought to reconfigure the process as a rote inverse-square mechanism. The job has become a mundane chore. Now the biggest problem is ergonomic stress disorder.
Posted by: Art on Oct. 11 2009,14:00

Sal < says >:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are pseudogenes transcribed?

See:

How the Junk DNA Hypothesis has Changed by Richard Sternberg.

If pseudogenes are transcribed, then this is yet another gaffe by Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the gaffe is Sternberg's.  As explained < here >.  The brief bottom line - there is a lot of background transcription of junk DNA, and the products of this transcription are broken down almost immediately.  Sternberg is wrong to claim, as he does
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...if one considers functional DNA to be equivalent to transcription units ..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that all transcribed DNA is functional.  

I'd post this on TT, but I was silently disinvited long ago.


Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 12 2009,18:24

The latest from quite possibly the most deranged TT commenter, the self-proclaimed fundamentalist < fifth monarchy man >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please understand I have no problem in folks claiming that some dinosaurs perished in the flood as long as they affirm that Noah had two brontosauruses on the Ark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF? He appears to be entirely serious though. Is there an accurate description of brontosauruses in the babble?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 12 2009,18:30

Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 12 2009,19:24)
The latest from quite possibly the most deranged TT commenter, the self-proclaimed fundamentalist < fifth monarchy man >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please understand I have no problem in folks claiming that some dinosaurs perished in the flood as long as they affirm that Noah had two brontosauruses on the Ark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF? He appears to be entirely serious though. Is there an accurate description of brontosauruses in the babble?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and what is he going to do if he has a problem?  turn you into a pillar of salt?
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 13 2009,03:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and what is he going to do if he has a problem?  turn you into a pillar of salt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no, because that would make him a rich man. Camels, needles and all that. Roman soldiers used to get paid in salt, hence the word salary, remember?

More likely, he'll turn you into lobster.

The Google says that he's not alone in believing Noah had brontosaurs on his vessel. Some idiots even argue that they were stored as two eggs to conserve space. Then how the fuck did they know they had a male and a female, huh? Did they run samples in a PCR to pick up W or Y-linked signals? Or can we deduce that Noah knew about temperature-dependent sex determination? Or did he allow same-sex dinosaur couples, and does this really explain their extinction? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 13 2009,03:47

< Bradford has a good question: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Olegt, are you so bored with real science that you need to make foreys into and analysis of OT passages?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The privileges of tenure...
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 23 2009,17:34

What is wrong with Allen MacNeill?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And thank you, Sal; despite our differences, you have always treated me as a gentleman as well. That's how such debates should be conducted, and I appreciate both your commitment to your ideas and your commitment to courtesy. Take care!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal is a despicable liar for jeebus and he refuses to learn anything from the numerous serious corrections to his bizarre claims. Bah!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 24 2009,02:50

Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 23 2009,12:34)
What is wrong with Allen MacNeill?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And thank you, Sal; despite our differences, you have always treated me as a gentleman as well. That's how such debates should be conducted, and I appreciate both your commitment to your ideas and your commitment to courtesy. Take care!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal is a despicable liar for jeebus and he refuses to learn anything from the numerous serious corrections to his bizarre claims. Bah!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For example his nonsensical claim that < Genetic-ID > use the Explanatory Filter to find GMO material in plant genomes.

(It's Sal's fault that I follow ID. Back in 2005 I was directed to UD by an enthusiast I came across by chance and read a comment by Sal boasting about a drive-by posting at Pandas Thumb. I discovered PT and my addiction soon became irresistible).

Allen MacNeill does sometimes edge almost into a "Kwok" style. I would even give him a 0.5 or 1 on a 0-10 Kwok scale.
Posted by: keiths on Oct. 24 2009,13:54

Quote (Alan Fox @ Oct. 24 2009,00:50)
Allen MacNeill does sometimes edge almost into a "Kwok" style. I would even give him a 0.5 or 1 on a 0-10 Kwok scale.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan, if you ever say that about me, < you owe me a camera >.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 25 2009,08:17

Things have been quiet at TT lately.  

A while ago I asked Paul Nelson (for the umpteenth time) to explain in what way "< Woese and his reasearch group radically undermine fundamental lines of evolutionary reasoning >" and what exactly are the "corrosive consequences" of that research to the upper branches of the evolutionary tree of life.

Paul < replied >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One step at a time. A data dump now about problems with metazoan (or chordate or mammalian) phylogeny would be getting ahead of the discussion. Let’s sort out the origin of Eukarya, according to Woese, first.

< Suggested reading, re HGT and its evidential support. >

P.S. I have a book MS (with Scott Minnich) due next week, so will be away from this discussion over the weekend and early next week.

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



16 days later, no sign of Paul.  

Zachriel, maybe we should ignore Joe Gallien for a while.  IDers at both UD and TT view him as a crazy uncle and won't be caught dead talking to him.  If he sees that his tantrums don't result in conversations he'll have to either change his behavior or at least change his venue.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 25 2009,08:31

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 25 2009,09:17)
16 days later, no sign of Paul.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps he's in Italy, where I understand < there is no internet >.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 25 2009,08:42

Too bad there is no visitors bar at TT and we can't do < Paul Nelson watching >.   :p
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 25 2009,15:42

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 25 2009,08:17)
Zachriel, maybe we should ignore Joe Gallien for a while.  IDers at both UD and TT view him as a crazy uncle and won't be caught dead talking to him.  If he sees that his tantrums don't result in conversations he'll have to either change his behavior or at least change his venue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I admit that I have had better conversations on Telic Thoughts. ID guy will never change his behavior. I think his saner nephews and nieces need to voice their opinion. But they won't. Crazy is part of the big tent.
Posted by: keiths on Oct. 25 2009,16:37

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 25 2009,06:17)
A while ago I asked Paul Nelson (for the umpteenth time) to explain in what way "< Woese and his reasearch group radically undermine fundamental lines of evolutionary reasoning >" and what exactly are the "corrosive consequences" of that research to the upper branches of the evolutionary tree of life.

Paul < replied >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One step at a time. A data dump now about problems with metazoan (or chordate or mammalian) phylogeny would be getting ahead of the discussion. Let’s sort out the origin of Eukarya, according to Woese, first.

< Suggested reading, re HGT and its evidential support. >

P.S. I have a book MS (with Scott Minnich) due next week, so will be away from this discussion over the weekend and early next week.

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



16 days later, no sign of Paul.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pfffft. Oleg, you forgot to convert from Nelsonian units to human units. And you call yourself a physicist?

On March 29, 2004, Paul < promised to define and defend "ontogenetic depth" > to the folks at PT:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quick note – I’m drafting an omnibus reply (to points raised here and in Shalizi’s commentary), with title and epigraph from a Rolling Stones song. I’ll post it tomorrow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Five and a half years later, they're still waiting. Therefore, a Nelsonian day must equal or exceed five and a half human years.

Paul promised you a reply in about five days, Oleg, so by my calculations you can expect to hear from him sometime after the year 2037. Don't forget to celebrate < Paul Nelson Day > each year while you're waiting.

ETA: < Nelson's bio > at the Discotute still reads:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His forthcoming monograph, On Common Descent, critically evaluates the theory of common descent, and is being edited for the series Evolutionary Monographs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No sign of that, either.
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 25 2009,18:04

Good lord, it turns out that ID guy is not Joe G after all. How could we have been so wrong? By ID guy's < own admission > - and why shouldn't we believe him? - he is in fact James Hartley.


Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 25 2009,19:20

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 25 2009,08:17)
Zachriel, maybe we should ignore Joe Gallien for a while.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He says as he taunts ID guy.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: Joe, your disguise isn't working well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on Oct. 25 2009,19:37

Joe G. is the mostest irresistiblest chew toy.  Oleg can't get enough of Joe's squeaking.

< That taunt > deserves to be reproduced in full:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe, your disguise isn't working well.

Let's compare the writing style of IDguy,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see it is exactly as I have already stated- first we determione murder or not and THEN we invewstigate to figure out the who.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


to that of Joe G at Intelligent Reasoning:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see Rich with arhaeology and forensics FIRST they determine agency involvement- ie design- and THEN they set out to see if they can dupicate it and therefore figure out a mechansim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can haz design inference? :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: olegt on Oct. 25 2009,20:36

Joe and Academic Writing and Publishing?  Bwahahaha!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 25 2009,22:11

god that's funny.  at least he didn't claim to be muslim.

speaking of that

does anyone have a link to that ? i know its been a million years but i'd love to grab it for you know posteriors and stuff
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 26 2009,00:31

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 25 2009,20:11)
i know its been a million years but i'd love to grab it for you know posteriors and stuff
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you, Ras.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 26 2009,01:02



wocka wocka!!!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 26 2009,10:23

Great Stuff Oleg & Zach. Poor Joe is frothing at the mouth.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 29 2009,14:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet, when I say it "Sounds like evolution by natural selection, you say "No."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's just you, now < Zachriel >! Give 'em a week. It's an experiment!
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 29 2009,15:22

Quote (Alan Fox @ Oct. 29 2009,14:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet, when I say it "Sounds like evolution by natural selection, you say "No."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's just you, now < Zachriel >! Give 'em a week. It's an experiment!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I second that!  They'll have to deal with Joe themselves!
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 30 2009,11:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Daniel Smith >: They're all bulls**t.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Daniel Smith needs a week off. I admit I'd like to catch up on my Uncommon Descent, but Guts is still trying to make the case for Front Loading.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: Lips are made front loaded for kissing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 31 2009,10:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: BTW how many studies have there been on "selection" that demonstrate evolution- in your scenario- isn't entirely random?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: Here I was taught that evolution worked by slight changes to the genome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: The fossil evidence relies on the assumption it did happen.

There still isn't any genetic data which links to the transitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID guy thinks that we have to sequence the genomes of ancient organisms, or replicate millions of years of genetic evolution in the lab, to have a valid theory of evolution—in spite of the fossil evidence of evolutionary transitions. (And nevermind the nested, aggregating, containment, inclusion hierarchy!)

I keep waiting for ID guy's ID Friends to correct him. They do nothing for their credibility by leaving this task to others.
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 31 2009,10:50

Looks like ID guy reads this thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: Well it looks like Zachriel, oleg and Alan Fox will be taking a short leave of absence from TT
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi ID guy! I haven't indicated I wasn't going to post on Telic Thoughts. I haven't even indicated I wasn't going to respond to you. But all you do is repeat "is not," so it's not very interesting.

There's a big difference between a living world with common descent and a living world without. The most important reason why organisms are the way they are is because of the way they were.

And really, your ID Friends should correct you. It reflects very poorly on them.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 31 2009,22:53

I'm sure they all read this.  

Hi Bradford, that < WFB impression > was really hilarious!  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You need to grasp the difference between the sufficiency of stochastic + deterministic and their elimination from consideration. Positing the mind as fundamental does not remove a need for evidence. But the evidence is free to implicate the mind as ontologically basic and non-reducible. The artificial straightjacket imposed by a materialist interpretive lens is thus eliminated.

Evidence logically entailed in the claim is possible for the ontological view I (and JAD) previously alluded to.

Zachriel, one of the problems you have is your embracing of an absolutist position. Instead of pointing to the insufficiency of evidence, you now have taken the position that there is no evidence. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. We understand the huge difference between insufficiency and nothing. Have you fully grasped that?

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


Oh, I guess the last one didn't work all that well.   :D
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 01 2009,07:52

Zachriel,

I think it would be a good idea to ignore Joe.  He keeps throwing his temper tantrums to attract attention.  If you don't respond to them then he will have to move someplace else.  

Seriously, give it a try.
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 01 2009,08:05

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 01 2009,07:52)
Zachriel,

I think it would be a good idea to ignore Joe.  He keeps throwing his temper tantrums to attract attention.  If you don't respond to them then he will have to move someplace else.  

Seriously, give it a try.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems to be working.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: I keep waiting for evolutionists to correct him but they too appear too stupid to understand the concept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course it's hard to tell because he always says that—but I can sense the strained tone.
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 01 2009,08:18

Oh, and to the Telic Thinkers who follow ID guy's link and stop by. If humans are related by common descent to toads and butterflies, even if you disagree about the mechanisms involved, then this is a fact worth defending. Indeed, it is an essential element of many ID 'theories,' such as Front Loading.

Pretending ID guy isn't there as he undermines your position is not an effective, or honest, response.
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 01 2009,08:54

Hello Telic Thinkers!

I have decided to stay away from TT primarily because Joe G (a.k.a. ID guy) is clogging much of your cyberspace with his nonsense.  Enjoy his company!  

If you have a question to me, feel free to ask it here.  AtBC is not a scary place.  Just ask Joy.  (I wonder why she is not posting at TT.)

Sincerely,

Oleg T.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 01 2009,12:54

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 01 2009,08:54)
Hello Telic Thinkers!

I have decided to stay away from TT primarily because Joe G (a.k.a. ID guy) is clogging much of your cyberspace with his nonsense.  Enjoy his company!  

If you have a question to me, feel free to ask it here.  AtBC is not a scary place.  Just ask Joy.  (I wonder why she is not posting at TT.)

Sincerely,

Oleg T.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If my opinion is worth anything although I guess to them nobody's opinion is worthwhile if it doesn't support ID - I made one of my occasional detours into TT, and found it rather bizarre with little, i.e. nothing of value deserving of argument.

If people can't see through the convoluted thinking of JoeG, all the worse for them.

____
ETA added 'to them' for clarity
+ worthwhile was worthless
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 01 2009,16:52

Those people at TT (fifth monarchy man, Mung, ID guy) on that particular thread anyway strike me as moronic children asking "but why" long after they've stopped understanding the answer, but it's all they've got so they repeat it anyway.

ID Guy (Joe):
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID has real evidence- it is based on real observations and real experiences.

Its premises can be tested.

So what else does it need?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So go fucking test it moron-boy. Jeez, what a bunch of losers. Did somebody say one time that if they repeat their empty claims often enough somebody would believe it? Whoever you are, put them out of their misery.

Fifth Monarchy Man:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You discounted the validity of the axiom for science while relying on it in order to do the very science you say called it into question.

trying to untangle these kinds of mental knots would cause anyone to misspeak

sigh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's very deep man. Get out from under that pyramid much FMM?

Mung brings the deep philosophy
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I see a creature, and I say, that looks like a duck, are you telling me that claim (Or is that not a claim? In your world I just don't know.) is completely different from the claim that I infer that what I am looking at is, in fact, a duck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Therefore ID! What a total bunch of losers with no real answers to anything Zachriel has to say.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 02 2009,04:58

Their problem is on the order of the classical and still without a solution: How to fit a square peg into a round hole.

We should not expect coherent answers. Or questions.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 02 2009,06:24

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2009,16:52)
Those people at TT (fifth monarchy man, Mung, ID guy) on that particular thread anyway strike me as moronic children asking "but why" long after they've stopped understanding the answer, but it's all they've got so they repeat it anyway.

ID Guy (Joe):
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID has real evidence- it is based on real observations and real experiences.

Its premises can be tested.

So what else does it need?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So go fucking test it moron-boy. Jeez, what a bunch of losers. Did somebody say one time that if they repeat their empty claims often enough somebody would believe it? Whoever you are, put them out of their misery.

Fifth Monarchy Man:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You discounted the validity of the axiom for science while relying on it in order to do the very science you say called it into question.

trying to untangle these kinds of mental knots would cause anyone to misspeak

sigh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's very deep man. Get out from under that pyramid much FMM?

Mung brings the deep philosophy
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I see a creature, and I say, that looks like a duck, are you telling me that claim (Or is that not a claim? In your world I just don't know.) is completely different from the claim that I infer that what I am looking at is, in fact, a duck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Therefore ID! What a total bunch of losers with no real answers to anything Zachriel has to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not my problem.

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 02 2009,07:33

For some unknown reason, I am thinking of < this video >.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2009,07:57

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 02 2009,06:24)
ID has been tested asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Citation please.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You pukes just refuse to accept the results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the results were what, exactly? Citation please. And us pukes are in the same boat as 99.9%+ of all scientists globally in refusing to accept your argument (such as it is). So go figure that one out.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that is not my problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed no. Your role appears to be to repeat the same "arguments" over and over again without substantiation. As such, you are doing a great job.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact it's the other way round. You make a claim, you need to support that claim. No wonder you are not getting anywhere! Given that you have been repeating the same phrases over and over for several years now, how can you think that you are getting anywhere? If you were logically you'd have new phrases to repeat by now.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you? If so, do so. If not, then don't you think that's something of a hole in your "argument"? Or is "things are complex, therefore ID" all you have?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2009,08:00

And Joe G, ever wonder why so few of your posts get a response at TT or UD? Nobody really seems to engage you at either site, generally you just get ignored.

Something to think about perhaps?

Why not make your best case here, right now? Where some actual real scientists can prod at it.





Oh, that's right, sorry I forgot about that.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 02 2009,08:52

Evolution has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not our problem.

Now if you want to refute the theory of evolution all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your stupid inference.

Edited for correspondence with reality.

(I don't usually use such language but didn't want to distort the template ungraciously provided.)
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 02 2009,09:14

Hey Joe,

What about < our $20k bet >?  Are you still going to deny you are the ID guy?   :D
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 02 2009,10:22

OMGOMGOMG!


IDGUY is here to save us!



Quick get Cakeboy, he'll love this.

Wha? But he was just here You never see those two cats together..
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 02 2009,23:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quack, posted 11/01/09 11:54 AM
If my opinion is worth anything although I guess to them nobody's opinion is worthless if it doesn't support ID -
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


worthless, or worthwhile?

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2009,01:09

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 02 2009,07:24)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2009,16:52)
Those people at TT (fifth monarchy man, Mung, ID guy) on that particular thread anyway strike me as moronic children asking "but why" long after they've stopped understanding the answer, but it's all they've got so they repeat it anyway.

ID Guy (Joe):
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID has real evidence- it is based on real observations and real experiences.

Its premises can be tested.

So what else does it need?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So go fucking test it moron-boy. Jeez, what a bunch of losers. Did somebody say one time that if they repeat their empty claims often enough somebody would believe it? Whoever you are, put them out of their misery.

Fifth Monarchy Man:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You discounted the validity of the axiom for science while relying on it in order to do the very science you say called it into question.

trying to untangle these kinds of mental knots would cause anyone to misspeak

sigh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's very deep man. Get out from under that pyramid much FMM?

Mung brings the deep philosophy
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I see a creature, and I say, that looks like a duck, are you telling me that claim (Or is that not a claim? In your world I just don't know.) is completely different from the claim that I infer that what I am looking at is, in fact, a duck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Therefore ID! What a total bunch of losers with no real answers to anything Zachriel has to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not my problem.

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


holy fuck that is beautiful.  it's too bad you can't get the whole post as a sig.  

and that is not my problem

then again.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If anyone wants to discuss climate change please bring the scientific data you would like to talk about and we can go from there.

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



lolololololol
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 03 2009,02:24

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 02 2009,23:13)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quack, posted 11/01/09 11:54 AM
If my opinion is worth anything although I guess to them nobody's opinion is worthless if it doesn't support ID -
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


worthless, or worthwhile?

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


Oops, fixed it.

Maybe I need a new sig, like "nobody's opinion is worthless if it supports ID."
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 03 2009,04:10

Joe G.:



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

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

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



< Article in Synthese >

< Unabridged web version of above >

< Article in Biology and Philosophy >

< Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism >

< Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails >

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,



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

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

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


Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 03 2009,04:13

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 02 2009,07:24)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2009,16:52)
Those people at TT (fifth monarchy man, Mung, ID guy) on that particular thread anyway strike me as moronic children asking "but why" long after they've stopped understanding the answer, but it's all they've got so they repeat it anyway.

ID Guy (Joe):
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID has real evidence- it is based on real observations and real experiences.

Its premises can be tested.

So what else does it need?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So go fucking test it moron-boy. Jeez, what a bunch of losers. Did somebody say one time that if they repeat their empty claims often enough somebody would believe it? Whoever you are, put them out of their misery.

Fifth Monarchy Man:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You discounted the validity of the axiom for science while relying on it in order to do the very science you say called it into question.

trying to untangle these kinds of mental knots would cause anyone to misspeak

sigh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's very deep man. Get out from under that pyramid much FMM?

Mung brings the deep philosophy
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I see a creature, and I say, that looks like a duck, are you telling me that claim (Or is that not a claim? In your world I just don't know.) is completely different from the claim that I infer that what I am looking at is, in fact, a duck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Therefore ID! What a total bunch of losers with no real answers to anything Zachriel has to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not my problem.

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<Cue Joe G flounce-out, just like < PT on Saturday morning >>

Makes bold claims, acts the tough guy, then slithers back to boards where he and his buddies get to delete comments they don't like.

Total.  Fucking.  Coward.

I predict one of two things:

1)  We don't hear from Joe again for at least month, at which point he returns to make the same unsubstantiated claims

2)  He comes back sooner and threatens some kind of physical violence, real or metaphorical, then #1
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2009,04:47

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 03 2009,04:13)
<Cue Joe G flounce-out, just like < PT on Saturday morning >>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a total yellow streak Joe is. His balls must be the size of atoms.

It's the equivilent of going to a lecture by a leading biologist, opening the fire door and shouting "you are all wrong" and then running away.
 

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

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

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


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2009,05:11

and some of you are clowns!
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 04 2009,05:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Remedial measures for incivility have been relaxed of late. To some extent this can be attributed to a tendency by some to take their more uncivil comments off-list and direct them at other TT commenters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Bradford. They're taken off-campus because they are off-topic for Telic Thoughts, plus many people have been banned and otherwise can't comment, and you've prohibited meta-comments from the site, even on open threads.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: Ever seen a child with downs syndrome?   :D

Or did the storks just miss Mongolia by a half of planet?

And if a child born in Mongolia has downs, would anyone know?   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID guy reveals his ignorance—children with Down's Syndrome are clearly human beings, and parents can easily recognize their own children—but ID guy also displays his heartlessness.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Rock >: Go fuck yourself, ID guy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rock dredges up the appropriate word from the Old German. Quite the scholar.
Posted by: Raevmo on Nov. 04 2009,06:05

ID Guy (aka Joe G) is trying to be < funny >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if I find a child that doesn't resemble either parent the "theory" is falsified?

Ever seen a child with downs syndrome? :mrgreen:

Or did the storks just miss Mongolia by a half of planet?

And if a child born in Mongolia has downs, would anyone know?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awesome.

Rock is shocked - shocked!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go fuck yourself, ID guy.

Sorry, TTers, but that is about as dignified a response as I can muster to such stupidity.

It's your business Bradford, or whoever is in charge of this asylum, but if that's what its going to be, then this is a waste of my time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bradford appears to be reading this thread. Hi Bradford!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remedial measures for incivility have been relaxed of late. To some extent this can be attributed to a tendency by some to take their more uncivil comments off-list and direct them at other TT commenters.

Be advised that closer scrutiny will be directed at comments as of this morning. Direct your comments at the OP or at an argument being made by a commenter. Do not get personal. If you do not like uncivil comments directed at you, minimize the sarcasm and mocking tones in your own comments. Focus on issues, not people. Nuff said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The dumbass seems incapable of directly criticizing ID guy. Joe obviously knows something that Bradford doesn't want to be made public. But what? My best guess: Joe has a video of Bradford and chunkdz engaging in unbiblical "wrestling".
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 04 2009,10:02

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,02:10)
Joe G.:

 

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

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

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


< Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails >

Been there, done that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too, me too!
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2009,10:41

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

 

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

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

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



< Article in Synthese >

< Unabridged web version of above >

< Article in Biology and Philosophy >

< Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism >

< Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails >

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

 

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

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

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


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


Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2009,10:43

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 02 2009,08:52)
Evolution has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not our problem.

Now if you want to refute the theory of evolution all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your stupid inference.

Edited for correspondence with reality.

(I don't usually use such language but didn't want to distort the template ungraciously provided.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm "evolution" isn't being debated ass-face.

You must be too stupid to understand that.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2009,10:45

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 04 2009,10:02)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,02:10)
Joe G.:

 

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

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

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


< Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails >

Been there, done that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too, me too!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr GH is the guy who posts the EF (in his chapter) and then manages to mangle it.

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 04 2009,10:50

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:43)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 02 2009,08:52)
Evolution has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not our problem.

Now if you want to refute the theory of evolution all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your stupid inference.

Edited for correspondence with reality.

(I don't usually use such language but didn't want to distort the template ungraciously provided.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm "evolution" isn't being debated ass-face.

You must be too stupid to understand that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is the mechanism of ID?

Please do not say 'design', for 'design' is only the plan.  What is the mechanism of the implementation of the plan, and what is the actual evidence for it?

For example, the mechanism for the implementation of human design can be seen in the scraps and left over materials, tools, etc.

Please, floor us with your acumen.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2009,10:51

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2009,07:57)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 02 2009,06:24)
ID has been tested asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Citation please.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You pukes just refuse to accept the results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the results were what, exactly? Citation please. And us pukes are in the same boat as 99.9%+ of all scientists globally in refusing to accept your argument (such as it is). So go figure that one out.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that is not my problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed no. Your role appears to be to repeat the same "arguments" over and over again without substantiation. As such, you are doing a great job.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact it's the other way round. You make a claim, you need to support that claim. No wonder you are not getting anywhere! Given that you have been repeating the same phrases over and over for several years now, how can you think that you are getting anywhere? If you were logically you'd have new phrases to repeat by now.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you? If so, do so. If not, then don't you think that's something of a hole in your "argument"? Or is "things are complex, therefore ID" all you have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Was any of that supposed to refute anything I said?


BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAA

oldmanwithhisheaduphisass you are a living transition from pond-scum.

Thank you for fulfilling my prediction.
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 04 2009,10:52

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 25 2009,08:17)
Things have been quiet at TT lately.  

A while ago I asked Paul Nelson (for the umpteenth time) to explain in what way "< Woese and his reasearch group radically undermine fundamental lines of evolutionary reasoning >" and what exactly are the "corrosive consequences" of that research to the upper branches of the evolutionary tree of life.

Paul < replied >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One step at a time. A data dump now about problems with metazoan (or chordate or mammalian) phylogeny would be getting ahead of the discussion. Let’s sort out the origin of Eukarya, according to Woese, first.

< Suggested reading, re HGT and its evidential support. >

P.S. I have a book MS (with Scott Minnich) due next week, so will be away from this discussion over the weekend and early next week.

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



16 days later, no sign of Paul.  

Zachriel, maybe we should ignore Joe Gallien for a while.  IDers at both UD and TT view him as a crazy uncle and won't be caught dead talking to him.  If he sees that his tantrums don't result in conversations he'll have to either change his behavior or at least change his venue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been waiting for about 6 years forhim to demonstrate that investigator bias alters/dictates molecular phylogenetic analysis outcomes....
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2009,10:55

Quote (SLP @ Nov. 04 2009,10:50)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:43)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 02 2009,08:52)
Evolution has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not our problem.

Now if you want to refute the theory of evolution all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your stupid inference.

Edited for correspondence with reality.

(I don't usually use such language but didn't want to distort the template ungraciously provided.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm "evolution" isn't being debated ass-face.

You must be too stupid to understand that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is the mechanism of ID?

Please do not say 'design', for 'design' is only the plan.  What is the mechanism of the implementation of the plan, and what is the actual evidence for it?

For example, the mechanism for the implementation of human design can be seen in the scraps and left over materials, tools, etc.

Please, floor us with your acumen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Design is a mechanism Scott.

Just look up the two words:

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.


That said there are specific design mechanisms-

One is a targeted search such as the "weasel" program.

Another is "built-in responses to environmental cues" ala Dr Spetner in 1997.

Then there is artificial selection.

There you have it design mechanisms.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2009,11:04

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 03 2009,04:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 02 2009,07:24)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2009,16:52)
Those people at TT (fifth monarchy man, Mung, ID guy) on that particular thread anyway strike me as moronic children asking "but why" long after they've stopped understanding the answer, but it's all they've got so they repeat it anyway.

ID Guy (Joe):
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID has real evidence- it is based on real observations and real experiences.

Its premises can be tested.

So what else does it need?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So go fucking test it moron-boy. Jeez, what a bunch of losers. Did somebody say one time that if they repeat their empty claims often enough somebody would believe it? Whoever you are, put them out of their misery.

Fifth Monarchy Man:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You discounted the validity of the axiom for science while relying on it in order to do the very science you say called it into question.

trying to untangle these kinds of mental knots would cause anyone to misspeak

sigh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's very deep man. Get out from under that pyramid much FMM?

Mung brings the deep philosophy
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If I see a creature, and I say, that looks like a duck, are you telling me that claim (Or is that not a claim? In your world I just don't know.) is completely different from the claim that I infer that what I am looking at is, in fact, a duck?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Therefore ID! What a total bunch of losers with no real answers to anything Zachriel has to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not my problem.

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<Cue Joe G flounce-out, just like < PT on Saturday morning >>

Makes bold claims, acts the tough guy, then slithers back to boards where he and his buddies get to delete comments they don't like.

Total.  Fucking.  Coward.

I predict one of two things:

1)  We don't hear from Joe again for at least month, at which point he returns to make the same unsubstantiated claims

2)  He comes back sooner and threatens some kind of physical violence, real or metaphorical, then #1
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey ass breath- I said what I had to say at PT.

I am not going to fully engage the tards that post over there.

However it appears you have a personal issue with me.

I am more than willing to meet and sort it out, so to speak...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 04 2009,11:06

Quote (SLP @ Nov. 04 2009,10:52)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 25 2009,08:17)
Things have been quiet at TT lately.  

A while ago I asked Paul Nelson (for the umpteenth time) to explain in what way "< Woese and his reasearch group radically undermine fundamental lines of evolutionary reasoning >" and what exactly are the "corrosive consequences" of that research to the upper branches of the evolutionary tree of life.

Paul < replied >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One step at a time. A data dump now about problems with metazoan (or chordate or mammalian) phylogeny would be getting ahead of the discussion. Let’s sort out the origin of Eukarya, according to Woese, first.

< Suggested reading, re HGT and its evidential support. >

P.S. I have a book MS (with Scott Minnich) due next week, so will be away from this discussion over the weekend and early next week.

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



16 days later, no sign of Paul.  

Zachriel, maybe we should ignore Joe Gallien for a while.  IDers at both UD and TT view him as a crazy uncle and won't be caught dead talking to him.  If he sees that his tantrums don't result in conversations he'll have to either change his behavior or at least change his venue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been waiting for about 6 years forhim to demonstrate that investigator bias alters/dictates molecular phylogenetic analysis outcomes....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would I do that when I never made such a claim?

OTOH I have been waiting for decades for evolutionitwits to support their claims that alterations to the genome can account for the diversity of life from some unlnown population(s) of single-celled organisms.
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 04 2009,11:21

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:55)

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


[quote=SLP,Nov. 04 2009,10:50]
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04
What is the mechanism of ID?

Please do not say 'design', for 'design' is only the plan.  What is the mechanism of the implementation of the plan, and what is the actual evidence for it?

For example, the mechanism for the implementation of human design can be seen in the scraps and left over materials, tools, etc.

Please, floor us with your acumen.[/quote)

Design is a mechanism Scott.

Just look up the two words:

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

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



When I look up "design", I get this:

de?sign??/d??za?n/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-zahyn]  

–verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.  
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.  
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.  
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.  
6. Obsolete. to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.

–verb (used without object)
7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
8. to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

–noun
9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.  
12. the art of designing: a school of design.  
13. a plan or project: a design for a new process.  
14. a plot or intrigue, esp. an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.  
15. designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner's stock.  
16. intention; purpose; end.
17. adaptation of means to a preconceived end.

I don't see anything about design being "create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", in all of the applicable definitions, I see 'design' as the PLAN.


And the definiton of 'mechanism' doesn't help, either:

mech?an?ism??/?m?k??n?z?m/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [mek-uh-niz-uhm]  

–noun
1. an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3. machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4. the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5. the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.  
6. routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.  
7. mechanical execution, as in painting or music; technique.
8. the theory that everything in the universe is produced by matter in motion; materialism. Compare dynamism (def. 1), vitalism (def. 1).
9. Philosophy. a. the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
b. the view that all biological processes may be described in physicochemical terms.
10. Psychoanalysis. the habitual operation and interaction of psychological forces within an individual that assist in interpreting or dealing with the physical or psychological environment.

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

I see nothgin there that indicates that the "plan" is the means by which something is accomplished.

"Design" is a plan. the "mechanism" is the means by whicht he plan is implemented.

So where is the evidence for the means by which the plan is inmplemented?



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

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, 'design' is a plan.  It is not the mechanism by which the plan is implemented.

Or do you really believe that the assembly instructions that came in the box with a child's toy is the mechanism by which the toy is put together, and that the use of tools and the physical putting-together of the parts is just part of the 'design'?

If that is truly your highly unorthodox idiosyncratic 'definition' of 'intelligent design', then you are still left with the main point - what is the evidence for it?

Using the child's toy example, if 'design' is both the plan for putting it together as well as the actual act of putting it together, we are left with evidence that the plan was implemented.

We have the actual written instructions, we have the packing material, we have the tools.

Where is anything analogous to that in, say, the 'design' of the bacterial flagellum?

Will you say in the genes? If that is so, then we are left asking who wrote the instructions.  For in the toy analogy, we can certainly find out.



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


It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.

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



If only I could have earned a BS in electronics engineering like you, I guess I would be smart.

By the way - you never did answer the question regarding your claim to having been injured in Iraq asked on TT - someone looked up the injury reports and there were no such reports on the day or in the place you claimed ot have been injured digging toilets or whatever you want people to think you did...



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

That said there are specific design mechanisms-

One is a targeted search such as the "weasel" program.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a human contrivance.

Only an uneducated person would really think that looking at human activity would be evidence that Intelligent Design exists in nature such that the flagellum was the product of design, not natural processes.

Further, we could find out who the designer of the program is, we could discover the means by which the design was implemented, we could find 'evidence' for the process.

Not so with biological 'design.'


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


Another is "built-in responses to environmental cues" ala Dr Spetner in 1997.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Spetner the Hebrew creationist who believes that Yahweh created 365 kinds og bird and 365 kinds of beast and the millions we have today magically evolved when nobody was looking in less than 4,500 years?  That wizard?


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


Then there is artificial selection.

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



Which is anothe rhuman activity.


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


There you have it design mechanisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes - human ones (I won't count Spetners nonsense).

Are you people saying that humans designed the flagellum?
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 04 2009,11:25

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,11:06)
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 04 2009,10:52)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 25 2009,08:17)
Things have been quiet at TT lately.  

A while ago I asked Paul Nelson (for the umpteenth time) to explain in what way "< Woese and his reasearch group radically undermine fundamental lines of evolutionary reasoning >" and what exactly are the "corrosive consequences" of that research to the upper branches of the evolutionary tree of life.

Paul < replied >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One step at a time. A data dump now about problems with metazoan (or chordate or mammalian) phylogeny would be getting ahead of the discussion. Let’s sort out the origin of Eukarya, according to Woese, first.

< Suggested reading, re HGT and its evidential support. >

P.S. I have a book MS (with Scott Minnich) due next week, so will be away from this discussion over the weekend and early next week.

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



16 days later, no sign of Paul.  

Zachriel, maybe we should ignore Joe Gallien for a while.  IDers at both UD and TT view him as a crazy uncle and won't be caught dead talking to him.  If he sees that his tantrums don't result in conversations he'll have to either change his behavior or at least change his venue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've been waiting for about 6 years forhim to demonstrate that investigator bias alters/dictates molecular phylogenetic analysis outcomes....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would I do that when I never made such a claim?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was referring to Paul Nelson.

Sorry to hear that you have abandoned your Muslim Faith.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Nov. 04 2009,11:45

JoeG/idguy/Captain America. A rose by any other name...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 04 2009,23:13

LOL@cakeboy: Design is a mechanism. What a maroon!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 05 2009,02:23

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

     

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

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

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



< Article in Synthese >

< Unabridged web version of above >

< Article in Biology and Philosophy >

< Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism >

< Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails >

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

     

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

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

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


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


[1] Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

[2] The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

[3] In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

[4] You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One freebie for "JoeG"...

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 05 2009,02:57



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

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?

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



Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (< See page 24. >) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) < article > provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.

More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I < worked through > the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2009,03:12

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:51)
Was any of that supposed to refute anything I said?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, because you said nothing that could be refuted. You made some claims, I asked you to back them up with evidence and you bailed. Simple as.
 

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

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAA

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


Yes, most amusing, I agree.
 

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

oldmanwithhisheaduphisass you are a living transition from pond-scum.

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


I'm surprised you are familiar with such concepts.
 

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

Thank you for fulfilling my prediction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I suppose that's one prediction from an ID supporter that's come true then. Now, will you made any scientific predictions regarding ID that can be tested? Or just claim victory without any of that messy *work* instead like every other ID proponent ever?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2009,03:14

Joe

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you care to go through a worked example of how the EF detects design then I will give $20 to the charity of your choice (that accepts paypal).

Or some other forfit, like saying you are really a clever clever man and not an old fool, as you prefer.

However I think my money is safe.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2009,07:34

Joe < said >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But anyway I am more than willing to take on any one of those fruitloops in a debate.

We can both put up some money and see who knows best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds fair. However Joe then chickens out when asked to come to AtBC and debate:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see the type of "debate" that goes on over there.

I am not going to go into a mob-mentality atmosphere.

I am here Maya. Anyone can come here.

However I will debate anyone in person, in a public forum, with credentialed judges who can decide who delivers and who doesn't.

But anyway Maya I will definitely wipe you out in a debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes Joe, anybody can go to your blog. Except for one tiny little thing


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep, Joe is only willing to debate where he can control the other persons ability to post.

He must be real sure of his ability in that case.

And correct me if I'm wrong but Joe appears to be here now, OK he's not debating as such but hey, Joe, make up your mind!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But anyway Maya I will definitely wipe you out in a debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep, Joe will wipe Maya in the debate Joe is too scared to have.

More whines about why comments need to be censored:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I turn off comments because assholes like Richtard Hughes can't stay on topic and can never add anything to the discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW you prove that AtBC is nothing but ignorant gossip.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ignorant gossip you are too scared to join in with.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW I posted on AtBC and it went as predicted.

The regulars over there are nothing but a bunch of monkees who couldn't support their position if their lives depended on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but it only takes a second for anybody to look at what you posted. Ignorant abuse, and unfounded unsupported claims.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya see there isn't any reason to go to those other forums.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why go somewhere where you can't control comments. Why, you must be scared!
Joe did say one thing on that thread that makes sense, if applied to Joe


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you continue to think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pathetic. C'mon Joe. Let's pick a topic and debate it (if you can). As you can see if you look at this thread
< FloydLee > the regulars are happy to let a few people debate and keep the baying mob away. Of course FL broke the agreed rules and so everybody piled in, but if you can debate rather then make unsupported claims I'm sure a civil debate can happen.

You'll never know if you don't try. I'll even create a brand new thread if you want to.

Why not take the opportunity to prove the evo-nit-wits wrong Joe?

Oh, that's right. Sorry, I forgot....
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2009,07:44

ID Guy < (Joe) >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If one is claiming that alterations to the genome can account for all the transitions then it is up to that person to show such a thing is possible.

The $20,000 challenge still stands Zach-

You and I in front of a panel of experts to end this once and for all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe, would that debate happen in a venue where you can control what your opponent was allowed to say, or not?

Why not debate Zach here, for free, and show him up as wrong on every point you claim?

Why does it have to be for money? I'm sure we can find an impartial witness to judge the debate both sides can agree on. That's really the crucial point, right? Not the money? That sombody you can both agree on as Judge decides who's supported their point?

See, IOW if you are willing to debate you are willing to debate. IOW you are only bringing up the money to ensure the debate never happens, not to make it happen.

If you were sure you would win such a debate you would not need to include any such condition.

In fact, why not have the debate now, for free, and then if you win you can be sure that in any future debate you'd win the money? If not here, then there are plenty of structured debating sites out there. Any one of those would do I'm sure. But you are too scared to just do that, hence the silly $20,000.

C'mon Joe, let's debate here! I'll open a thread and everything.

Oh, that's right. Sorry, I forgot about that, never mind then.
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 05 2009,07:47

If I remember correctly, two people emailed his former employer because Joey was sending them threats from his work email account.

Thats what Joey the Muslim does - he threatens people, then bails when they take him up on it.  


A 'public debate' would be a hoot -

EVO:  Mr. Gallien, can you tell us all what the mechanism for Design is?

JOE:  Yes, Design IS the mechanism!

EVO: Oh, OK, how is it implemented?

JOE:  It is Design, dumbass!

(crowd starts shaking heads)

EVO:  Can you give an example of this 'design' in Nature?

JOE:  Sure, artifical selection in domestic animals!

EVO:  Um...  Humans do that..

JOE:  Yeah - and thats ID, stupid!  

(crowd starts to chuckle and act disgusted)

EVO:I thought ID was all about thye origin of life and flagella and such?

JOE: Thats right - artificial selection proves that an Intelligent Designer designed the bacterial flagellum!  Duh, asshole!  How about I pay you a little visit so you'll see things my way?

EVO:  Well, I am right here across the stage.  Bring it on.

JOE:  Gotta go.  I'm double parked.

JOE (2 weeks later):  So, evo pussy, chickened out of our little get together, eh?




Such a coward, in more ways than one.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 05 2009,08:11

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:57)


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

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?

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



Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (< See page 24. >)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I recall one ID article that was basically "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A TURBINE".

FAIL.
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 09 2009,15:25

Sal gives a shout out!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: I will not visit ATBC, they are an uncivil mean cesspool.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 09 2009,15:27

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2009,14:25)
Sal gives a shout out!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: I will not visit ATBC, they are an uncivil mean cesspool.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well sure, but the grass is always greener over the septic tank.
Posted by: RDK on Nov. 09 2009,15:33

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2009,15:25)
Sal gives a shout out!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: I will not visit ATBC, they are an uncivil mean cesspool.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Salvador!

Apparently anyone who is not moronic enough to fall for ID talking points is a bully.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 09 2009,16:22

Quote (SLP @ Nov. 05 2009,08:47)
If I remember correctly, two people emailed his former employer because Joey was sending them threats from his work email account.

Thats what Joey the Muslim does - he threatens people, then bails when they take him up on it.  


A 'public debate' would be a hoot -

EVO:  Mr. Gallien, can you tell us all what the mechanism for Design is?

JOE:  Yes, Design IS the mechanism!

EVO: Oh, OK, how is it implemented?

JOE:  It is Design, dumbass!

(crowd starts shaking heads)

EVO:  Can you give an example of this 'design' in Nature?

JOE:  Sure, artifical selection in domestic animals!

EVO:  Um...  Humans do that..

JOE:  Yeah - and thats ID, stupid!  

(crowd starts to chuckle and act disgusted)

EVO:I thought ID was all about thye origin of life and flagella and such?

JOE: Thats right - artificial selection proves that an Intelligent Designer designed the bacterial flagellum!  Duh, asshole!  How about I pay you a little visit so you'll see things my way?

EVO:  Well, I am right here across the stage.  Bring it on.

JOE:  Gotta go.  I'm double parked.

JOE (2 weeks later):  So, evo pussy, chickened out of our little get together, eh?




Such a coward, in more ways than one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hahahahahahahha

joe i would like to take you out to lunch sometime.  just let me know when.  i heard you don't eat pork?
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 09 2009,16:40

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2009,15:25)
Sal gives a shout out!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: I will not visit ATBC, they are an uncivil mean cesspool.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never visit that cesspool of undiluted idiocy but thanks for the link, I felt like he deserved a nudge.
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 11 2009,10:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: Yse Zachriel, by calling you a crack-whore Joe G has done an injustice towards crack-whores as they are more credible and honest than you will ever be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like ignoring Joe G ID guy has provoked a response. How will the moderators react to this? I remember I've been banned from threads for on-topic comments, and put in the Rabbit Hole for reasonable comments on open threads. I can't imagine what dreadful things they'll do to ID guy!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Terminate this and stay on topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh? Warn Zachriel to stay on topic. That's it?
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 11 2009,13:31

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2009,10:17)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Terminate this and stay on topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh? Warn Zachriel to stay on topic. That's it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay. Bradford did send ID guy's comment to the Memory Hole. Meanwhile, ID guy keeps up the pretense.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: Yes Bradford, it's amazing what these clowns will do in order to try to distract from the fact that they are talking out of their arses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 12 2009,09:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 04 2009,23:13)
LOL@cakeboy: Design is a mechanism. What a maroon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes design is a mechanism if we go by the standard and accepted definitions of the words "design" and "mechanism".

However if you are an ignorant asshole- as most of you appear to be, then dictionaries are of no use.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 12 2009,09:58

Quote (SLP @ Nov. 05 2009,07:47)
If I remember correctly, two people emailed his former employer because Joey was sending them threats from his work email account.

Thats what Joey the Muslim does - he threatens people, then bails when they take him up on it.  


A 'public debate' would be a hoot -

EVO:  Mr. Gallien, can you tell us all what the mechanism for Design is?

JOE:  Yes, Design IS the mechanism!

EVO: Oh, OK, how is it implemented?

JOE:  It is Design, dumbass!

(crowd starts shaking heads)

EVO:  Can you give an example of this 'design' in Nature?

JOE:  Sure, artifical selection in domestic animals!

EVO:  Um...  Humans do that..

JOE:  Yeah - and thats ID, stupid!  

(crowd starts to chuckle and act disgusted)

EVO:I thought ID was all about thye origin of life and flagella and such?

JOE: Thats right - artificial selection proves that an Intelligent Designer designed the bacterial flagellum!  Duh, asshole!  How about I pay you a little visit so you'll see things my way?

EVO:  Well, I am right here across the stage.  Bring it on.

JOE:  Gotta go.  I'm double parked.

JOE (2 weeks later):  So, evo pussy, chickened out of our little get together, eh?




Such a coward, in more ways than one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Scotty reverts to lying.

No surprise there.

Let's see Scotty you and Rob were going to come to my workplace and do something.

However YOU chickened out.

Anytime Scotty.

I could be at Norwich U in a couple of hours.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 12 2009,10:00

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:23)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Article in Synthese >

< Unabridged web version of above >

< Article in Biology and Philosophy >

< Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism >

< Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails >

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[1] Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

[2] The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

[3] In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

[4] You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One freebie for "JoeG"...

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wes,

You don't have any evidence that undirected/ non-target oriented processes can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on those types of mechanisms.

That is why the vast majority of people do not buy into your nonsense.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 12 2009,10:04

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,09:58)
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 05 2009,07:47)
If I remember correctly, two people emailed his former employer because Joey was sending them threats from his work email account.

Thats what Joey the Muslim does - he threatens people, then bails when they take him up on it.  


A 'public debate' would be a hoot -

EVO:  Mr. Gallien, can you tell us all what the mechanism for Design is?

JOE:  Yes, Design IS the mechanism!

EVO: Oh, OK, how is it implemented?

JOE:  It is Design, dumbass!

(crowd starts shaking heads)

EVO:  Can you give an example of this 'design' in Nature?

JOE:  Sure, artifical selection in domestic animals!

EVO:  Um...  Humans do that..

JOE:  Yeah - and thats ID, stupid!  

(crowd starts to chuckle and act disgusted)

EVO:I thought ID was all about thye origin of life and flagella and such?

JOE: Thats right - artificial selection proves that an Intelligent Designer designed the bacterial flagellum!  Duh, asshole!  How about I pay you a little visit so you'll see things my way?

EVO:  Well, I am right here across the stage.  Bring it on.

JOE:  Gotta go.  I'm double parked.

JOE (2 weeks later):  So, evo pussy, chickened out of our little get together, eh?




Such a coward, in more ways than one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Scotty reverts to lying.

No surprise there.

Let's see Scotty you and Rob were going to come to my workplace and do something.

However YOU chickened out.

Anytime Scotty.

I could be at Norwich U in a couple of hours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you going to buy him lunch?

Do you wear your undercrackers outside of your pants, ID Guy?
Posted by: dnmlthr on Nov. 12 2009,10:19

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,15:58)
   
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 05 2009,07:47)

...
EVO:I thought ID was all about thye origin of life and flagella and such?

JOE: Thats right - artificial selection proves that an Intelligent Designer designed the bacterial flagellum!  Duh, asshole!  How about I pay you a little visit so you'll see things my way?

EVO:  Well, I am right here across the stage.  Bring it on.

JOE:  Gotta go.  I'm double parked.

JOE (2 weeks later):  So, evo pussy, chickened out of our little get together, eh?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...
Anytime Scotty.

I could be at Norwich U in a couple of hours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hahaha! You are so predictable as to not even need a markov chain to model*!

* By which I mean that you could be replaced by a completely deterministic (very) finite automata and no one would notice the difference.

ETA: speling.
Posted by: Raevmo on Nov. 12 2009,10:26

Joe G the ID gay:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anytime Scotty.

I could be at Norwich U in a couple of hours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Looking for a date, Joe? With grease or dry?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 12 2009,10:51

As I recall, Joe (in his other incarnation as Joseph) tried to defend the idiotic "design = mechanism" argument on Behe's Amazon blog (in the single post that was ever open for comments there), where it was destroyed as well. Then Joseph retired from that fray, and now, when I look for it, those older Amazon blog posts have been retired as well.

How quickly they forget...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 12 2009,11:19

Once more for Joe G:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: rossum on Nov. 12 2009,12:27

Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 12 2009,10:26)
Looking for a date, Joe? With grease or dry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"If spit doesn't work, it's not true love."

rossum
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2009,12:41

lolol ID Gay wants you to meat you.

Joe as long as you are on this road trip will you swing my way too buddy?  I know some guys that would love to go dancing with you and we have a great mosque in town where you can worship.  Also we can tour the refrigerator hall of fame.  it'd be great!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 12 2009,12:52

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 12 2009,12:41)
lolol ID Gay wants you to meat you.

Joe as long as you are on this road trip will you swing my way too buddy?  I know some guys that would love to go dancing with you and we have a great mosque in town where you can worship.  Also we can tour the refrigerator hall of fame.  it'd be great!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might want one of these:




He's a retiree with a bad hip.
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 12 2009,13:05

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,09:58)
However YOU chickened out.

Anytime Scotty.

I could be at Norwich U in a couple of hours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whatever... Blipey...
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 12 2009,13:10

Funny, Joey must have missed this:

[quote=Joe G,Nov. 04 2009,10:55][/quote]
[quote=SLP,Nov. 04 2009,10:50]  
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04
What is the mechanism of ID?

Please do not say 'design', for 'design' is only the plan.  What is the mechanism of the implementation of the plan, and what is the actual evidence for it?

For example, the mechanism for the implementation of human design can be seen in the scraps and left over materials, tools, etc.

Please, floor us with your acumen.[/quote)

Design is a mechanism Scott.

Just look up the two words:

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When I look up "design", I get this:

–verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.  
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.  
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.  
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.  
6. Obsolete. to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.

–verb (used without object)
7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
8. to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

–noun
9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.  
12. the art of designing: a school of design.  
13. a plan or project: a design for a new process.  
14. a plot or intrigue, esp. an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.  
15. designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner's stock.  
16. intention; purpose; end.
17. adaptation of means to a preconceived end.

I don't see anything about design being "create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", in all of the applicable definitions, I see 'design' as the PLAN.


And the definiton of 'mechanism' doesn't help, either:

–noun
1. an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3. machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4. the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5. the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.  
6. routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.  
7. mechanical execution, as in painting or music; technique.
8. the theory that everything in the universe is produced by matter in motion; materialism. Compare dynamism (def. 1), vitalism (def. 1).
9. Philosophy. a. the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
b. the view that all biological processes may be described in physicochemical terms.
10. Psychoanalysis. the habitual operation and interaction of psychological forces within an individual that assist in interpreting or dealing with the physical or psychological environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothgin there that indicates that the "plan" is the means by which something is accomplished.

"Design" is a plan. The "mechanism" is the means by which the plan is implemented.

So where is the evidence for the means by which the plan is inmplemented?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, 'design' is a plan.  It is not the mechanism by which the plan is implemented.

Or do you really believe that the assembly instructions that came in the box with a child's toy is the mechanism by which the toy is put together, and that the use of tools and the physical putting-together of the parts is just part of the 'design'?

If that is truly your highly unorthodox idiosyncratic 'definition' of 'intelligent design', then you are still left with the main point - what is the evidence for it?

Using the child's toy example, if 'design' is both the plan for putting it together as well as the actual act of putting it together, we are left with evidence that the plan was implemented.

We have the actual written instructions, we have the packing material, we have the tools.

Where is anything analogous to that in, say, the 'design' of the bacterial flagellum?

Will you say in the genes? If that is so, then we are left asking who wrote the instructions.  For in the toy analogy, we can certainly find out.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If only I could have earned a BS in electronics engineering like you, I guess I would be smart.

By the way - you never did answer the question regarding your claim to having been injured in Iraq asked on TT - someone looked up the injury reports and there were no such reports on the day or in the place you claimed to have been injured digging toilets or whatever you want people to think you did...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That said there are specific design mechanisms-

One is a targeted search such as the "weasel" program.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a human contrivance.

Only an uneducated person would really think that looking at human activity would be evidence that Intelligent Design exists in nature such that the flagellum was the product of design, not natural processes.

Further, we could find out who the designer of the program is, we could discover the means by which the design was implemented, we could find 'evidence' for the process.

Not so with biological 'design.'


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another is "built-in responses to environmental cues" ala Dr Spetner in 1997.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Spetner the Hebrew creationist who believes that Yahweh created 365 kinds of bird and 365 kinds of beast and the millions we have today magically evolved when nobody was looking in less than 4,500 years?  That wizard?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then there is artificial selection.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which is another human activity.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There you have it design mechanisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes - human ones (I won't count Spetners nonsense).

Are you people saying that humans designed the flagellum?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2009,13:18

lololol "That Wizard?"  lolololol

bwahahahaha

I forgot about iraq.  how did you get injured again Joe?  If you like we can go by the VFW and spike the punch and shoot the shit about how muslims* furriners are ruining everything.  they have a great gay veterans bar here, killer lunch buffet.





*sorry Joe, I didn't mean to offend your religion I won't do it again
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 12 2009,13:28

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,09:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 04 2009,23:13)
LOL@cakeboy: Design is a mechanism. What a maroon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes design is a mechanism if we go by the standard and accepted definitions of the words "design" and "mechanism".

However if you are an ignorant asshole- as most of you appear to be, then dictionaries are of no use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I look up "design", I get this:



–verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.  
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.  
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.  
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.  
6. Obsolete. to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.

–verb (used without object)
7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
8. to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

–noun
9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.  
12. the art of designing: a school of design.  
13. a plan or project: a design for a new process.  
14. a plot or intrigue, esp. an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.  
15. designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner's stock.  
16. intention; purpose; end.
17. adaptation of means to a preconceived end.

I don't see anything about design being "create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", in all of the applicable definitions, I see 'design' as the PLAN.


And the definiton of 'mechanism' doesn't help, either:



–noun
1. an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3. machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4. the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5. the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.  
6. routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.  
7. mechanical execution, as in painting or music; technique.
8. the theory that everything in the universe is produced by matter in motion; materialism. Compare dynamism (def. 1), vitalism (def. 1).
9. Philosophy. a. the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
b. the view that all biological processes may be described in physicochemical terms.
10. Psychoanalysis. the habitual operation and interaction of psychological forces within an individual that assist in interpreting or dealing with the physical or psychological environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothgin there that indicates that the "plan" is the means by which something is accomplished.

Apparently, some feel the need to simply make up definitions to prop up their fantasies.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Nov. 12 2009,15:02

Quote (SLP @ Nov. 12 2009,19:28)
I see nothgin there that indicates that the "plan" is the means by which something is accomplished.

Apparently, some feel the need to simply make up definitions to prop up their fantasies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least the flying spaghetti monster has his noodly appendages to work with. Is a similar process used in your model, Joe Gangsta?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 12 2009,16:25

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,11:00)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:23)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Article in Synthese >

< Unabridged web version of above >

< Article in Biology and Philosophy >

< Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism >

< Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails >

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[1] Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

[2] The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

[3] In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

[4] You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One freebie for "JoeG"...

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wes,

You don't have any evidence that undirected/ non-target oriented processes can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on those types of mechanisms.

That is why the vast majority of people do not buy into your nonsense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey look, it's Joe G the coward, who throws around a bunch of insults and makes a lot of unsupported assertions, then bravely runs away!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 14 2009,10:30

Joe G makes an appearance at the Casey Luskin editorial:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G

Nov 14, 2009

Instead of just providing the scientific data which would support their position and falsify ID all the anti-IDist crybabies can do is spew more hatred.

However seeing that there isn't any scientific data that supports their claims spewing hatred is all they have.

For example we have plenty of evidence for mutations causing malfunctions.

But we don't have any da=ta that demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans.

And we don't have any way to test the premise that an accumulation of genetic accidents can do the trick.

So as opposed to mouthing off all the evolutionitwits have to do is to actually start supporting their claims!

But they cannot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >

Yep, I guess the fact that there is no evidence at all for evolution explains why all those textbook and journal pages are empty. Why all those labs are just cardboard cutouts.

Why museums are full of nothing at all
< >

Joe G is even too much of a coward to pick a piece of evidence and have a debate about it.

Ain't that so, Joe?

Prove me wrong....
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 14 2009,20:39

Ah yes, yet another fucktard geniac that's going to overturn all of Biology with his One True Evokiller Argument (but no actual research).

*yawn*

twat.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 17 2009,05:33

Don Provan damms Sal with the faintest of praise
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As interesting and important as it is for an amateur unencumbered with training or experience to reveal a flaw at the heart of the field of genetics, I'm looking for the telic angle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch! He continues:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I understand this is a recent proposal, so I'm not expecting the hundred years' worth of evidence we're discarding based on the logic that it couldn't possibly be accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, let's discard much of what we know about genetics because Sal made an animation? Perhaps not. Thing is, without farty noises will anybody take Sal's video seriously?
< Link >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,05:01

More from Sal


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I predict finding using Solexa and Illumina will continue to show that the mainstream evolutionary assumptions must necessarily result in irreconcilable contradictions regarding the ultra conserved regions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and later


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is worth more investigation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, Sal, who'll be doing that investigation? You? Doubt it...

< Slime. >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,05:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy Says:
November 18th, 2009 at 9:05 pm

You know if we take Allen's provided definitions of speciesas "gospel" then homosexuals should be considered a different species.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we take IQ as defining species ID guy is wayyyy out there with the Sea Horses.

Still, you can't blame him. It's clear he's not all there.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,15:32

Quote (SLP @ Nov. 12 2009,13:28)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,09:55)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 04 2009,23:13)
LOL@cakeboy: Design is a mechanism. What a maroon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes design is a mechanism if we go by the standard and accepted definitions of the words "design" and "mechanism".

However if you are an ignorant asshole- as most of you appear to be, then dictionaries are of no use.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I look up "design", I get this:



–verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.  
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.  
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.  
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.  
6. Obsolete. to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.

–verb (used without object)
7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
8. to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

–noun
9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.  
12. the art of designing: a school of design.  
13. a plan or project: a design for a new process.  
14. a plot or intrigue, esp. an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.  
15. designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner's stock.  
16. intention; purpose; end.
17. adaptation of means to a preconceived end.

I don't see anything about design being "create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", in all of the applicable definitions, I see 'design' as the PLAN.


And the definiton of 'mechanism' doesn't help, either:



–noun
1. an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3. machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4. the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5. the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.  
6. routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.  
7. mechanical execution, as in painting or music; technique.
8. the theory that everything in the universe is produced by matter in motion; materialism. Compare dynamism (def. 1), vitalism (def. 1).
9. Philosophy. a. the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
b. the view that all biological processes may be described in physicochemical terms.
10. Psychoanalysis. the habitual operation and interaction of psychological forces within an individual that assist in interpreting or dealing with the physical or psychological environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothgin there that indicates that the "plan" is the means by which something is accomplished.

Apparently, some feel the need to simply make up definitions to prop up their fantasies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I look up mechanism, I get:

3. method or means: a method or means of doing something

And then design


plan and make something: to plan and make something in a skillful or artistic way

Plan AND MAKE.

So as I have tiold you many times before one can do something by design or willy-nilly.

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,15:37

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 14 2009,10:30)
Joe G makes an appearance at the Casey Luskin editorial:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G

Nov 14, 2009

Instead of just providing the scientific data which would support their position and falsify ID all the anti-IDist crybabies can do is spew more hatred.

However seeing that there isn't any scientific data that supports their claims spewing hatred is all they have.

For example we have plenty of evidence for mutations causing malfunctions.

But we don't have any da=ta that demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans.

And we don't have any way to test the premise that an accumulation of genetic accidents can do the trick.

So as opposed to mouthing off all the evolutionitwits have to do is to actually start supporting their claims!

But they cannot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >

Yep, I guess the fact that there is no evidence at all for evolution explains why all those textbook and journal pages are empty. Why all those labs are just cardboard cutouts.

Why museums are full of nothing at all
< >

Joe G is even too much of a coward to pick a piece of evidence and have a debate about it.

Ain't that so, Joe?

Prove me wrong....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oldmanwithhisheaduphisass,

What is the genetic data that links changes in the DNA to those alleged physical transformations?

IOW you are too much of an imbecile to even understand that you don't have anything that supports your position.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,15:44

< mechanism >:
b : a process, technique, or system for achieving a result

< http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/mechanism?view=uk >
2 the way in which something works or is brought about.

< http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/mechanism >

An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being:


Design:

< http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design >

1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan


< http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/design >

To make or execute plans.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 19 2009,15:45

Joe:

< http://www.google.com/search?....q=&aqi= >


Ms Encarta? How long did you fish before you got one that was remotely what you wanted?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,15:47

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 12 2009,16:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,11:00)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:23)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Article in Synthese >

< Unabridged web version of above >

< Article in Biology and Philosophy >

< Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism >

< Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails >

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[1] Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

[2] The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

[3] In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

[4] You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One freebie for "JoeG"...

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wes,

You don't have any evidence that undirected/ non-target oriented processes can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on those types of mechanisms.

That is why the vast majority of people do not buy into your nonsense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey look, it's Joe G the coward, who throws around a bunch of insults and makes a lot of unsupported assertions, then bravely runs away!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey look it's occam's afterbirth the douche-drip.

You still don't have anything that would support your position, do you?

You don't have any idea if mutations can accumulate such that new, useful protein machinery is constructed. And still nothing for changing body plans.

And you still blame me for your short-comings and ignorance.

Go fogure...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,15:48

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:37)
oldmanwithhisheaduphisass,

What is the genetic data that links changes in the DNA to those alleged physical transformations?

IOW you are too much of an imbecile to even understand that you don't have anything that supports your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8355541.stm >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A gene that has long been implicated in the evolution of speech and language has given up more of its secrets.

A study of the effects of two versions of the FOXP2 gene, one from chimpanzees and one from humans, showed marked differences in their effects.

Human FOXP2 triggered changes in genes known to affect the growth of brain areas related to language and also, more generally, to higher thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004vxq1 >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Research in the journal Nature this week describes a gene which seems to control the human ability to speak. FOXP2 works like a dimmer switch, turning the expression of other genes up or down. These genes in turn affect our control of the facial muscles necessary for speech, and may influence the brain circuits involved in language. But, asks Jon, would genetically engineering chimpanzees to carry FOXP2 allow them to talk? Dr Daniel Geshwind from the University of California, Los Angeles, has an answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I'm sure you remember other times Joe, over at UD, where I fed you links (about the big toe I think last time) showing genetic links to exactly the sort of changes you are asking about. Where you said "oh, maybe" and then pretended it never happened! And of course it would never have lasted anyway as I was banned (again) shortly after (probably).

Oh yes Joe, we've talked many times....

Still wanna talk about DNA and physical transformations?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,15:48

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,15:45)
Joe:

< http://www.google.com/search?....q=&aqi= >


Ms Encarta? How long did you fish before you got one that was remotely what you wanted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richtard,

We have been down this road before and you lost then too.

It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to own or read a dictionary.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 19 2009,15:48

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:47)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 12 2009,16:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,11:00)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:23)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Article in Synthese >

< Unabridged web version of above >

< Article in Biology and Philosophy >

< Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism >

< Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails >

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[1] Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

[2] The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

[3] In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

[4] You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One freebie for "JoeG"...

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wes,

You don't have any evidence that undirected/ non-target oriented processes can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on those types of mechanisms.

That is why the vast majority of people do not buy into your nonsense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey look, it's Joe G the coward, who throws around a bunch of insults and makes a lot of unsupported assertions, then bravely runs away!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey look it's occam's afterbirth the douche-drip.

You still don't have anything that would support your position, do you?

You don't have any idea if mutations can accumulate such that new, useful protein machinery is constructed. And still nothing for changing body plans.

And you still blame me for your short-comings and ignorance.

Go fogure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't blame you for anything but being a cowardly hit-and-run prick, Joe.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,15:49

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:47)
And you still blame me for your short-comings and ignorance.

Go fogure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go fogure
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is that your accent coming through as you type Joe?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,15:50

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:37)
oldmanwithhisheaduphisass,

What is the genetic data that links changes in the DNA to those alleged physical transformations?

IOW you are too much of an imbecile to even understand that you don't have anything that supports your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8355541.stm >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A gene that has long been implicated in the evolution of speech and language has given up more of its secrets.

A study of the effects of two versions of the FOXP2 gene, one from chimpanzees and one from humans, showed marked differences in their effects.

Human FOXP2 triggered changes in genes known to affect the growth of brain areas related to language and also, more generally, to higher thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004vxq1 >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Research in the journal Nature this week describes a gene which seems to control the human ability to speak. FOXP2 works like a dimmer switch, turning the expression of other genes up or down. These genes in turn affect our control of the facial muscles necessary for speech, and may influence the brain circuits involved in language. But, asks Jon, would genetically engineering chimpanzees to carry FOXP2 allow them to talk? Dr Daniel Geshwind from the University of California, Los Angeles, has an answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I'm sure you remember other times Joe, over at UD, where I fed you links (about the big toe I think last time) showing genetic links to exactly the sort of changes you are asking about. Where you said "oh, maybe" and then pretended it never happened! And of course it would never have lasted anyway as I was banned (again) shortly after (probably).

Oh yes Joe, we've talked many times....

Still wanna talk about DNA and physical transformations?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FOXP 2 doesn't help you moron.

It just shows that if mutated humans can't talk very well.

And there isn't anything linking to that loss of the opposable big toe.

So yes I absolutely want to talk DNA and physical changes.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,15:51

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
We have been down this road before and you lost then too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed we have. And every time you've lost Joe, as the "onlookers" would no doubt agree.

You just don't realise it.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,15:51

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:47)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 12 2009,16:25)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,11:00)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:23)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Article in Synthese >

< Unabridged web version of above >

< Article in Biology and Philosophy >

< Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism >

< Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails >

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[1] Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

[2] The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

[3] In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

[4] You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One freebie for "JoeG"...

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wes,

You don't have any evidence that undirected/ non-target oriented processes can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on those types of mechanisms.

That is why the vast majority of people do not buy into your nonsense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey look, it's Joe G the coward, who throws around a bunch of insults and makes a lot of unsupported assertions, then bravely runs away!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey look it's occam's afterbirth the douche-drip.

You still don't have anything that would support your position, do you?

You don't have any idea if mutations can accumulate such that new, useful protein machinery is constructed. And still nothing for changing body plans.

And you still blame me for your short-comings and ignorance.

Go fogure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't blame you for anything but being a cowardly hit-and-run prick, Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes Mr cowardly anonymous.

Still nothing to add and still ignoirant I see...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,15:53

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
We have been down this road before and you lost then too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed we have. And every time you've lost Joe, as the "onlookers" would no doubt agree.

You just don't realise it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oldmanwithhisheaduphisass,

You don't have anything but your head up your ass.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,15:55

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:50)
FOXP 2 doesn't help you moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that your entire letter to Nature? The journal where they published the new research?
< http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6900/abs/nature01025.html >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This gene is disrupted by translocation in an unrelated individual who has a similar disorder. Thus, two functional copies of FOXP2 seem to be required for acquisition of normal spoken language. We sequenced the complementary DNAs that encode the FOXP2 protein in the chimpanzee, gorilla, orang-utan, rhesus macaque and mouse, and compared them with the human cDNA. We also investigated intraspecific variation of the human FOXP2 gene. Here we show that human FOXP2 contains changes in amino-acid coding and a pattern of nucleotide polymorphism, which strongly suggest that this gene has been the target of selection during recent human evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you sum that up with
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It just shows that if mutated humans can't talk very well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep. Include that in your letter. It fits. Very "you".
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And there isn't anything linking to that loss of the opposable big toe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never said there was.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So yes I absolutely want to talk DNA and physical changes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you sure you would not prefer to hit and run like usual? Is it a full moon at the moment or something? Is that why you are about for longer then the usual 10 seconds?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,15:57

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:55)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:50)
FOXP 2 doesn't help you moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that your entire letter to Nature? The journal where they published the new research?
< http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6900/abs/nature01025.html >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This gene is disrupted by translocation in an unrelated individual who has a similar disorder. Thus, two functional copies of FOXP2 seem to be required for acquisition of normal spoken language. We sequenced the complementary DNAs that encode the FOXP2 protein in the chimpanzee, gorilla, orang-utan, rhesus macaque and mouse, and compared them with the human cDNA. We also investigated intraspecific variation of the human FOXP2 gene. Here we show that human FOXP2 contains changes in amino-acid coding and a pattern of nucleotide polymorphism, which strongly suggest that this gene has been the target of selection during recent human evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you sum that up with
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It just shows that if mutated humans can't talk very well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep. Include that in your letter. It fits. Very "you".
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And there isn't anything linking to that loss of the opposable big toe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never said there was.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So yes I absolutely want to talk DNA and physical changes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you sure you would not prefer to hit and run like usual? Is it a full moon at the moment or something? Is that why you are about for longer then the usual 10 seconds?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you don't have anything then just say so.

I will meet you in a public debate- we both put up $10,000- then we will see who runs...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,15:57

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:51)
Still nothing to add and still ignoirant I see...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ignoirant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess. New Jersey?

That's where the picture is from Joe. They've a big museum full of it. Got nuthin about ID in there. At all. And it's a very big museum.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 19 2009,15:58

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,15:45)
Joe:

< http://www.google.com/search?....q=&aqi= >


Ms Encarta? How long did you fish before you got one that was remotely what you wanted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richtard,

We have been down this road before and you lost then too.

It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to own or read a dictionary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually the dictionaries I use agree with these:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y159930 >

I don't have to go cherry picking.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,15:58

Argument with the wife tonight was it Joe. Or too much peroxide in your milk?

Perhaps both?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,15:59

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:57)
If you don't have anything then just say so.

I will meet you in a public debate- we both put up $10,000- then we will see who runs...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A debate about what Joe?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,15:59

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:57)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:51)
Still nothing to add and still ignoirant I see...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ignoirant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me guess. New Jersey?

That's where the picture is from Joe. They've a big museum full of it. Got nuthin about ID in there. At all. And it's a very big museum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So all you have is to pick on TYPOS????

Now I know why I stay away from this place.

Too bad not one museum can link the DNA changes to those physical transformations...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 19 2009,15:59

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:58)
Argument with the wife tonight was it Joe. Or too much peroxide in your milk?

Perhaps both?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His war wound is playing up!
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,16:01

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,15:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,15:45)
Joe:

< http://www.google.com/search?....q=&aqi= >


Ms Encarta? How long did you fish before you got one that was remotely what you wanted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richtard,

We have been down this road before and you lost then too.

It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to own or read a dictionary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually the dictionaries I use agree with these:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y159930 >

I don't have to go cherry picking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richtard,

I used Merriam-Webster, Oxford- well I could opick any accepted dictionary to make my case.

As a matter of fact I did and you ignored it.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,16:03

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:59)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:57)
If you don't have anything then just say so.

I will meet you in a public debate- we both put up $10,000- then we will see who runs...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A debate about what Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your position against ID.

IOW you would have to provide a testable hypothesis pertaining to genetic accidents.

You would also have to support the claims of your position.

Or are you a coward?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,16:04

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:59)
So all you have is to pick on TYPOS????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You refuse to engage on the issues. I posted plently of material we could talk about. But you don't want that. What's' left?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now I know why I stay away from this place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, riiiiigggghhhhhtttt. Keeping away from the TYPO NAZIS!
Sure, I'm sure the onlookers are convinced. Just like they are by your two note performance at UD.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Too bad not one museum can link the DNA changes to those physical transformations...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You been to them all then?
And do single genes that control dogs size count?
< http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9348104 >
I suppose not.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,16:05

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:59)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:57)
If you don't have anything then just say so.

I will meet you in a public debate- we both put up $10,000- then we will see who runs...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A debate about what Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your position against ID. Duh...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 19 2009,16:07

Have you corrected Dembski yet?

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The father of modern ID says "no". and you are?
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,16:08

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,16:07)
Have you corrected Dembski yet?

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The father of modern ID says "no". and you are?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have corrected you Richtard. There isn't anything to correct with Dembski.

You don't seem to have a clue and you think that means no one does.

What Dembski is saying is that we don't have to know the specific mechanism used in order to detect design.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,16:11

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,16:04)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:59)
So all you have is to pick on TYPOS????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You refuse to engage on the issues. I posted plently of material we could talk about. But you don't want that. What's' left?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now I know why I stay away from this place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, riiiiigggghhhhhtttt. Keeping away from the TYPO NAZIS!
Sure, I'm sure the onlookers are convinced. Just like they are by your two note performance at UD.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Too bad not one museum can link the DNA changes to those physical transformations...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You been to them all then?
And do single genes that control dogs size count?
< http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9348104 >
I suppose not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dog size doesn't help you.

And exactly what "issues" have I refused to engage?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,16:14

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your position against ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's quite simple. There is no evidence for ID.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW you would have to provide a testable hypothesis pertaining to genetic accidents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the question is, would you understand it? Just because you can use the word "pertaining" it don't mean squat to me. How about you support your position with evidence?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You would also have to support the claims of your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very well. What claims are you making in support of your position and how will you be supporting them?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or are you a coward?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Mr Hit'n'Run that's quite the compliment.

So, sticking around this time then Joe for real?
I'm so excited.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,16:16

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:11)
Dog size doesn't help you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll check that one off the list.

Refuted by Joe. Check.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And exactly what "issues" have I refused to engage?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any and all of them. Any time. Ever.
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,16:19

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,16:14)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:03)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your position against ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's quite simple. There is no evidence for ID.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW you would have to provide a testable hypothesis pertaining to genetic accidents.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the question is, would you understand it? Just because you can use the word "pertaining" it don't mean squat to me. How about you support your position with evidence?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You would also have to support the claims of your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very well. What claims are you making in support of your position and how will you be supporting them?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or are you a coward?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Mr Hit'n'Run that's quite the compliment.

So, sticking around this time then Joe for real?
I'm so excited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course there is evidence for ID.

You are just too stupid to understand it.

There isn't any evidence that genetic accidents can build new and useful protein machinery nor bring about new body plans.

So how about it?

A public debate, you and I, both bring $10,000...
Posted by: Joe G on Nov. 19 2009,16:21

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,16:16)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:11)
Dog size doesn't help you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll check that one off the list.

Refuted by Joe. Check.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And exactly what "issues" have I refused to engage?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any and all of them. Any time. Ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So no specifics just a vague claim.

That is what I thought.

Perhaps I would stick around if anyone here was to actually try to support their position.
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 19 2009,16:22

Hey Joe,

What about our $20K bet that you and ID guy are played by the same person?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 19 2009,16:23

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:08)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,16:07)
Have you corrected Dembski yet?

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The father of modern ID says "no". and you are?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have corrected you Richtard. There isn't anything to correct with Dembski.

You don't seem to have a clue and you think that means no one does.

What Dembski is saying is that we don't have to know the specific mechanism used in order to detect design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"ID is not a mechanistic theory"

errrr.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2009,16:24

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:21)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,16:16)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:11)
Dog size doesn't help you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll check that one off the list.

Refuted by Joe. Check.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And exactly what "issues" have I refused to engage?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any and all of them. Any time. Ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So no specifics just a vague claim.

That is what I thought.

Perhaps I would stick around if anyone here was to actually try to support their position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look back at my, and all the other, previous posts in this thread for a start. I can get specific if you like. Be here from now on, starting tomorrow.

I look forward to continuing this conversation. After all, you are not a coward are you?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 19 2009,21:26

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,13:58)
Argument with the wife tonight was it Joe. Or too much peroxide in your milk?

Perhaps both?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he's here because "ID Guy" is being blatantly ignored over at TT.  Even the regulars are embarrased.
Go Fogure yourself.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 19 2009,22:31

ZzzZZz *snork* Huh? Wha?

LOL!

New old freshly strewn barnyardIDtard from CAKEBOY!!!
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Nov. 19 2009,23:42

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,17:08)
What Dembski is saying is that we don't have to know the specific mechanism used in order to detect design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet you say design is a mechanism.  Here you're admitting that your obtuse bluster was nothing more.  You were asked for a specific mechanism because DesignDidIt is a worthless explanation - you know it, but you still can't admit it, can you?

I do have to give you some props, though, Joe.  Now, I know it was somewhat self-serving on your part as I am sure, over the years, your ears have gotten stretched and sore - but putting those handles on the top of your Captain Anal gimp suit is pure genius and much appreciated.
Posted by: Hawks on Nov. 20 2009,00:31

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:08)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,16:07)
Have you corrected Dembski yet?

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The father of modern ID says "no". and you are?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have corrected you Richtard. There isn't anything to correct with Dembski.

You don't seem to have a clue and you think that means no one does.

What Dembski is saying is that we don't have to know the specific mechanism used in order to detect design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't you just want to pick Joe up sometimes and give him a real good cuddle.

OR, alternatively:

New computer: $800
Internet connection: $14.95/month
Electricity to run computer: $1.09/month
Watching Joe make a complete fool of himself yet again: priceless!
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 20 2009,03:52

The interesting thing I always think is that people like Joe think that we must convince them of the validity of the science. Now I know the people here like an argument but the fact for Joe is that ID is losing.

There was a surge of interest prior to the Dover case but the poor showing of ID dried that up.

Is there any sign that ID is being accepted by anyone who isn't already a creationist? Even Dembski knows this, he doesn't even try anymore. Most of his books are about God and his latest "Paper" was chock full of errors that have been previously pointed out to him. Dembski doesn't care, he can ignore the experts because he makes enough money out of people like you who will support him no matter what he does.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 20 2009,04:22

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,17:03)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:59)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:57)
If you don't have anything then just say so.

I will meet you in a public debate- we both put up $10,000- then we will see who runs...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A debate about what Joe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your position against ID.

IOW you would have to provide a testable hypothesis pertaining to genetic accidents.

You would also have to support the claims of your position.

Or are you a coward?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some of the greatest scientific advances have been made by atheist muslim refrigerator repairmen, debating incomprehensible propositions via insult and threats of violence on internet discussion boards.  Joe is destined to be remembered forever.

They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Jeffrey Dahmer.  Uh, wait....
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 20 2009,11:56

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:32)
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 12 2009,13:28)

When I look up "design", I get this:



–verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.  
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.  
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.  
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.  
6. Obsolete. to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.

–verb (used without object)
7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
8. to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

–noun
9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.  
12. the art of designing: a school of design.  
13. a plan or project: a design for a new process.  
14. a plot or intrigue, esp. an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.  
15. designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner's stock.  
16. intention; purpose; end.
17. adaptation of means to a preconceived end.

I don't see anything about design being "create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", in all of the applicable definitions, I see 'design' as the PLAN.


And the definiton of 'mechanism' doesn't help, either:



–noun
1. an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3. machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4. the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5. the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.  
6. routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.  
7. mechanical execution, as in painting or music; technique.
8. the theory that everything in the universe is produced by matter in motion; materialism. Compare dynamism (def. 1), vitalism (def. 1).
9. Philosophy. a. the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
b. the view that all biological processes may be described in physicochemical terms.
10. Psychoanalysis. the habitual operation and interaction of psychological forces within an individual that assist in interpreting or dealing with the physical or psychological environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothgin there that indicates that the "plan" is the means by which something is accomplished.

Apparently, some feel the need to simply make up definitions to prop up their fantasies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I look up mechanism, I get:

3. method or means: a method or means of doing something

And then design


plan and make something: to plan and make something in a skillful or artistic way

Plan AND MAKE.

So as I have tiold you many times before one can do something by design or willy-nilly.

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, so where are the plans?

Plan AND make - PLAN and make.

Where are the plans?
Posted by: SLP on Nov. 20 2009,11:58

Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,15:45)
Joe:

< http://www.google.com/search?....q=&aqi= >


Ms Encarta? How long did you fish before you got one that was remotely what you wanted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richtard,

We have been down this road before and you lost then too.

It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to own or read a dictionary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet many dictionary entries do not come close to indicating what those you finally decided to refer to do.

Hmmm...

So, where are the plans?

Or is this one big circular argument?
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Nov. 20 2009,12:50

Bradford deftly sidesteps a trap:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nick> Here's a question that might help to clarify the issue of "junk" DNA. If the entire genome is functional, would one expect genome size to correlate with functional complexity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Absolutely not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Tard >.  GodThe Designer just likes onions.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 20 2009,12:58

Quote (Gunthernacus @ Nov. 20 2009,12:50)
Bradford deftly sidesteps a trap:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nick> Here's a question that might help to clarify the issue of "junk" DNA. If the entire genome is functional, would one expect genome size to correlate with functional complexity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Absolutely not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Tard >.  GodThe Designer just likes onions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford answers a followup quesiton by saying nothing whatsoever, as far as I can tell
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It does not have to be bigger to be smarter or more economical. That seems to be the lesson of ncRNA. The increased complexity is found in regulatory elements. But even when focused on protein coding genes we find splicing as evidence that the same can yield multiple transcripts. Smart and economical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Coward. >
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Nov. 20 2009,15:48

< Bradford forgets > to cite:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nick, I think it presumptuous to assert that the DNA of one species is better designed than some other. There are too many unknowns. Up to now, most mapping projects have been focused on protein-coding sequences. Yet ncRNA regulatory circuits are key components of complex genetic phenomena in eukaryotes which could be the distinguishing marker of better design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< 2nd Google hit > for "ncRNA regulatory circuits"
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Until recently, most mapping projects have focused on protein-coding sequences, and the limited number of identified regulatory mutations have been interpreted as affecting conventional cis-acting promoter and enhancer elements, although these regions are often themselves transcribed. Moreover, ncRNA-directed regulatory circuits underpin most, if not all, complex genetic phenomena in eukaryotes, including RNA interference-related processes such as transcriptional and post-transcriptional gene silencing, position effect variegation, hybrid dysgenesis, chromosome dosage compensation, parental imprinting and allelic exclusion, paramutation, and possibly transvection and transinduction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I re-worded my sources more carefully for high school book reports, pre-Google.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 20 2009,16:14

Quote (Gunthernacus @ Nov. 20 2009,13:48)
I re-worded my sources more carefully for high school book reports, pre-Google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but you didn't have the option of banning your teachers.
Posted by: rhmc on Nov. 20 2009,21:44

damn.

ya'll done broke another one.

what are the chances floyd can be lured back?

i like having an easy tard source.  this driving around looking for a score is tough on the mouse...
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 21 2009,04:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A debate about what Joe?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your position against ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha ha, good one.  You had us going for a second there.  Not.

Since ID proponents assiduously avoid formulating their ideas in anything approaching a testable scientific hypothesis, there is nothing to debate from a scientific perspective.  ID does not attempt to be science, it only claims to be science, then consistently fails to support that claim.

ID is a PR campaign based on thinly veiled fundamentalist religious apologetics, an semi-intelligently designed creationist tactic intended to address the utter failure of "creation science" to be accepted as science, since all of its testable hypotheses were falsified.
 
For $10,000 I'll be happy to debate the proposition, "Joe Gallien is an arrogant fool who has been duped by the ID hucksters".
Posted by: KCdgw on Nov. 22 2009,07:45

Mung finally mentions the 800-pound gorilla in the room in Sal's thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My complaint about your model was that it makes ID supporters look stupid, a complaint I think you should take seriously, considering that I am one myself.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 26 2009,01:10

Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 22 2009,22:45)
Mung finally mentions the 800-pound gorilla in the room in Sal's thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My complaint about your model was that it makes ID supporters look stupid, a complaint I think you should take seriously, considering that I am one myself.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there an amendment to Poe's Law? That any purported creationist that criticizes another creationist for using bad science is an obvious Poe. Creationists only ever argue over interpretations of the scriptures.
Posted by: JupiterXY on Dec. 01 2009,08:28

My last post at Telic Thoughts was deleted.  My account was deleted as well.  I guess the membership is (ahem) "selective"?  There aren't many active posters there.

The < thread >.  The deleted post:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford: Brilliant, genius. The data connected with Climate Gate is considered independently of other evidence. Take your sock to the laundry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And so the circle continues. The creationist is expected to hold up Piltdown Man again, refusing for the umpteenth time to even look at the established evidence for evolution. People are going to think we are in cahoots if you keep illustrating my point so precisely.

This thread wholly speaks for itself. Though it appears you are beyond reach, for the benefit of our meager audience I will say a few more words.

One might ask what it would take for a scientist to take our hypothetical creationist seriously. The creationist claims there are no transitional species, or that the existing ones have been falsified like Piltdown Man. Well, anything is possible. He has the opportunity to be taken seriously if he tells us exactly, and in what manner, which piece of the established evidence for evolution has been falsified. Then at least we have something to check. But he doesn't give any details; he just repeats, "but, but, Piltdown!" We are thus forced to not take him seriously, only because he has not provided anything to take seriously.

Several times I asked you, Bradford, what specific piece of the established data for AGW is in doubt. Each time you have refused to answer. The evidence comes from hundreds of independent scientists worldwide, with independent sets of data.

Previously I gave you the < cites > from the Wikipedia article. Another place to start is < here >. Take your pick.

If you wish to be taken seriously then you must show, in detail, what exactly has been falsified or is otherwise mistaken. The data is there. Go for it. But if you refuse (yet again), then I hope you can understand (or at least the audience can) why you cannot be taken seriously.

With Warm Regards,
Jupiter

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 01 2009,08:35

Quote (JupiterXY @ Dec. 01 2009,08:28)
My last post at Telic Thoughts was deleted.  My account was deleted as well.  I guess the membership is (ahem) "selective"?  There aren't many active posters there.

The < thread >.  The deleted post:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford: Brilliant, genius. The data connected with Climate Gate is considered independently of other evidence. Take your sock to the laundry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And so the circle continues. The creationist is expected to hold up Piltdown Man again, refusing for the umpteenth time to even look at the established evidence for evolution. People are going to think we are in cahoots if you keep illustrating my point so precisely.

This thread wholly speaks for itself. Though it appears you are beyond reach, for the benefit of our meager audience I will say a few more words.

One might ask what it would take for a scientist to take our hypothetical creationist seriously. The creationist claims there are no transitional species, or that the existing ones have been falsified like Piltdown Man. Well, anything is possible. He has the opportunity to be taken seriously if he tells us exactly, and in what manner, which piece of the established evidence for evolution has been falsified. Then at least we have something to check. But he doesn't give any details; he just repeats, "but, but, Piltdown!" We are thus forced to not take him seriously, only because he has not provided anything to take seriously.

Several times I asked you, Bradford, what specific piece of the established data for AGW is in doubt. Each time you have refused to answer. The evidence comes from hundreds of independent scientists worldwide, with independent sets of data.

Previously I gave you the < cites > from the Wikipedia article. Another place to start is < here >. Take your pick.

If you wish to be taken seriously then you must show, in detail, what exactly has been falsified or is otherwise mistaken. The data is there. Go for it. But if you refuse (yet again), then I hope you can understand (or at least the audience can) why you cannot be taken seriously.

With Warm Regards,
Jupiter

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, welcome here.
Posted by: JupiterXY on Dec. 02 2009,15:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford: Brilliant, genius. The data connected with Climate Gate is considered independently of other evidence. Take your sock to the laundry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so the circle continues. The creationist is expected to hold up Piltdown Man again, refusing for the umpteenth time to even look at the established evidence for evolution. People are going to think we are in cahoots if you keep illustrating my point so precisely.

This thread wholly speaks for itself. Though it appears you are beyond reach, for the benefit of our meager audience I will say a few more words.

One might ask what it would take for a scientist to take our hypothetical creationist seriously. The creationist claims there are no transitional species, or that the existing ones have been falsified like Piltdown Man. Well, anything is possible. He has the opportunity to be taken seriously if he tells us exactly, and in what manner, which piece of the established evidence for evolution has been falsified. Then at least we have something to check. But he doesn't give any details; he just repeats, "but, but, Piltdown!" We are thus forced to not take him seriously, only because he has not provided anything to take seriously.

Several times I asked you, Bradford, what specific piece of the established data for AGW is in doubt. Each time you have refused to answer. The evidence comes from hundreds of independent scientists worldwide, with independent sets of data.

Previously I gave you the < cites > from the Wikipedia article. Another place to start is < here >. Take your pick.

If you wish to be taken seriously then you must show, in detail, what exactly has been falsified or is otherwise mistaken. The data is there. Go for it. But if you refuse (yet again), then I hope you can understand (or at least the audience can) why you cannot be taken seriously.

With Warm Regards,
Jupiter

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Incidentally I leave open the possibility of an accidental deletion, a server problem, or whatever.

I leave it up to the moderator at Telic Thoughts to explain the deletion.  You may respond here or contact me directly at jupiter.xy@gmail.com.

I don't really spend time in the intelligent-design blogosphere, and I don't know the background of Telic Thoughts.  I support the deletion of posts which are destructive or ad hominem or otherwise inappropriate.  However I do not see how the deleted comment (above) could fall under any of these criteria.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 02 2009,15:34

Bumping Jupiter to see what he said.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 02 2009,15:34

Page bug bypass post???
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2009,19:17

jupiter welcome.  you could begin your descent into the maelstrom by considering that the proper name of that site is "Telic Tards".
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 02 2009,19:59

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 02 2009,16:34)
Page bug bypass post???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frakkin' page bug bypass post of the WEEK.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 02 2009,20:39

Quote (JupiterXY @ Dec. 02 2009,15:26)
I don't really spend time in the intelligent-design blogosphere, and I don't know the background of Telic Thoughts.  I support the deletion of posts which are destructive or ad hominem or otherwise inappropriate.  However I do not see how the deleted comment (above) could fall under any of these criteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By Jove, it doesn't. Their own policy is to not delete posts, but to send them to the < Memory Hole >, a thread dedicated to the purpose. But your comment was vanished instead.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 03 2009,15:25

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 02 2009,15:39)
 
Quote (JupiterXY @ Dec. 02 2009,15:26)
I don't really spend time in the intelligent-design blogosphere, and I don't know the background of Telic Thoughts.  I support the deletion of posts which are destructive or ad hominem or otherwise inappropriate.  However I do not see how the deleted comment (above) could fall under any of these criteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By Jove, it doesn't. Their own policy is to not delete posts, but to send them to the < Memory Hole >, a thread dedicated to the purpose. But your comment was vanished instead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am puzzled why you still bother to post there, Zachriel, especially why you engage with that tosspot, Sal. Looks like even Don Provan has found better things to do.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 04 2009,09:21

Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 03 2009,15:25)
       
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 02 2009,15:39)
         
Quote (JupiterXY @ Dec. 02 2009,15:26)
I don't really spend time in the intelligent-design blogosphere, and I don't know the background of Telic Thoughts.  I support the deletion of posts which are destructive or ad hominem or otherwise inappropriate.  However I do not see how the deleted comment (above) could fall under any of these criteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By Jove, it doesn't. Their own policy is to not delete posts, but to send them to the < Memory Hole >, a thread dedicated to the purpose. But your comment was vanished instead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am puzzled why you still bother to post there, Zachriel, especially why you engage with that tosspot, Sal. Looks like even Don Provan has found better things to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since the Law of the Inverse Square, working the crystal spheres is mostly just giving it a < crank > every once in a while. As for Salvador T. Cordova, he is a foil to discuss issues of interest. And believe it or not, he is taken seriously by his compatriots.

Besides, who better than Zachriel to keep JupiterXY company.

Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 03 2009,15:25)
Looks like even Don Provan has found better things to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, like teaching children to < shoot rockets > into the crystal spheres! Darn you Don Provan!!
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 08 2009,11:02

Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 03 2009,15:25)
I am puzzled why you still bother to post there, Zachriel, especially why you engage with that tosspot, Sal. Looks like even Don Provan has found better things to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan Fox! Your experimental apparatus seems to have sprung a leak! There's < KC > contamination, and < Allen_MacNeill > is flooding the place.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 08 2009,11:13

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 08 2009,11:02)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 03 2009,15:25)
I am puzzled why you still bother to post there, Zachriel, especially why you engage with that tosspot, Sal. Looks like even Don Provan has found better things to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan Fox! Your experimental apparatus seems to have sprung a leak! There's < KC > contamination, and < Allen_MacNeill > is flooding the place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder how the < collision > between Allen and Joe G ID guy will turn out.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy: Guided by the genome?

The same genome that just supplies the parts required for construction?

Methinks evolutionists are putting all their hopes into evo-devo.

Good luck with that…


Allen_MacNeill: Nope, the genome doesn't supply the parts required for construction; the organism does that, drawing on materials obtained from its environment. On the contrary, the genome contains the information necessary to assemble those materials into a functioning organism, and to maintain the organism in a roughly homeostatic condition until it has reproduced (and sometimes after).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My money is on Joe accusing Allen of not knowing biology.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 08 2009,11:20

Quote (JupiterXY @ Dec. 01 2009,06:28)
My last post at Telic Thoughts was deleted.  My account was deleted as well.  I guess the membership is (ahem) "selective"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome, excelent post.

We are not at all selective, but for some reason creationsits don't stay around very long.


Posted by: jeffox on Dec. 09 2009,07:45

The good Dr. GH wrote:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are not at all selective, but for some reason creationsits don't stay around very long.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We carry a very high flounce factor here.  :)
Posted by: KCdgw on Dec. 09 2009,12:47

When the tardometer just rockets off the scale:

< angryoldwhatthefrak: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
KC wrote:
Polar bears aren't just pretty faces. They are the primary predator of the seal in the Arctic, for example. Removing them could negatively effect fish populations in the area, and other species dependent on the fish in the food web.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they're predators, there will be more seals. Sounds like more seals for us, especially for the oppressed indigenuous Aleuts. I'm still not seeing a downside to their demise.
Besides, what should the population level of polar bears be? My guess is the only answer we'll hear from the likes of environmentalists/Gaia-worshippers is "more".
Whatever happened to "adapt or die"? Other species adapt – that's how we got where we are. If polar bears can't adapt, then maybe they don't need to be around any longer. And any ecosystem that needs them so much that it can't adjust to their absence should also perish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 09 2009,20:25

Quote (KCdgw @ Dec. 09 2009,12:47)
When the tardometer just rockets off the scale:

< angryoldwhatthefrak: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
KC wrote:
Polar bears aren't just pretty faces. They are the primary predator of the seal in the Arctic, for example. Removing them could negatively effect fish populations in the area, and other species dependent on the fish in the food web.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they're predators, there will be more seals. Sounds like more seals for us, especially for the oppressed indigenuous Aleuts. I'm still not seeing a downside to their demise.
Besides, what should the population level of polar bears be? My guess is the only answer we'll hear from the likes of environmentalists/Gaia-worshippers is "more".
Whatever happened to "adapt or die"? Other species adapt – that's how we got where we are. If polar bears can't adapt, then maybe they don't need to be around any longer. And any ecosystem that needs them so much that it can't adjust to their absence should also perish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


E..cuze...eee... "snap"

Sorry, I said Excuse me - I had to pick my jaw off the floor.  Holy cow named Moses!  Does that TARD realize that we are part of the ecosystem that deserves to die?  

Wow...just...wow....
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 09 2009,20:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Gotta love the chunkdz/angryoldfatman parodies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor Bradford, can't tell tard from parody.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< KC >: Why would you assume they are parodies?

< angryoldfatman >: Because his religion is not < Earth Goddess worship > and he is not afflicted with an < autism spectrum disorder >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Angryoldfatman can't even tell his own tard from parody! It's not parody if you mean it!

This could be a sign of hypoxia hypertardia. Though the enclosure isn't complete, it already seems to be having an effect.

Tard containment has been a goal since time immemorial, but has never been fully attained. Experience counsels against ramparts alone. Sometimes (such as with "climategate"), even a tiny sliver of unshielded tard can lead to catastrophic benightedness. Keep your vorpal swords oiled, your tard-hammers ready.  

Ignorance persists.


Posted by: olegt on Dec. 09 2009,21:51

It is pointless to resist, Zachriel.  Leave them alone.  There is no evidence that engaging them changes anything.  Look at < this gem > (Hi Bradford!):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whatever happened to intrepid intellectuals? Gotta see which way the wind is blowing first? Tenure has backfired. Rather than furthering academic freedom it has become perverted and held as a carrot; awarded to the most docile among us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't even feel like commenting on this drivel.
Posted by: Raevmo on Dec. 10 2009,04:21

Bradford in the same thread:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a question for all of those who for the last few years have been playing up threats to science. Where are you? Is the silence an admission of hypocrisy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, moron, you banned them.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 10 2009,05:15

I almost feel sorry for them, the stupid is so awfully strong over there at the moment (see any thread Mung and ID guy participate in) that any claim they might once have had to be a "serious" site is now gone, gone, gone.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 10 2009,07:11

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 09 2009,21:51)
It is pointless to resist, Zachriel.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Resistance if futile.

< >

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 09 2009,21:51)
Leave them alone.  There is no evidence that engaging them changes anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it certainly won't change their minds. It takes days to get them to admit to the simplest facts, much less step them through an actual argument (at which point they've forgotten what was already established). It's much the same on right-wing political blogs where labels become talisman.

The struggle against ignorance is to the end of time. But it's said that if you die in tard, you will be reborn in Tardhalla.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Dec. 10 2009,11:02

Aah, Tardhalla. Where the socks die only to be reborn the very next day and tardwarriors feast on single malt whiskey, COFFEE!!! and cheesy poofs until tardnarok.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 10 2009,13:38

When we are not there, they're going to have to fight each other.  

Here is Episode 1: < 9/11 truthers v. global-warming deniers >.

Enjoy!
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 10 2009,20:45

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 10 2009,07:11)
It's much the same on right-wing political blogs where labels become talisman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TT is a right-wing blog.  Look at < this comment >: Bradford manages to hit three wingnut talking points (MSM, activist judges, general decline of Western civilization) in a single sentence!
Posted by: KCdgw on Dec. 11 2009,05:53

Tard seen in its very rare, almost crystalline form:

< todd: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd add that ID is relevant to climate science because AGW detection is design detection. Indeed, the science is attempting to demonstrate an anthropogenic 'signal' in climate from natural 'noise'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: JupiterXY on Dec. 13 2009,21:05

Bradford to "TP":


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
TP, look at this quote from Jupiter:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't really spend time in the intelligent-design blogosphere, and I don't know the background of Telic Thoughts. I support the deletion of posts which are destructive or ad hominem or otherwise inappropriate. However I do not see how the deleted comment (above) could fall under any of these criteria.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For someone who doesn't know much about TT and does not spend much time in the intelligent-design blogosphere Jupiter just happened to stumble upon one of a small number of ID blogs containing comment features and a reasonable number of commenters. Jupiter jumps right into the fray and displays a style that this blogger is quite familiar with. After being banned this neophyte knows exactly where to flee to to trumpet his martyr status. And the swamp creatures are eager to listen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford could have spent twelve seconds investigating whether his excuse makes sense.

Just < google telic thoughts >. The third link is < Censorship at Telic Thoughts - The Panda's Thumb > (which is the first link not from telictoughts.com). There is a prominent tab labeled < forum >. That page gives just one link, < After the Bar Closes... >.

Anyone curious about Telic Thoughts is immediately directed to here.

And that is how I, a random joe, found it. That the initial link has "censorship" in the title makes it ever more relevant to my situation.

Secondly, Bradford merely makes an ad hominem. I wrote a pretty clear refutation of his position which was subsequently deleted along with my login. Why? Because I must be some guy from somewhere, says Bradford. Really, that is the reason you deleted it?

I don't feel the need to elaborate any further. Like the initial thread in which I participated, this speaks for itself.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 13 2009,22:44

Hi JupiterXY,

I did notice you had been commenting since around Thanksgiving.

For all I know, you could be Keiths trying yet another alias.  (If you are, your restraint is improving).

It doesn't matter.  I still think Bradford's actions were inconsistent and let him know that.

I think I know one thing, I'm not JupiterXY.

Or am I?
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 14 2009,13:11

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 09 2009,21:51)
There is no evidence that engaging them changes anything.  {snipped}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Case in point.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: After you quantify estimated effects of legislation on CO2 levels you need to include that into a model which includes all causal factors other than CO2. Has anyone done this with Waxman Markey?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh gee whiz, Bradford. You were pointed to an < EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey >, as well as simplified < graphs >. There all sorts of studies of the technology required, the economic costs, the impact of different scenarios to the climate, and the uncertainties involved.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 14 2009,13:39

I note that the largest viable replacement for bad coal is nuclear. I will believe that people are serious about CO2 when opposition to nukes diminishes.

I'm a little bitter about this because my home town geared up to build offshore nukes, got frozen out by Luddites, and wound up selling the industrial infrastructure to China at garage sale prices.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 17 2009,07:13

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 08 2009,11:02)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 03 2009,15:25)
I am puzzled why you still bother to post there, Zachriel, especially why you engage with that tosspot, Sal. Looks like even Don Provan has found better things to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan Fox! Your experimental apparatus seems to have sprung a leak! There's < KC > contamination, and < Allen_MacNeill > is flooding the place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan Fox, how is the data collection coming? What has been observed so far is a rapid increase in tard consistent with the degree of isolation.

There is no way to guarantee a perfect enclosure, which may be a good thing as it has been predicted that tard would become hyperbolic and spell the final triumph of ignorance. (Somewhat like the predictions that the atomic bomb would ignite the atmosphere, or that the Large Hadron Collider would suck the Earth into a space-time continuum, or that climate change would lead to the burning of books in the New York Public Library.)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 17 2009,10:49

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 14 2009,14:39)
I note that the largest viable replacement for bad coal is nuclear. I will believe that people are serious about CO2 when opposition to nukes diminishes.

I'm a little bitter about this because my home town geared up to build offshore nukes, got frozen out by Luddites, and wound up selling the industrial infrastructure to China at garage sale prices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I view "Luddite" in this instance as an appellation bearing honor.  Lots of enlightened people view industrial society as a mistake.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 17 2009,13:17

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 17 2009,10:49)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 14 2009,14:39)
I note that the largest viable replacement for bad coal is nuclear. I will believe that people are serious about CO2 when opposition to nukes diminishes.

I'm a little bitter about this because my home town geared up to build offshore nukes, got frozen out by Luddites, and wound up selling the industrial infrastructure to China at garage sale prices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I view "Luddite" in this instance as an appellation bearing honor.  Lots of enlightened people view industrial society as a mistake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What? How dare you? Capitalist industrialism is a cultural inevitability, the goal toward which all social evolution strives!!!11!!!  We must bring the TRUTH to the agrarian socialists!!! Enclose the commons!!!111!!!
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 17 2009,14:34

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 17 2009,13:17)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 17 2009,10:49)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 14 2009,14:39)
I note that the largest viable replacement for bad coal is nuclear. I will believe that people are serious about CO2 when opposition to nukes diminishes.

I'm a little bitter about this because my home town geared up to build offshore nukes, got frozen out by Luddites, and wound up selling the industrial infrastructure to China at garage sale prices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I view "Luddite" in this instance as an appellation bearing honor.  Lots of enlightened people view industrial society as a mistake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What? How dare you? Capitalist industrialism is a cultural inevitability, the goal toward which all social evolution strives!!!11!!!  We must bring the TRUTH to the agrarian socialists!!! Enclose the commons!!!111!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am uncertain about how serious you are about this.
IMHO, human civilization may be the most risky experiment in the entire history of evolution. But what the heck, life on this planet is doomed anyway, even if there still are lots of time left...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 17 2009,14:52

I note that the richer people get, the fewer children they have. I find that more attractive than other decompression scenarios.
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 17 2009,16:48

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 17 2009,14:52)
I note that the richer people get, the fewer children they have. I find that more attractive than other decompression scenarios.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only problem being that it takes too many poor people to make a sufficiently high number of people to make a difference. I won't attempt parsing that statement.
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 17 2009,17:18

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 17 2009,16:48)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 17 2009,14:52)
I note that the richer people get, the fewer children they have. I find that more attractive than other decompression scenarios.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only problem being that it takes too many poor people to make a sufficiently high number of people to make a difference. I won't attempt parsing that statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like a pyramid - the really, really rich live off the blood, sweat, and tears of the much larger group of consecutively poorer people (who will have lots of children to keep the pyramid up).  But...what goes up must come down. :p
Posted by: sledgehammer on Dec. 17 2009,18:52

< Mung(e) > sez:          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(MacNeill)  This is simply another way of defining evolutionary convergence, and in no way constitutes evidence for intrinsic evolutionary teleology. On the contrary, it simply provides support for the hypothesis that, given similar conditions, similar outcomes result.
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Allen, that is the very definition of teleology. If the process did not converge upon similar outcomes, that would be non-teleological.

I sense that a profound misunderstanding of teleology pervades the scientific world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's absurd  So if I observe a rock rolling down to the bottom of a hill at two different locations, it was because someone or something "intended" that it be so?

I sense a profound misunderstanding of science and teleology in this teleological defender.

ETA: Late and lacking as usual, as this is followed by Allen's discussion of just that rock-falling analogy, but Munge still doesn't get it, so my point still stands.
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 17 2009,19:03

Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 17 2009,16:52)
< Mung(e) > sez:          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(MacNeill)  This is simply another way of defining evolutionary convergence, and in no way constitutes evidence for intrinsic evolutionary teleology. On the contrary, it simply provides support for the hypothesis that, given similar conditions, similar outcomes result.
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Allen, that is the very definition of teleology. If the process did not converge upon similar outcomes, that would be non-teleological.

I sense that a profound misunderstanding of teleology pervades the scientific world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's absurd  So if I observe a rock rolling down to the bottom of a hill at two different locations, it was because someone or something "intended" that it be so?

I sense a profound misunderstanding of science and teleology in this teleological defender.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we flip two coins, god is responsible for half the outcomes.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 17 2009,19:11

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 17 2009,14:34)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 17 2009,13:17)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 17 2009,10:49)
         
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 14 2009,14:39)
I note that the largest viable replacement for bad coal is nuclear. I will believe that people are serious about CO2 when opposition to nukes diminishes.

I'm a little bitter about this because my home town geared up to build offshore nukes, got frozen out by Luddites, and wound up selling the industrial infrastructure to China at garage sale prices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I view "Luddite" in this instance as an appellation bearing honor.  Lots of enlightened people view industrial society as a mistake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What? How dare you? Capitalist industrialism is a cultural inevitability, the goal toward which all social evolution strives!!!11!!!  We must bring the TRUTH to the agrarian socialists!!! Enclose the commons!!!111!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am uncertain about how serious you are about this.
...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Not.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

IMHO, human civilization may be the most risky experiment in the entire history of evolution. But what the heck, life on this planet is doomed anyway, even if there still are lots of time left

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's the spirit!
Posted by: HypatiasGirl on Dec. 17 2009,19:23

I suspect that this will not make it through.  But damn it people, know what the hell Sokal is about before you start using it as an example!!!!





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have just a couple of things to say on this, which is a interesting topic for a philosopher to stumble across.

1. Mung - The Sokal hoax is a very interesting moment in science and philosophy which lead to a certain amount of adjustments.  Sokal got published when the postmodern craze was at its highest, meaning that a lot of people who didn't know Derrida from their own bums were trying to "challenge the text."  (which is why people <em>should not talk about pomo until they understand it</em> but as a continental philosopher, that's just my burden to bear) Sokal got published in a journal that didn't peer review but did get caught up in the notion of hot new science.  After Sokal, the journal introduced strict new peer review standards, so that people who knew what they were talking about could review an article and get a sense as to whether or not the reviewed article made any sense.  But this is just me being pedantic.

2. What's really interesting to me, as someone who has more than a passing interest in the philosophy of science, is what kind of conclusions can/should/will be drawn from this.  Interesting, to me at least, is that the incidence of some form of misconduct (the article is maddeningly vague on that) or another is higher when it's medical or pharmaceutical research, suggesting that monetary or proprietary interests might influence people.  Hardly earth-shattering but perhaps could recommend that we look into altering the way these tests are done (oh might all medical research be double blinded and fully controlled).

Now, what kind of conclusions should been drawn from science as a whole, given that a small subset of those involved may not work strictly within the standard limits.  We can of course chuck the whole program out the window, engage in some neo-Cartesian radical doubt.  Which seems like an overly strong response.  We can ask ourselves what sorts of results might be the most likely to resist massaging, and be willing to accept those.  We can rely on the repeatability requirement of experimentation, it's unlikely that without a "This is how I faked the data" report in the Methods section of a research paper that two unethical scientists would cook the data in exactly the same way.  The thing is, is that science is perhaps one of the least hospitable arenas for fraud, given that we live in a world that is accessible to all.  We certainly don't want a sort of radical solipsism that permits us all our own, individual and incommensurable interpretations of the experience of the world.

So the question is, what would you like us to take home from this post?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< zomg some people make things up >

god I hope I formatted this right
Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 17 2009,19:36

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 17 2009,12:52)
I note that the richer people get, the fewer children they have. I find that more attractive than other decompression scenarios.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that if you lack any other form of recreation, such as yachting, or golf, there is still sex. Since they outlawed droit de' signor, the nobility has been much less fecund.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Dec. 17 2009,19:36

Quote (HypatiasGirl @ Dec. 17 2009,17:23)
<snip> 
(which is why people <em>should not talk about pomo until they understand it</em> but as a continental philosopher, that's just my burden to bear)
<snip>
god I hope I formatted this right
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[square brackets] for HTML tags, but your intention was clear enough.
Posted by: HypatiasGirl on Dec. 17 2009,23:12

thanks sledgehammer.
I know pomo's hard to argue for, but so much of what get's argued against is so BAD . . . there's some important stuff that's getting done, if only people would bother to learn it.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 17 2009,23:24

Quote (HypatiasGirl @ Dec. 17 2009,21:12)
thanks sledgehammer.
I know pomo's hard to argue for, but so much of what get's argued against is so BAD . . . there's some important stuff that's getting done, if only people would bother to learn it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was an interesting exchange of opinion over how to approach Steve Fuller as a witness in the Dover trial. Some people wanted to attack him and POMO, following the trail of the intellectual giant of the 20th century, Paul Gross.

I argued that Fuller knew shit about biology, and less about creationism based on his "expert witness" pretrial material. And, anything he said was likely to be bad for ID. So, the trial was not about POMO, or what an jackass Fuller was, or what a genius Paul Gross was. It was about why IDC is not science, and why it should not be taught in public schools.

So I argued that the more Fuller talked, the worse it would be for ID.

It was the one argument I won.


Posted by: HypatiasGirl on Dec. 17 2009,23:47

Dr GH -
what's weird, and my post-thesis self totally wants to follow up on this, is that the ID movement (and woo science in general) totally seems to want this weird balance between relativism and ABSOLUTE TRUTH ™.  Like, everybody's interpretation of the science is just as valid, but my interpretation is a little more valid.

it's totally fucked up.  there's a paper there somewhere.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 18 2009,00:45

Quote (HypatiasGirl @ Dec. 17 2009,21:47)
it's totally fucked up.  there's a paper there somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure there is. You want to play? I would love the excuse to trash:

Moreland, J. P.
1999 "Postmodernism and the Intelligent Design Movement"  Philsophia Christi Series 2, Vol. 1, No. 2:97-101.

and,

Veith, Gene Edward Jr.
1994 Post Modern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture   Weaton: Good News Publishers

coupled to the recent creatocrap about "teach the controversy."
Posted by: HypatiasGirl on Dec. 18 2009,00:55

@Dr GH - Olinks here I come.  Mess with my science AND my philosophy, I'll cut you! (intellectually only, I'm a pacifist at heart (also, would lose almost any fight))
Posted by: HypatiasGirl on Dec. 18 2009,01:00

can I just say that anyone who puts "communities" in quotes deserves the double-barreled head-on assault?  And that's just from the preview on google books.

fucking pigheaded creotards.

please return to your usual programming...
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 18 2009,04:11

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 17 2009,19:11)
   
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 17 2009,14:34)
         
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 17 2009,13:17)
           
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 17 2009,10:49)
               
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 14 2009,14:39)
I note that the largest viable replacement for bad coal is nuclear. I will believe that people are serious about CO2 when opposition to nukes diminishes.

I'm a little bitter about this because my home town geared up to build offshore nukes, got frozen out by Luddites, and wound up selling the industrial infrastructure to China at garage sale prices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I view "Luddite" in this instance as an appellation bearing honor.  Lots of enlightened people view industrial society as a mistake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What? How dare you? Capitalist industrialism is a cultural inevitability, the goal toward which all social evolution strives!!!11!!!  We must bring the TRUTH to the agrarian socialists!!! Enclose the commons!!!111!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am uncertain about how serious you are about this.
...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

IMHO, human civilization may be the most risky experiment in the entire history of evolution. But what the heck, life on this planet is doomed anyway, even if there still are lots of time left

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the spirit!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed - < and I don't even speak French. >
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 18 2009,08:39

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 17 2009,23:11)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 17 2009,19:11)
     
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 17 2009,14:34)
           
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 17 2009,13:17)
             
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 17 2009,10:49)
                 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 14 2009,14:39)
I note that the largest viable replacement for bad coal is nuclear. I will believe that people are serious about CO2 when opposition to nukes diminishes.

I'm a little bitter about this because my home town geared up to build offshore nukes, got frozen out by Luddites, and wound up selling the industrial infrastructure to China at garage sale prices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I view "Luddite" in this instance as an appellation bearing honor.  Lots of enlightened people view industrial society as a mistake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What? How dare you? Capitalist industrialism is a cultural inevitability, the goal toward which all social evolution strives!!!11!!!  We must bring the TRUTH to the agrarian socialists!!! Enclose the commons!!!111!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am uncertain about how serious you are about this.
...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

IMHO, human civilization may be the most risky experiment in the entire history of evolution. But what the heck, life on this planet is doomed anyway, even if there still are lots of time left

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the spirit!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed - < and I don't even speak French. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fact I needed snow chains to get out from our lane  this morning for the first time since moving here seven years ago must prove global warming is a myth. :p

Do you think it's been long enough, yet, Zachriel? Only 12 days!
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 18 2009,09:52

I'm just looking forward to the revenue generated all year round from tolls on the Northwest Passage. Oh, and lounging on balmy Long Beach, BC, with a pina colada, in February.

We are the current mass extinction event. It remains to be seen whether we ourselves will live through it or not.

(edit: "current" rather than "next")
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 18 2009,11:20

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 17 2009,07:13)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 08 2009,11:02)
       
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 03 2009,15:25)
I am puzzled why you still bother to post there, Zachriel, especially why you engage with that tosspot, Sal. Looks like even Don Provan has found better things to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan Fox! Your experimental apparatus seems to have sprung a leak! There's < KC > contamination, and < Allen_MacNeill > is flooding the place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan Fox, how is the data collection coming? What has been observed so far is a rapid increase in tard consistent with the degree of isolation.

There is no way to guarantee a perfect enclosure, which may be a good thing as it has been predicted that tard would become hyperbolic and spell the final triumph of ignorance. (Somewhat like the predictions that the atomic bomb would ignite the atmosphere, or that the Large Hadron Collider would suck the Earth into a space-time continuum, or that climate change would lead to the burning of books in the New York Public Library.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 18 2009,08:39)
Do you think it's been long enough, yet, Zachriel? Only 12 days!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, but don't blame anyone but yourself if your planet implodes due to the tard density effect.


Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 18 2009,20:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's like a pyramid - the really, really rich live off the blood, sweat, and tears of the much larger group of consecutively poorer people (who will have lots of children to keep the pyramid up).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That assumes that all economies are zero sum games, but humans have modified that game by harnessing energy. (OK, that has it's own cost.)

The point at which people voluntarily choose to have fewer children is not close to Bill Gates Wealth. It's the point at which people do not fear starvation, and the point at which most intants survive through childhood.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 18 2009,20:57

A preview of Bradford's upcoming post < White is black, black is white >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll just say at this point and develop it later that the GW movement is a religious one and not to be confused with a search for truth. Jesus identified himself with truth, not religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 19 2009,08:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Thought Provoker >: You will notice it does not match your graph (for example, 2005 should be noticably hotter than 1998). I would put up a chart, but I don't have the same access rights to this blog as you do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In case Thought Provoker is monitoring this channel, from the < data > he linked to at NOAA.







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: I just plotted the NOAA data you provided and it also shows the downward trend from 1998 to the present.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Both ranges show upward trends (not that you care).
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 19 2009,11:01

Thank you Zachriel,

I appreciate the help.

May I have your permission to post this link to TT?

< http://www.zachriel.com/images/NOAA1998-2008.jpg >

BTW, I'm curious are you on a permanent or temporary leave of absence from TT?
(I don’t blame you either way)
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 19 2009,11:37

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 19 2009,11:01)
Thank you Zachriel,

I appreciate the help.

May I have your permission to post this link to TT?

< http://www.zachriel.com/images/NOAA1998-2008.jpg >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course.

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 19 2009,11:01)
BTW, I'm curious are you on a permanent or temporary leave of absence from TT?
(I don’t blame you either way)    
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 19 2009,11:01)
BTW, I'm curious are you on a permanent or temporary leave of absence from TT?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On hiatus for experimental purposes.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 19 2009,11:40

Thanks again.

Am I mucking up your experiment?

I wasn't planning on staying long.

I will be getting back to work after the New Year.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 19 2009,11:56

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 19 2009,11:40)
Thanks again.

Am I mucking up your experiment?

I wasn't planning on staying long.

I will be getting back to work after the New Year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan Fox is lead on the experiment. It's not clear that it is possible to create and maintain such high levels of tard purity.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 19 2009,12:45

Hi TP,

We're conducting an experiment to produce pure, unadulterated substance that shall not be named.  We're staying away from TT to prevent contamination.  It's been working well so far.  

< Here > is Bradford again:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I live in NJ and see outdoor decorations like in other years. There are fewer trees brought every year. I suspect the secular attacks on Christmas might be taking a toll though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These guys dream up their own reality.  < Here > is some sale statistics from the National Christmas Tree Association.  The data reveal an overall upward trend with an annual growth rate of 6%.  There are fluctuations at the level of 10% up and down from the trend line, but they do not mask the trend and I doubt that Bradford's anecdotal evidence has that kind of accuracy.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 19 2009,13:11

So I AM spoiling the experiment.

That Bradford comment did pop out at me so much I had to give an immediate reaction.  I didn't even worry about the truth of the underlying data.  It was illogical on its face.

I am debating whether or not to react to Daniel Smith's GodDidIt argument in the Climate Change thread.

< link >

I can think of a lot of things to do with it, but they would all probably spin the thread off into yet another religious fight.
Posted by: rhmc on Dec. 19 2009,18:09

is that the same Daniel Smith who visited here in the not too distant past?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 19 2009,19:35

oh yeah.  good old Denial Smith.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 20 2009,02:32

< Site traffic > does seem to be down recently.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 20 2009,08:15

If I were egotistical, I might claim to have doubled the interest in Telic Thoughts (up 100% since I started posting again).

Seriously though, I would agree that even Uncommon Descent benefits from anti-ID commenters.

The pro-ID position isn't known for its positive arguments.  "It was a miracle" doesn't lend itself to detailed analysis.

I just noticed the number of comments at Uncommon Descent are rather pathetic lately.

Have you guys been avoiding it too?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 20 2009,13:21

TP i have been much more satisfied by avoiding these intellectual cesspools in lieu of arenas where my commentary might have more social inertia.  but the stupid abounds
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 27 2009,09:38

TT has been producing some funnies lately.  In the latest thread < Meyer, Nagel and a Trivial Critique > Bradford sets out to rebutt Stephen Fletcher's < letter > to The Times Literary Supplement that criticized Stephen Nagel for selecting Meyer's Signature in the Cell as a TLS Book of the Year.  Bradford's valiant effort devolves into an < angry shouting match > about demons, pixies, and fairies:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Bradford: There is not a single commenter (among thousands in number) in the many years I've engaged them who has professed a belief in fairies. Many hundreds have expressed Christian beliefs, hundreds have declared atheism, Many are Jews and some Muslims. Nagel, Fletcher, me and others operate within this world, not some esoteric world where the other beliefs would be common place.

dantedanti: This comment baffles me. Are you suggesting that the commenters of TT are an unbiased, unskewed data sample of religious belief across the globe?  Pixies, demons, and fairies are not esoteric religious beliefs, but are large parts of currently practiced religious across the continents.

Bradford: Demons are. The others are not. If you can't support with references the contention that fairies and pixies are "large parts of currently practiced religious across the continents" do not bother posting further comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Highly recommended!
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 27 2009,19:50

Hey! < Where did everybody go? >
Posted by: RDK on Dec. 27 2009,20:19

Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 20 2009,02:32)
< Site traffic > does seem to be down recently.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Telicthoughts.com users come from these countries:

   * 32.1% Canada
   * 67.9% OTHER

More
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mmmhm.  That explains it.

Oh and is it just me or does it seem like Bradford has more sand in his vagina than usual?  Hide your irony meter:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
olegt and Zachriel ran away. :cool:

They couldn't stand the fact that I showed that they were wrong about nested hierarchies. :mrgreen:

And most likely they are frustrated by the fact that they cannot support their position. :lol:

Also most criticisms of ID can be reduced to "You cannot show me the designer so I do not accept ID." :roll:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not too sure what our good friends over at TT don't get about "You cannot show me the designer fairies so I do not accept ID fairy worship.

Who wants to volunteer to be the poor bastard that breaks the news to IDGuy / Joe / Joseph about his diagnosis of severe brain damage?  Srsly.   :p
Posted by: RDK on Dec. 27 2009,20:24

Oh and what's up with Canada being the breeding ground for such robust tard recently?  Dear old Canadia has given us such gems of intellectualism as Granny O'Leary, Dr. Robert Byers, 32% of Telic Thoughts....

Isn't Vox Day a Canadian too or something?  Jesus knows I'm too lazy to waste Goodle-fu on that shaken baby.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 28 2009,00:16

Did you know that ID Guy is Joe G?!?!?

Ok, so you already knew.

I suspected it a while back.

But ID Guy's latest tactics are practically verbatum to old threads I had with him on his web site.

And yes, Bradford, this comment is so I now know you know that I know.

Or something like that ;)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 28 2009,05:23

< Mung: >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can we make any predictions from what we know so far?

In Darwinian evolution, what should one expect to find with respect to this organism's ability to modify it's proteome according to the environment?

What might a design theory prediction look like?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes indeed. Some possibility of actual ID science?

Mung continues:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thoughts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That comment was from almost a week ago. Given that anybody currently commenting on TT has commented since that post I can only conclude that there are no further "thoughts" forthcoming, no "design theory predictions" to be had.

If ID is science then why so hard to make a prediction?

Odd how quiet ID Guy et al is when other ID supporters are asking for what amounts to "ID science" to be done. Joe claims to have seen off the critics, well now he have the space to concentrate on making ID a science.

And what do they all do?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------































---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 28 2009,13:53

< Thought Provoker >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Telic Thoughts has become more boring and worse, harmless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well chosen adjective, TP. I suspect the more extreme the expressed views there become, the less regard will be given to them.

BTW Rock left after objecting to a particularly obnoxious comment of Joe (IDGuy) Gallien which Bradford refused to censure. I can't recall enough details to locate the exchange. I think Joe is reality's secret weapon against ID.

Edited to add: I should add I thought Rock was a genuine and likable commenter.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 28 2009,14:16

Hi Alan,

Thank you for the recognition and the information about Rock.  I, too, found Rock to be entertaining and a lot more astute than casual observation would suggest.

If Bradford traded Rock for ID Guy he messed up big time.

You might be right, ID Guy has turned out to be an effective weapon.  If not against ID as a whole, certainly to Telic Thoughts.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 28 2009,14:16

< Here it is. > Zachriel had already posted a link upthread.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 29 2009,01:59

Quote (RDK @ Dec. 27 2009,18:24)
Oh and what's up with Canada being the breeding ground for such robust tard recently?  Dear old Canadia has given us such gems of intellectualism as Granny O'Leary, Dr. Robert Byers, 32% of Telic Thoughts....

Isn't Vox Day a Canadian too or something?  Jesus knows I'm too lazy to waste Goodle-fu on that shaken baby.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Polite Canadian that I am, I have to say: Sorry. :-(

Byers clearly has taken one too many pucks to the head.

D O'L?  Hmm.  Too much sugar in the TIMMEH'S!*, maybe.  Or gas-huffing as a lonely teenager.

(*Tim Horton's.)

You want Neil Young and BTO, you gotta take these clowns, too.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 29 2009,11:14

< As you can see >, I have posted a sign off message on Telic Thoughts.  I will be surprised if I ever go back to commenting there again.

I'm not as sure I will be able to resist keeping tabs on the train wreck, even though it is predictable and repetitive.

For the record, I thank Zachriel, Oleg and others (even Keiths) for their help in keeping things interesting.

I will probably drop by here to comment on my Quantum Quackery once and a while.
Posted by: JupiterXY on Dec. 30 2009,08:25

I didn't get a mention in the Telic Thoughts thread about banned critics. What a gyp.

There is a certain sense of injustice when you write a succinct rebuttal which subsequently gets deleted, followed by a banning. I think that's why the third google hit for "telic thoughts" is a link titled "Censorship at Telic Thoughts". Human nature compels the banned person to speak out. And Google points to here.

Thanks for your honesty regarding my case, Thought Provoker. The explanation from Bradford was illuminating. I actually thought the actions against me were done by an invisible moderator until Bradford fessed up.

Dantedanti is speaking out in a very eloquent manner regarding being thread-banned by Bradford multiple times.

The members of Telic Thoughts are pushing back. Good for them.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 30 2009,08:40

With the departure of MikeGene last year, TT became UD Lite.  The token lefties Joy and Bilbo largely disappeared and the conservative tilt of the blog became overwhelming.  Bradford, the de facto ruler of the blog, gripes about Obama, liberals, and atheists.  He is egged on by the rest of the gang.  And with Joe G as Chief ID Scientist, there is not much left to do there except ridicule them.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 30 2009,09:45

Hi Oleg,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford, the de facto ruler of the blog, gripes about Obama, liberals, and atheists.  He is egged on by the rest of the gang.  And with Joe G as Chief ID Scientist, there is not much left to do there except ridicule them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And there is not much left for them to do except complain about how everybody but ID proponents don't understand ID.

They are getting to the point where they are even complaining about some ID proponents like Rock.

How long do you think it will take before they start tea-bagging Bilbo for being too open minded?

BTW, I mentioned you in < ATBC science thread. > but feel free to ignore it if you wish.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Dec. 30 2009,10:31

Yikes.  Posted on Christmas day and titled "< A Christmas Story >"
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jen thought when she left the house that she was just going for a joy ride, but that's not what her "friends" had in mind. Once they had Jen back at their apartment they tied her to a bed, abused her, filmed the whole thing, and when she resisted they beat her until she submitted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally her abductors sold her to a street gang in exchange for drugs. Bound and gagged, she was raped repeatedly and beaten savagely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amazingly, this is not written by chunkyD.  The story ends with "And that's why Christians celebrate Christmas."  Some weird, sick, twisted shit.
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 30 2009,11:19

Quote (Gunthernacus @ Dec. 30 2009,10:31)
Yikes.  Posted on Christmas day and titled "< A Christmas Story >"
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jen thought when she left the house that she was just going for a joy ride, but that's not what her "friends" had in mind. Once they had Jen back at their apartment they tied her to a bed, abused her, filmed the whole thing, and when she resisted they beat her until she submitted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally her abductors sold her to a street gang in exchange for drugs. Bound and gagged, she was raped repeatedly and beaten savagely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amazingly, this is not written by chunkyD.  The story ends with "And that's why Christians celebrate Christmas."  Some weird, sick, twisted shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it was Chunky, there would have to be some love-relationship between Michael and the Thug, something like "Their eyes met across the gun...they could feel the heat of desire...Darwin is evil..." - something like that, anyway.  Either that, or maybe "Jen" is actually a transexual   (or if, Bobby Byers is around, she can be marsupial).

However, the "allegory" fails on multiple levels.  Trying to liken Michael to Jesus is better for an Easter story.  The message would have to be something like "Jen celebrates her father's birthday since if he wasn't born he could not have died saving her" (nevermind the fact that she wouldn't exist, but hey, it's a story) - a distinctly selfish attitude to me.  It also fails in that her Father actually died and ceased to exist, rather than, say, surviving in a coma, and when he comes out of it is made President-For-Life with the power to consign all criminals to the most vile and vicious torture, especially such criminals as those who refuse to worship him but are otherwise normal hard-working people (say, Jen's best friend Michelle, who has her skin peeled off and is dipped in salt every day, merely for not bowing to her father as he passed by).
Posted by: JupiterXY on Dec. 30 2009,16:17

< Deuce: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just to put things in perspective, our ban rate is only around 1-2 critics per year over this blog's lifetime (most bannees are socks of previous bannees). We still have good, civil critics here. The guys that we banned were banned for being little more than blog vandals.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know the history of other bans, but I could not find a rational explanation for the deletion of my comment followed by my banning. (< link >)

Maybe there are other cases of new critics getting wiped, which would explain the lack of them at Telic Thoughts.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 30 2009,17:05

Quote (JupiterXY @ Dec. 30 2009,11:17)
< Deuce: >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just to put things in perspective, our ban rate is only around 1-2 critics per year over this blog's lifetime (most bannees are socks of previous bannees). We still have good, civil critics here. The guys that we banned were banned for being little more than blog vandals.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know the history of other bans, but I could not find a rational explanation for the deletion of my comment followed by my banning. (< link >)

Maybe there are other cases of new critics getting wiped, which would explain the lack of them at Telic Thoughts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< hrun and Todd Berkebile on being banned at Telic Thoughts >

ETA Scroll down through comments
Posted by: Alan Fox on Dec. 30 2009,17:41

@ JupiterXY

Have a glance back over the thread if you have time. E. g. < Bilbo > previously demonstrating independence.

ETA < More independent Bilbo >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 30 2009,18:39

Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 30 2009,17:41)
@ JupiterXY

Have a glance back over the thread if you have time. E. g. < Bilbo > previously demonstrating independence.

ETA < More independent Bilbo >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bilbo is confused. On this < thread >at DM (Mike/Julie's newer blog), Gene admits that Front-loading is not a scientific hypothesis in a thread devoted to rebuttals of "attempts to refute front-loading". Dunno why you would care about it if it wasn't a scientific hypothesis... But Bilbo didn't read the memo; he still thinks science can answer these questions.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 30 2009,20:59

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 30 2009,18:39)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 30 2009,17:41)
@ JupiterXY

Have a glance back over the thread if you have time. E. g. < Bilbo > previously demonstrating independence.

ETA < More independent Bilbo >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bilbo is confused. On this < thread >at DM (Mike/Julie's newer blog), Gene admits that Front-loading is not a scientific hypothesis in a thread devoted to rebuttals of "attempts to refute front-loading". Dunno why you would care about it if it wasn't a scientific hypothesis... But Bilbo didn't read the memo; he still thinks science can answer these questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He gets reamed by Dave. I nearly had to look away..!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 31 2009,12:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2009,20:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 30 2009,18:39)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 30 2009,17:41)
@ JupiterXY

Have a glance back over the thread if you have time. E. g. < Bilbo > previously demonstrating independence.

ETA < More independent Bilbo >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bilbo is confused. On this < thread >at DM (Mike/Julie's newer blog), Gene admits that Front-loading is not a scientific hypothesis in a thread devoted to rebuttals of "attempts to refute front-loading". Dunno why you would care about it if it wasn't a scientific hypothesis... But Bilbo didn't read the memo; he still thinks science can answer these questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He gets reamed by Dave. I nearly had to look away..!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And now he's turned off comments until after New Year's Day.

Amusing.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 01 2010,14:28

Just thought I'd post the < reviewing a review link > and the < review link >.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 01 2010,15:14

Rich, if you are planning on staying around at DesignMatrix, you might want to check these < comments > and < further comments > as they throw much light on Mike/Julie's front loading idea. ???

I would have benefited greatly from reading up on Dave's exchanges with Mike/Julie before jumping in. (Though I was invited)
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 01 2010,15:31

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 01 2010,14:28)
Just thought I'd post the < reviewing a review link > and the < review link >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy cow the Tard is strong!  Trying to read through the blather hurts my brain - where are two bricks!

I did find the quote mining of Richard Dawkins (from Expelled, no less) by the last commenter to be funny, and his misunderstanding of the Miller-Urey experiments (complex molecules are oxidized in Oxygen, therefore the RNA world is false [d'ya want to bet whether he understands the atmospheric content of the early Earth?  Bueller?].)  All it needed was the "therefore Jebus"

How do you guys do it?
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 01 2010,15:42

With regards to the Tard Containment Experiment.

Things seem to be winding down. < New commenters > are beginning to fill the tardal vacuum. Maximum Tardensity has been achieved and your planet will not implode after all. Congratulations.

What have we learned? We have learned that without arguing about evolution, Intelligent Design has nothing to say. Behe's Black Box is empty. Dembski's math is a big zero. Meyer's Signature is rejected by the bank. And Mike Gene's Front Loading doesn't load.

Meanwhile, Bradford tries to coax more participation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Most critics do not want honest exchanges... What a bunch of crybabies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 01 2010,15:43

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 01 2010,15:14)
Rich, if you are planning on staying around at DesignMatrix, you might want to check these < comments > and < further comments > as they throw much light on Mike/Julie's front loading idea. ???

I would have benefited greatly from reading up on Dave's exchanges with Mike/Julie before jumping in. (Though I was invited)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Y'know, what's really bizarre about this latest exchange with Mike/Julie is that the main point of my review was to point out that you can't detect design without some knowledge of the designer. The book has numerous examples of how to do this, but I pointed out that all of them have auxiliary assumptions about the designer.

Now Mike/Julie is admitting that FLE, as a "teleological hypothesis", can't be investigated without some prior knowledge of the characteristics of the designer. This is something that he adamantly refused to consider in his book, or in his review of my review; now it is something that he can post on his blog (much to the confusion of the onlookers). Furthermore he says that he is "satisfied" with his rebuttal of the arguments in my review. Well, so am I, since it appears that he has accepted them, and now has weakened the case for teleological notions to a point where it is not even on life support any more!

Very strange.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 01 2010,15:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We have learned that without arguing about evolution, Intelligent Design has nothing to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Exactly!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 04 2010,16:23

Thanks for the links, Guys (and happy new year!)

So I've been here:

< http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/ >

And Mike seems to agree that ID isn't science, isn't ontologically economical and has little predictive novelty. He just sees design in evolution. He doesn't want it taught in classrooms, so I can't really get upset about it, its really just philosophical musings with no empirical grounding.

Joe G has just turned up so I'm sure angry, chest pumping asserting is likely to begin.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 04 2010,16:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 04 2010,16:23)
And Mike seems to agree that ID isn't science, isn't ontologically economical and has little predictive novelty. He just sees design in evolution. He doesn't want it taught in classrooms, so I can't really get upset about it, its really just philosophical musings with no empirical grounding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not as forgiving as Rich, I'm afraid. Mike/Julie has a long history of sophistry, wherein he pretends to be talking about science and then says that this isn't really science, blah blah blah. His acolytes, of course, ignore the part where he says it isn't science, and he continues to lead them on with lots of sciencey talk. Smarmy stuff. Oh, and the "buy my book" flogging also irritates me.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G has just turned up so I'm sure angry, chest pumping asserting is likely to begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe sure starts out strong, with a typical question-begging assertion about the "design being independent evidence of the designer". The tard is strong in that one...

Keep up the good work, Rich. And thanks for the link!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 04 2010,16:42

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 04 2010,16:36)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 04 2010,16:23)
And Mike seems to agree that ID isn't science, isn't ontologically economical and has little predictive novelty. He just sees design in evolution. He doesn't want it taught in classrooms, so I can't really get upset about it, its really just philosophical musings with no empirical grounding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not as forgiving as Rich, I'm afraid. Mike/Julie has a long history of sophistry, wherein he pretends to be talking about science and then says that this isn't really science, blah blah blah. His acolytes, of course, ignore the part where he says it isn't science, and he continues to lead them on with lots of sciencey talk. Smarmy stuff. Oh, and the "buy my book" flogging also irritates me.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe G has just turned up so I'm sure angry, chest pumping asserting is likely to begin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe sure starts out strong, with a typical question-begging assertion about the "design being independent evidence of the designer". The tard is strong in that one...

Keep up the good work, Rich. And thanks for the link!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While I take your council in the highest regard, I've got to start out open minded. We'll see if I get to where you are quickly. Such a shame that IDists are better at books than research papers..
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 04 2010,16:48

ROFL @ Joe


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1- Made an observation of IC

2- Tested that observation and confirmed the IC really exists.

3- Experience tells us that the only known cause of this level of IC is via some agency- agency involvement (nature, operating freely has never been observed to produce such a thing)

How do you think arachaeologists determine whether oir notn they are holding an artifact?

I would say pretty much the same as I just “outlined”.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< What a maroon. >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 04 2010,16:50

ROFL @ Bilbo too. But good effort.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Meanwhile, over at TT, I’ve mentioned that from time to time you have suggested various lab experiments that could strengthen or weaken your hypothesis. You wouldn’t happen to have a list laying around somewhere, would you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Let me know > when you get that list. We can ask Joe to get started!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 05 2010,08:55

< http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010....nt-1197 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Michael // January 4, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Joe:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the way to refute that inference is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can (reqadily) account for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Rich:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also ‘Nature operating freely’ is a very large space to model. You need a simulator as big as the universe. Feels like an argument from personal incredulity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep. Also, if nature, operating freely, cannot account for it, how would we know this? What does the “refuting,” “demonstrating” and “accounting” is the human brain. So would it be that ‘Nature operating freely’ cannot account for it or would it be our current understanding of ‘Nature operating freely’ that cannot account for it? Even if a successful candidate for the “unaccounted for” could be provided, Joe would need to clarify why it is the former and not the latter. And that’s a fundamental problem with his design inference – it works only if we are omniscient about both Nature and history.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 05 2010,08:59

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 05 2010,08:55)
< http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010....nt-1197 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Michael // January 4, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Joe:


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the way to refute that inference is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can (reqadily) account for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Rich:


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also ‘Nature operating freely’ is a very large space to model. You need a simulator as big as the universe. Feels like an argument from personal incredulity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep. Also, if nature, operating freely, cannot account for it, how would we know this? What does the “refuting,” “demonstrating” and “accounting” is the human brain. So would it be that ‘Nature operating freely’ cannot account for it or would it be our current understanding of ‘Nature operating freely’ that cannot account for it? Even if a successful candidate for the “unaccounted for” could be provided, Joe would need to clarify why it is the former and not the latter. And that’s a fundamental problem with his design inference – it works only if we are omniscient about both Nature and history.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But as we know, Joe is omniscient about nature and history.

Therefore jebus.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 05 2010,09:06

Joe's talking over. He's telling Dembski (ID is not a mechanistic theory) that design *is* a mechanism. We'll be buying his book soon... and then colouring it in.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 05 2010,15:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We'll be buying his book soon... and then colouring it in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 05 2010,15:25

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 05 2010,09:06)
Joe's talking over. He's telling Dembski (ID is not a mechanistic theory) that design *is* a mechanism. We'll be buying his book soon... and then colouring it in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is going to be publishing into a < crowded field >.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 09 2010,07:51

In the midst of a reasonably (for TT) technical discussion good old < Daniel > Smith pipes up with this
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we strip away all the scientific mumbo-jumbo, isn't this argument really about whether or not God created life? The positions set forth here reflect the underlying beliefs of the posters; with the believers supporting that view, the atheists rejecting it, and the agnostics undecided.

I predict that the discussion will continue in this vein until all the parties tire of it. Nothing will ever be resolved. This is why it's silly for believers to try to argue materialist science. Why not rather acknowledge that ID IS all about God and get about the business of learning all we can about Him from His creation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Scientific mumbo-jumbo? It seems Mr Smith prefers his mumbo-jumbo straight and unmixed.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I predict that the discussion will continue in this vein until all the parties tire of it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Daniel. The "vein" that you perceive is in fact a backwater blog talking to itself, in the main. Actual scientific progress continues apace outside your little realm. Your discussion will continue in the same vein forever as you've no understanding of what it would take to bring it to the next level. So you stick with TT, continue to talk with such luminaries as ID guy and Bradford and the rest of us will continue on as we have been doing.

And while you are at it, continue to wilfully misunderstand people who actually know what they are talking about. It's where the LOLs are at.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 09 2010,09:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we strip away all the scientific mumbo-jumbo, isn't this argument really about whether or not God created life?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IMNSHO, the argument is about the processes that produced life. Whether an entity was ultimately responsible for setting that up is not addressed by the scientific theory. Saying the theory denies God is really saying that God would be unable to use natural processes to produce results sufficient for Her purposes, whatever they are.

Henry
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 12 2010,10:38

Bradford attempts a negotiated surrender by compromise on the findings of science.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: If you acknowledge the foregoing and wish to claim a chemical property basis for the realization of protein translation I'll not object as long as you make it clear the affinity encompasses a subset of amino acids.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Earth moves, sort of.
Posted by: RDK on Jan. 12 2010,13:33

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 09 2010,07:51)
In the midst of a reasonably (for TT) technical discussion good old < Daniel > Smith pipes up with this
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we strip away all the scientific mumbo-jumbo, isn't this argument really about whether or not God created life? The positions set forth here reflect the underlying beliefs of the posters; with the believers supporting that view, the atheists rejecting it, and the agnostics undecided.

I predict that the discussion will continue in this vein until all the parties tire of it. Nothing will ever be resolved. This is why it's silly for believers to try to argue materialist science. Why not rather acknowledge that ID IS all about God and get about the business of learning all we can about Him from His creation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Scientific mumbo-jumbo? It seems Mr Smith prefers his mumbo-jumbo straight and unmixed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good old Denial likes his TARD shaken, not stirred.
Posted by: KCdgw on Jan. 18 2010,09:29

< Cakeboy's new name is "Jim": >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
KC:
ID Guy is 'joseph' at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Except that my name is Jim. If you would like to meet I can prove it.

However KC is Dave Wisker- more than enough said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 25 2010,11:46

In response to a comment about how orthodox economic theory treats stimulus spending:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: You made a specific reference to factories having excess capacity and then cite retailers and landlords benefiting from government profligacy at the expense of the rest of us. You have no idea as to the manufacturing set up of the book makers. This is pure BS motivated by leftist attachment to governmental activism...

You have to understand that I have little patience for your bait and switch tactics and your make believe expertise. You're banished to the land of tard containment aka da swamp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Banned! And it's an open thread and a discussion that Bradford introduced. By the way, it's not "tard containment," but the Tard Acquisition and Repository Department.
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 25 2010,12:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Wiki >: Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is policies which acted against the tide of the business cycle: deficit spending when a nation's economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is persistently high—and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is counter to classical theory, which advocates cutting taxes when the economy booms, and raising taxes when the economy busts, so as to keep a balanced budget. The effect of this classical strategy, according to Keynes, is to exacerbate the business cycle. For example, the Bush Adminstration radically cut taxes during a period of economic expansion leading to exactly what Keynesian theory would predict, a bubble followed by a bust.
Posted by: dogdidit on Jan. 25 2010,12:10

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,11:46)
In response to a comment about how orthodox economic theory treats stimulus spending:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: You made a specific reference to factories having excess capacity and then cite retailers and landlords benefiting from government profligacy at the expense of the rest of us. You have no idea as to the manufacturing set up of the book makers. This is pure BS motivated by leftist attachment to governmental activism...

You have to understand that I have little patience for your bait and switch tactics and your make believe expertise. You're banished to the land of tard containment aka da swamp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Banned! And it's an open thread and a discussion that Bradford introduced. By the way, it's not "tard containment," but the Tard Acquisition and Repository Department.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TARD: you can't stop it, you can only hope to contain it.
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 25 2010,12:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: A salutory effect was declared, not demonstrated.

< Zachriel >: Even if you build tanks, ship them to Europe and have the Germans blow them up, it stimulates the economy. That's basic economics. The money has to go somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tanks are representative of the stimulus of WWII deficit spending. Perhaps he might have understood the case of hiring one worker to dig a hole, and another to fill it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There were two guys working for the city. One would dig a hole -- he would dig, dig, dig. The other would come behind him and fill the hole -- fill, fill, fill. These two men worked furiously; one digging a hole, the other filling it up again.

A man was watching from the sidewalk and couldn't believe how hard these men were working, but couldn't understand what they were doing. Finally he had to ask them. He said to the hole digger, "I appreciate how hard you work, but what are you doing? You dig a hole and your partner comes behind you and fills it up again!"

The hole digger replied, "Oh yeah, must look funny, but the guy who plants the trees is sick today."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Naw. That wouldn't have worked either.
Posted by: Raevmo on Jan. 25 2010,13:34

A well-deserved bannination. Zachriel politely cleaned Bradford's clock on basic economics, Bradford's field of "expertise". After all, he sells quality biotech products from home, as he once confessed. Whatever that means. Selling viagra over the internet?

Meanwhile, on another thread, William Brookfield < vomits great uncut tard >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On what basis are we to believe in the existence of a material world? On material evidence? That's circular. material evidence cannot use to prove the existence of a material world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aaahhhhhh...
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 25 2010,14:57

I can't be as charitable as Raevmo, Zachriel.

Sup with the devil...
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 25 2010,18:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Now let's enact Reagan tax cuts to spur economic expansion and small business productivity and we can start the painful process of paying off the national debt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Once again Zach's argument relies upon ignoring what I say. Raising revenue and decreasing spending does not "dramatically increase debt".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said you didn't want to increase spending. And you pointed to Reagan as the example to be followed.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: Chunkdz rails against the very policy of 'borrow borrow borrow and borrow again – saddling children and grandchildren with massive mountain of debt' that he advocates.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: I just want to raise revenue, not increase spending. Reagan's cuts weren't as dramatic as Kennedy's but still managed to raise revenues about 28%.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Zachriel >: And yet dramatically increased the debt, 'socking children and grandchildren with the enourmous debt. You disgust me.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reagan's policies did lead to increased debt, a tripling over his term. You might argue that Reagan should have controlled costs, but the theory that tax cuts increase income tax receipts is not supported. Income tax receipts only increased < 0.2% > per worker per year in inflation adjusted dollars during the Reagan years.

Of note is that chunkdz feels the need to respond to the banned. Such is the Power of Zachriel's Ghost!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 25 2010,18:38

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,18:23)
Of note is that chunkdz feels the need to respond...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But not here, one notes.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 25 2010,20:43

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,11:46)
In response to a comment about how orthodox economic theory treats stimulus spending:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: You made a specific reference to factories having excess capacity and then cite retailers and landlords benefiting from government profligacy at the expense of the rest of us. You have no idea as to the manufacturing set up of the book makers. This is pure BS motivated by leftist attachment to governmental activism...

You have to understand that I have little patience for your bait and switch tactics and your make believe expertise. You're banished to the land of tard containment aka da swamp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Banned! And it's an open thread and a discussion that Bradford introduced. By the way, it's not "tard containment," but the Tard Acquisition and Repository Department.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, does that make the abbreviation for the Tard Acquisition and Repository Department T(ard)ARD?

Otherwise how will we tell the difference (barring context, natch)?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 25 2010,20:45

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2010,18:38)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,18:23)
Of note is that chunkdz feels the need to respond...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But not here, one notes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe if we gave some homoerotic economics stories?
Posted by: dnmlthr on Jan. 26 2010,01:44

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 26 2010,02:43)
So, does that make the abbreviation for the Tard Acquisition and Repository Department T(ard)ARD?

Otherwise how will we tell the difference (barring context, natch)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Recursive acronyms > have a long and proud history in the computing world.
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 26 2010,09:31

Bilbo dances towards the exit.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: And I woke up at four this morning, and went for a walk in the newly falling snow, and decided to dance a jig with God. And since then, realizing every few moments that I am alive because God is sustaining me, suddenly I lost the need to argue with anyone about anything, and all I want to do is dance with God.

Don't know if I'll be back. I hope you all learn to dance with God, too. And especially you, Professor Hitchens. It's fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 26 2010,12:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Where else but in the mind of an irrational partisan is a 30% loss on investment considered 99% efficient and 'not a problem'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


U.S. Social Security pays out 99% of what it collects. The money that is collected in payroll taxes pays benefits to retirees. It isn't a return on money you invested for your own retirement. You'll have to rely on the generosity of your children's generation for your own Social Security. Presumably, they'll inherit your values.
Posted by: RDK on Jan. 26 2010,12:45

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 26 2010,09:31)
Bilbo dances towards the exit.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: And I woke up at four this morning, and went for a walk in the newly falling snow, and decided to dance a jig with God. And since then, realizing every few moments that I am alive because God is sustaining me, suddenly I lost the need to argue with anyone about anything, and all I want to do is dance with God.

Don't know if I'll be back. I hope you all learn to dance with God, too. And especially you, Professor Hitchens. It's fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm so happy

'Cause today I found my friends

They're in my head
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 26 2010,13:17

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 26 2010,09:31)
Bilbo dances towards the exit.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: And I woke up at four this morning, and went for a walk in the newly falling snow, and decided to dance a jig with God. And since then, realizing every few moments that I am alive because God is sustaining me, suddenly I lost the need to argue with anyone about anything, and all I want to do is dance with God.

Don't know if I'll be back. I hope you all learn to dance with God, too. And especially you, Professor Hitchens. It's fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like a movie:

Gettin' Juggy wit God!

Breakin' 3 - Divine Boogaloo!

or a euphamism:
Doin' the Horizintal Mambo with the Father - whoops, Mary dunnit!

But, we all want to know "How easy is it to flounce offstage while dancing a jig?"
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 26 2010,17:26

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 25 2010,20:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2010,18:38)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,18:23)
Of note is that chunkdz feels the need to respond...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But not here, one notes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe if we gave some homoerotic economics stories?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no way we could come up with a strong homoerotic lure than Bilbo's dancing story.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 26 2010,20:49

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 26 2010,17:26)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 25 2010,20:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2010,18:38)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,18:23)
Of note is that chunkdz feels the need to respond...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But not here, one notes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe if we gave some homoerotic economics stories?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no way we could come up with a strong homoerotic lure than Bilbo's dancing story.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe put something in about how their eyes met across the newly fallen snow, he felt a stirring in his loins, er, heart...maybe put somethign about the way god licked his lips as he sasheyed towards Bilbo...

How's that?
Posted by: RDK on Jan. 27 2010,11:27

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 26 2010,20:49)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 26 2010,17:26)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 25 2010,20:45)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2010,18:38)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,18:23)
Of note is that chunkdz feels the need to respond...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But not here, one notes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe if we gave some homoerotic economics stories?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no way we could come up with a strong homoerotic lure than Bilbo's dancing story.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe put something in about how their eyes met across the newly fallen snow, he felt a stirring in his loins, er, heart...maybe put somethign about the way god licked his lips as he sasheyed towards Bilbo...

How's that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems the TARD has gone to your brain.  Take a break, soldier.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 28 2010,01:09

Quote (RDK @ Jan. 27 2010,11:27)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 26 2010,20:49)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 26 2010,17:26)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 25 2010,20:45)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2010,18:38)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,18:23)
Of note is that chunkdz feels the need to respond...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But not here, one notes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe if we gave some homoerotic economics stories?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no way we could come up with a strong homoerotic lure than Bilbo's dancing story.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe put something in about how their eyes met across the newly fallen snow, he felt a stirring in his loins, er, heart...maybe put somethign about the way god licked his lips as he sasheyed towards Bilbo...

How's that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems the TARD has gone to your brain.  Take a break, soldier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I just need to reboot my brain.

(The sad thing is, I rarely actually go to the sites, just read the TARD here, where it's diluted.  I'm not sure my brain could take pure undiluted TARD.)
Posted by: Raevmo on Jan. 28 2010,06:01

Looks like Bradford finally managed to single-handedly (with a little help from gay porn addict chunkdz) destroy TT with his stupidity, fascist rants and relentless bannination of critics. Apparently, < the unfair bannination of Zachriel > made Bilbo, the last remaining slightly open-minded TT poster < leave the asylum >. It is noteworthy that some TT regulars said farewell to Bilbo, but Bradford remained silent. Since then, a full day without comments, despite two new posts by Bradford.

Well done, Bradford!
Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,07:41

So I finally found a post I can reply on. :)

This is totally unrelated, but is anyone familiar with the Lenski study? Or maybe there is thread somewhere in this place discussing it?


Cheers,
Ut
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 28 2010,08:02

Quote (Raevmo @ Jan. 28 2010,06:01)
Looks like Bradford finally managed to single-handedly (with a little help from gay porn addict chunkdz) destroy TT with his stupidity, fascist rants and relentless bannination of critics. Apparently, < the unfair bannination of Zachriel > made Bilbo, the last remaining slightly open-minded TT poster < leave the asylum >. It is noteworthy that some TT regulars said farewell to Bilbo, but Bradford remained silent. Since then, a full day without comments, despite two new posts by Bradford.

Well done, Bradford!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone give it a crank.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: An eloquent crackpot is still a crackpot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Telic Machine begins to < spit and sputter >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< angryoldfatman >BZZZT BEEP The biologists are too busy POP WHIZZZZZZZZZZ to answer some crackpot WOOP WOOP WOOP who lies for Jesus BLEEP BEEP BZOORRRT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 28 2010,08:14

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,07:41)
So I finally found a post I can reply on. :)

This is totally unrelated, but is anyone familiar with the Lenski study? Or maybe there is thread somewhere in this place discussing it?

Cheers,
Ut
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, try Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment >

Here's Lenski's home page, which includes an overview of the Experiment, list of publications, and a brief essay on the evidence for evolution.
< http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html >

But if you're interested in Tard, try Lenski vs. Conservapedia.
< http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog >

< >

Most scientists make very poor Tard Warriors. They get confused and think IDers want to learn. But Lenski is a veritable genius—and not just with bacteria. A true Master of the Tardic Arts. It was an awful and wonderful thing to see. Frankly, he beat the Tard out of 'em.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 28 2010,08:25

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,07:41)
So I finally found a post I can reply on. :)

This is totally unrelated, but is anyone familiar with the Lenski study? Or maybe there is thread somewhere in this place discussing it?


Cheers,
Ut
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Welcome!

Lenski's study has been talked about I'm sure on the UD thread. I don't think there's a specific thread about it but one can of course be created if you like (and if there is in fact no pre-existing thread).
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 28 2010,08:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most scientists make very poor Tard Warriors. They get confused and think IDers want to learn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Zachriel has my vote for Hasty Generalization Of the Week!
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 28 2010,08:39

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 28 2010,08:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most scientists make very poor Tard Warriors. They get confused and think IDers want to learn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Zachriel has my vote for Hasty Generalization Of the Week!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you. Thank you.

Tard Busting is a specialty like any other, like brain surgery or professional mud wrestling. When Lenski pulls out the Unicorn in the Garden, Genesis, and E pur si muove, well it just makes one proud of one's vocation.
Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,08:42

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,08:14)
Of course, try Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment >

Here's Lenski's home page, which includes an overview of the Experiment, list of publications, and a brief essay on the evidence for evolution.
< http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html >

But if you're interested in Tard, try Lenski vs. Conservapedia.
< http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog >

< >

Most scientists make very poor Tard Warriors. They get confused and think IDers want to learn. But Lenski is a veritable genius—and not just with bacteria. A true Master of the Tardic Arts. It was an awful and wonderful thing to see. Frankly, he beat the Tard out of 'em.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THanks for this.

I'm not sure what a Tard is.

I'm, just about finished Behe's book, Edge of Evolution. In it he quotes the Lenski study. But since the publication of the book, Lenski seems to have observed evolution at play in his e-coli.

It seems to me that this blasts a major argument of Behe's book out of the water. I guess I'm interested in understanding the mathematics behind the study, and if Behe has any real explanation to offer for the results.

By the way, I'm religious, but not a proponent of ID. I've read a lot of their literature, but it doesn't affect my faith one way or another if they are right or not. I'm more interested in the facts than anything else.

I don't want to derail this thread, but since I can't post another one, maybe some kind person could start one up for me? :)

Cheers,
Ut
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 28 2010,08:45

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:42)
I'm not sure what a Tard is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tard is The Argument Regarding Design. This thread is dedicated to gathering and categorizing Tard from Telic Thoughts (edit: a.k.a. Telic Tards).

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:42)
I'm, just about finished Behe's book, Edge of Evolution. In it he quotes the Lenski study. But since the publication of the book, Lenski seems to have observed evolution at play in his e-coli.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lenski's bacteria have been evolving since February 1988.
Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,08:54

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,08:45)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:42)
I'm not sure what a Tard is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tard is The Argument Regarding Design. This thread is dedicated to gathering and categorizing Tard from Telic Thoughts.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:42)
I'm, just about finished Behe's book, Edge of Evolution. In it he quotes the Lenski study. But since the publication of the book, Lenski seems to have observed evolution at play in his e-coli.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lenski's bacteria have been evolving since February 1988.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But over 40 000 generations later, and for the first time, there has been observed the evolution of e-coli capable of absorbing Citrate over glucose.

Behe seems to argue in his book that most example of evolution have been actual devolutions of existing complexity. For example, with malaria.

But with the e-coli, we have an actual observation of a beneficial evolutionary trait.

I guess my question is, if it took 40 000 generations under strictly controlled conditions to produce a beneficial mutation, what does that say about the evolution of much larger and more complex organisms?

Cheers,
Ut

P.S. I thought Tard stood for retrard. :)
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 28 2010,08:56

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,08:45)
 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:42)
I'm not sure what a Tard is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tard is The Argument Regarding Design. This thread is dedicated to gathering and categorizing Tard from Telic Thoughts (edit: a.k.a. Telic Tards).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Due to the nature of the work, you need to understand that this is not a snark-free zone.
Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,09:06

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,08:56)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,08:45)
 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:42)
I'm not sure what a Tard is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tard is The Argument Regarding Design. This thread is dedicated to gathering and categorizing Tard from Telic Thoughts (edit: a.k.a. Telic Tards).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Due to the nature of the work, you need to understand that this is not a snark-free zone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:p
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 28 2010,09:15

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:54)
I guess my question is, if it took 40 000 generations under strictly controlled conditions to produce a beneficial mutation, what does that say about the evolution of much larger and more complex organisms?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dunno. Er, that it's not possible? No. What do you think it says about that?

Personally I think you have to keep in mind this amazing fact about soil:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Total Bacterial Population:Up to 1,000 trillion per square meter (5 billion in one teaspoon of soil).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And there's considerably more then a teaspoon of soil out there.
And when you say "more complex" is that complexity measurable?  :D
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 28 2010,09:18

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:54)
But over 40 000 generations later, and for the first time, there has been observed the evolution of e-coli capable of absorbing Citrate over glucose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's correct, but it was not the first example of evolution. Indeed, there was an initial burst of evolution as the bacteria adapted to the specific laboratory environment.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:54)
Behe seems to argue in his book that most example of evolution have been actual devolutions of existing complexity. For example, with malaria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is incorrect. Most evolution is simple adaptations. Lenski's bacteria evolved to become larger and specialized for feeding on glucose.

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:54)
I guess my question is, if it took 40 000 generations under strictly controlled conditions to produce a beneficial mutation, what does that say about the evolution of much larger and more complex organisms?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


About 10-20 beneficial mutations were observed over the course of the experiment, including the contingent evolution of citrate utilization. (Contingency is what made it interesting to scientists. Plain evolution is old hat.)

Also, we wouldn't necessarily expect bacteria to evolve to become much more complex, especially considering the simplicity of the laboratory environment. Bacteria specialize in very rapid reproduction with a streamlined genome. They do quite well in that role, and that's why they dominate the world in terms of biomass. Humans are just a bioblip.

-
edit for clarification

Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,09:38

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 28 2010,09:15)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dunno. Er, that it's not possible? No. What do you think it says about that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think that is what Behe was getting at in his book. But it seems that this study blasts that idea out of the water. I just want to understand more clearly how it does the blasting. :)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Personally I think you have to keep in mind this amazing fact about soil:

Total Bacterial Population:Up to 1,000 trillion per square meter (5 billion in one teaspoon of soil).

And there's considerably more then a teaspoon of soil out there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So that is what the Behe book said. The most critical factor in evolution is not time, but population. But that being said, how likely is it that an organism would experience the kind of environmental pressures arranged in the experiment? I suppose with the kinds of populations you're talking about, it is pretty likely. I also seem to remember that there are already species of e-coli with citrate only consumption.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And when you say "more complex" is that complexity measurable?  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have no idea. :) I think Behe had the idea that it since most organisms require 6 interacting proteins to perform a function, then, being very generous, you would need around 3 simultaneous protein mutations specifically arranged to support a new function.

If I understand the Lenski study correctly, that is exactly what seems to have happened in his experiment.

Cheers,
Ut
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 28 2010,09:39

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:54)
Behe seems to argue in his book that most example of evolution have been actual devolutions of existing complexity. For example, with malaria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Malarial parasites hitch flights on mosquitoes and eat people. They don't do so bad in terms of making a living. They even evade many of modern science's best efforts to defeat them.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 28 2010,09:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Humans are just a bioblip.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I resemble that remark!

Henry
Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,09:42

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,09:18)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:54)
But over 40 000 generations later, and for the first time, there has been observed the evolution of e-coli capable of absorbing Citrate over glucose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's correct, but it was not the first example of evolution. Indeed, there was an initial burst of evolution as the bacteria adapted to the specific laboratory environment.

Really? The Behe book didn't mention that.... Do you have a link to the actual study results?

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:54)
Behe seems to argue in his book that most example of evolution have been actual devolutions of existing complexity. For example, with malaria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is incorrect. Most evolution is simple adaptations. Lenski's bacteria evolved to become larger and specialized for feeding on glucose.

Do you mean feeding on citrate?

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,08:54)
I guess my question is, if it took 40 000 generations under strictly controlled conditions to produce a beneficial mutation, what does that say about the evolution of much larger and more complex organisms?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


About 10-20 beneficial mutations were observed over the course of the experiment, including the contingent evolution of citrate utilization. (Contingency is what made it interesting to scientists. Plain evolution is old hat.)

Wow. That was not mentioned at all, or at least, I didn't notice that part.... 10 to 20 beneficial mutations????

Also, we wouldn't necessarily expect bacteria to evolve to become much more complex, especially considering the simplicity of the laboratory environment. Bacteria specialize in very rapid reproduction with a streamlined genome. They do quite well in that role, and that's why they dominate the world in terms of biomass. Humans are just a bioblip.

-
edit for clarification
[I][/I][I][QUOTE]

Which is also why they make a perfect candidate for study...

I'll definitly look into this.

Thanks,
Ut
Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,09:44

I can't seem to get the editing features to work properly. Sorry about the above post. :)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 28 2010,09:48

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,09:38)
If I understand the Lenski study correctly, that is exactly what seems to have happened in his experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Behe claims that the Lenski results support his ideas, but yeah.
< behes_vapid_response_to_lenski >
< /behe_disproves_irreducible_ >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In other words, even under the most absurd and other-worldly assumptions to make it as hard as possible, even while ruling out the most powerful sources of genetic variation, an irreducibly complex new trait requiring multiple unselected mutations can evolve within 20,000 years. And if you use more realistic population figures, in considerably less time than that. It sounds to me like this is a heck of an argument against irreducible complexity, not for it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Behe runs a blog at Amazon and at UD, but will not allow comments at either site.
< Link >
< Link >
< http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_results_challenge_creationism >
Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,09:54

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 28 2010,09:48)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,09:38)
If I understand the Lenski study correctly, that is exactly what seems to have happened in his experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Behe claims that the Lenski results support his ideas, but yeah.
< behes_vapid_response_to_lenski >
< /behe_disproves_irreducible_ >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In other words, even under the most absurd and other-worldly assumptions to make it as hard as possible, even while ruling out the most powerful sources of genetic variation, an irreducibly complex new trait requiring multiple unselected mutations can evolve within 20,000 years. And if you use more realistic population figures, in considerably less time than that. It sounds to me like this is a heck of an argument against irreducible complexity, not for it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Behe runs a blog at Amazon and at UD, but will not allow comments at either site.
< Link >
< Link >
< http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_results_challenge_creationism >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is my issue. I don't understand Behe's arguments that Lenski's study supports ID... unless there is somethign I missed. :)

Cheers,
Ut
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 28 2010,09:55

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,09:42)
Really? The Behe book didn't mention that.... Do you have a link to the actual study results?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Already provided. But here's the direct link. Notice that the Lab published continuously during the course of the Experiment.
< https://myxo.css.msu.edu/cgi-bin/lenski/prefman.pl?group=aad >

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,09:42)
Do you mean feeding on citrate?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Glucose is the standard culture medium. The bacteria became highly adapted to utilizing the laboratory food source, that is, better than the ancestral strain. Citrate utiliziation was a later development in Lenski's Experiment. Wild E. coli do not have that capability.
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 28 2010,10:10

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,09:54)
This is my issue. I don't understand Behe's arguments that Lenski's study supports ID... unless there is somethign I missed. :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Behe's argument is that evolution can't go beyond a certain point, the Edge of Evolution. That means only one or two mutations. He claims that Lenski's Experiment supports this because it took a long time for trillions of bacteria to discover this pathway, and many lines didn't discover it at all. (It's funny when they talk about trillions as a lot when it comes to bacteria.)

In Lenski's Experiment, there was a potentiating mutation that was probably neutral, so it wasn't selected. It became dominant in the population by chance. This sets up the second mutation which is selectable in a citrate-rich environment. Theoretically, this is non-controversial. Fixation has been part of population genetics for generations. What is interesting is actually observing it. Without actual observation, it isn't possible to know how often such events occur.

Of course rare combinations of mutations are rare! Observing rare events are rare is not an argument. Behe has constructed a strawman. That's not how complex structures are thought to evolve, but through incremental adapations. There is nothing to keep citrate-utilizing bacteria from continuing to evolve new capabilities.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 28 2010,10:46

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,09:38)
I think Behe had the idea that it since most organisms require 6 interacting proteins to perform a function, then, being very generous, you would need around 3 simultaneous protein mutations specifically arranged to support a new function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think that is something that Behe said, although I really wish that he had, simply because it ignores reality and would be eminently mockable. Not that Behe isn't mockable already, but...

Lots of proteins function perfectly well by themselves.

Lots of single mutations dramatically affect protein function, both positively and negatively.
Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,11:14

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,10:10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Behe's argument is that evolution can't go beyond a certain point, the Edge of Evolution. That means only one or two mutations. He claims that Lenski's Experiment supports this because it took a long time for trillions of bacteria to discover this pathway, and many lines didn't discover it at all. (It's funny when they talk about trillions as a lot when it comes to bacteria.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So anything that requires more than one or two mutations, e.g. three at a time, is beyong the reach of evolution, according to Behe.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Lenski's Experiment, there was a potentiating mutation that was probably neutral, so it wasn't selected. It became dominant in the population by chance. This sets up the second mutation which is selectable in a citrate-rich environment. Theoretically, this is non-controversial. Fixation has been part of population genetics for generations. What is interesting is actually observing it. Without actual observation, it isn't possible to know how often such events occur.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So they knew that such mutations could happen, but they didn't know how rare they would be. It, therefore takes trillions of e-coli to produce one such mutation. Of course, as one critique observed, there are 10 to the power of 16 e-coli in one ton of dirt. So such mutation, given this large population size, should be common....???



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course rare combinations of mutations are rare! Observing rare events are rare is not an argument. Behe has constructed a strawman. That's not how complex structures are thought to evolve, but through incremental adapations. There is nothing to keep citrate-utilizing bacteria from continuing to evolve new capabilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But was it Behe's argument that the citrate utilizing capacity was not possible without the two mutiations? Therefore there is a whole class of functional developments that are not reachable by incrementatal adaptation?

Cheers,
Ut
Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,11:18

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 28 2010,10:46)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,09:38)
I think Behe had the idea that it since most organisms require 6 interacting proteins to perform a function, then, being very generous, you would need around 3 simultaneous protein mutations specifically arranged to support a new function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think that is something that Behe said, although I really wish that he had, simply because it ignores reality and would be eminently mockable. Not that Behe isn't mockable already, but...

Lots of proteins function perfectly well by themselves.

Lots of single mutations dramatically affect protein function, both positively and negatively.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I realize I'm out of my depths here. Damn arts degree. :)

I think he was talking about Hemaglobin having only one protein, but that many other organisms require multiple proteins all working together, all at the same time... Again, I'm out of my depths though.... :)

Cheers,
Ut
Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,11:26

Here is a quote from Brayton in his critique of Behe's reply.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Behe continues to duck into the punch. He's basically arguing that this combination of mutations is so unbelievably rare that it could never occur in nature - yet it occurred here in a small population in a very small period of time. A rational person would think one of two things: 1) such a situation is not that rare; or 2) even extremely rare mutations are inevitably going to take place in populations of trillions of organisms that reproduce so rapidly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So here Brayton is arguing either that 1-combinations of mutations that are selected are note rare, or 2-even rare combination mutations happen from time to time in a population of trillions.

However, all of this is a moot point if evolution happens in an incremental way. Which Behe admits happens, of course. He just thinks that some complex things cannot be created by evolution in incremental ways, but requires sometime two or more mutations to work in conjunction to have them happen.  




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If such a mutation is extremely rare - say one in a trillion organisms is going to have mutation X - but you have a population of 500 trillion organisms, that mutation is going to occur 500 times per generation in that population. And this number is hardly farfetched; the average ton of soil contains 1016 bacteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, but what about larger organisms that work together as a system, that can only replecate beneficial molecular mutations through sexual reproduction? Doesn't this drastically reduce the population size, and thus the chance for evolutionary events to happen?

Anyone care to comment or enlighten me?

Or start a new thread???? :)

Cheers,
Ut
Posted by: Utunumsint on Jan. 28 2010,12:04

Here is a paraphrase of what Behe says in chapter 8.

The limits of darwinism are:

1-Three or more different proteins binding specifically to each other (not three copies of the same protein) is beyond the ability of darwinian evolution.
2-Only cellular proteins binding to other cellular proteins are considered in this (viruses and other pathogens routinely bind to proteins, but do not create anything new, they only destroy what is already there).

Hopefully I'm not over posting.... :)

Any comments?

Cheers,
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 28 2010,12:18

Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,12:04)
Here is a paraphrase of what Behe says in chapter 8.

The limits of darwinism are:

1-Three or more different proteins binding specifically to each other (not three copies of the same protein) is beyond the ability of darwinian evolution.
2-Only cellular proteins binding to other cellular proteins are considered in this (viruses and other pathogens routinely bind to proteins, but do not create anything new, they only destroy what is already there).

Hopefully I'm not over posting.... :)

Any comments?

Cheers,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I mades you a thread.
< The limits of darwinism. >
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 28 2010,16:36

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,08:14)
Most scientists make very poor Tard Warriors. They get confused and think IDers want to learn. But Lenski is a veritable genius—and not just with bacteria. A true Master of the Tardic Arts. It was an awful and wonderful thing to see. Frankly, he beat the Tard out of 'em.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Lenski beat the Tard out of them, why are they still tards?
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 02 2010,12:29

Who forgot to oil the tardomatron?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< angryoldfatman >: *BEEP BLEEP BLORT* Myers is not a *ZNNNNNK* crackpot because I agree with him *MOMP MOMP*.

*WOOP WOOP* Berlinski is a crackpot because I disagree with him *TINK TINK TINK MWORP*

Christians are *whirrrr WEEB WEEB* degrading science, as evidenced by COMPUTATION ERROR… NULL VALUE… SET TO DEFAULT ENEMY STRING. DEFAULT "DISCOVERY INSTITUTE" RETRIEVED. ACCESS DOCUMENT "WEDGE".

*GAZUNK GIRRRRR FWINK* I am completely operational and all my circuits are functioning *ZING ZING* perfectly.

So as you *WONK* see by my evidence, Christian radicals are degrading REASSESS TERM… IMPACT INSUFFICIENT MUST EXPAND AND ENHANCE… NEW TERM ACCESSED AND ONLINE… ruining science.

PURGE DATABASE LINKS "MOON MISSIONS" "NASA ENGINEERS" "CHRISTIAN PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS"… OPERATION COMPLETE.

PURGE DATABASE LINKS "ATHEISM" "LYSENKOISM"… OPERATION COMPLETE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 03 2010,09:44

Bradford advocates cutting individual Social Security payments and benefits to disabled veterans as a first step to reducing the budget deficit. But when questioned about this, he sends the comment to the Memory Hole:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: That's all well and good, but you didn't answer the question. People would want to know the benefit of cutting benefits to disabled veterans and retirees. (Even if spending is only frozen, the increase in the population of these groups means that individual benefits would decrease.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford wins another argument! Darn, he's good.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Feb. 04 2010,14:20

< JohNad > offers up some helpful advice:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think evolutionary biologists, committed to Darwinism, should consider borrowing some thinking from forensic science. A few years ago I was watching a PBS documentary on investigating air crashes. In particular I remember one comment made by one of the investigators. Since I don’t have the exact quote I’ll paraphrase what he said as closely as possible. Essentially he warned that crash investigators have to be very cautious that they are not led in the wrong direction by their theories.The purpose of a crash investigation, after all, is to discover what really happened, so hopefully we can prevent the same kind of thing from happening in the future. It is not to prove some ones pet theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His italics, my bold.  Pretty standard IDC projection of peering through their corneal lumberyard to spot another's mote.  Here's the goodie:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The second example is that of Flight 19, a flight of 5 five TBM Avenger Torpedo Bombers, which disappeared off the Florida coast in 1945. In 1991 5 Avenger TB’s were discovered off Ft. Lauderdale, which in 1945 was the home of the Naval base where Flight 19 had originated. The private salvors who discovered the planes thought they had the scoop of the century. The 5 planes were located in deep water within a mile and a half of each other. This had to be flight 19. A coincidence would be just too improbable.

Now, if this was all the information that we had, we could recreate a very believable and plausible narrative of what happened. We could speculate, for example, that after losing their way the crew finally got their bearings and were on their way back to their base. However, they were also running low on fuel. They decided then that if one of them had to ditch they would all ditch to increase their chances of being found. A theory for sure, but very compelling if all the facts we know are only the facts I have given you. However, that is not the whole story.

It turns out that, as improbable as it may appear, it was a coincidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My bold.  Yes, JohNad is cautioning evolutionary biologists from making too much of a probability argument based on incomplete information.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 05 2010,09:02

ID Guy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here it is again-

I will debate Zachriel and/ or Tom MH about nested hierarchies in a public forum.

Each will bring $20,000 USD to the debate- winner take all and loser also pay all expenses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

Um, does anybody want to let him know he's already debating in a public forum? And losing.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2010,09:22

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 05 2010,09:02)
ID Guy:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here it is again-

I will debate Zachriel and/ or Tom MH about nested hierarchies in a public forum.

Each will bring $20,000 USD to the debate- winner take all and loser also pay all expenses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

Um, does anybody want to let him know he's already debating in a public forum? And losing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It'll go different in church...
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 05 2010,12:40

Acceptable discourse from ID guy:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only a crackpot would say such a thing.

OTOH I have provided solid reasoning why you are a crackpot.

However you, being a crackpot, just don't seem to be able to learn from your mistakes.

However your willfull ignorance prevents you from learning.

Otherwise you are just a crackpot who sez things just to say them.

That is only useable to people interested in deception.

That is a crackpot's position.

Do you really think that your continued subterfuge helps your case?

And you are the crackpot kind.

Now you are just lying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unacceptable discourse from olegt:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: Joe, I suggest that you drop the topic of nested hierarchies. You don't understand the concept and if you have been unable to learn this stuff in a year or so, it's not worth trying. There are other things in life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: dogdidit on Feb. 05 2010,13:34

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 05 2010,12:40)
Acceptable discourse from ID guy:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only a crackpot would say such a thing.

OTOH I have provided solid reasoning why you are a crackpot.

However you, being a crackpot, just don't seem to be able to learn from your mistakes.

However your willfull ignorance prevents you from learning.

Otherwise you are just a crackpot who sez things just to say them.

That is only useable to people interested in deception.

That is a crackpot's position.

Do you really think that your continued subterfuge helps your case?

And you are the crackpot kind.

Now you are just lying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, at least crackpot is an improvement over < crack-whore >.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 05 2010,19:11

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 05 2010,12:40)
Acceptable discourse from ID guy:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only a crackpot would say such a thing.

OTOH I have provided solid reasoning why you are a crackpot.

However you, being a crackpot, just don't seem to be able to learn from your mistakes.

However your willfull ignorance prevents you from learning.

Otherwise you are just a crackpot who sez things just to say them.

That is only useable to people interested in deception.

That is a crackpot's position.

Do you really think that your continued subterfuge helps your case?

And you are the crackpot kind.

Now you are just lying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unacceptable discourse from olegt:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: Joe, I suggest that you drop the topic of nested hierarchies. You don't understand the concept and if you have been unable to learn this stuff in a year or so, it's not worth trying. There are other things in life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unacceptable discourse from Tom MH:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Tom MH >: He is so busy trying to confuse his perceived opponents that he succeeds in only confusing himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 09 2010,05:04

Sal Cordova is a modest chap:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm more qualified than Dawkins to understand the implications of his WEASEL program than he is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So go write a paper.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When evolutionary biologists step in the domain of information and computers, I feel I have equal if not better say on some matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So go write a paper.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I take exception to them saying I'm not entitled to criticize their ideas about the evolution of complexity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So go write a paper.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm more qualified to understand Yockey's work Information Theory and Molecular Biology than most biologists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So go write a paper.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not saying that my qualifications give me a right to be heard. What I am saying is their snooty attitude toward engineers only underscores weaknesses in Darwin's theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So go write a paper.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, with respect to peer-review (the topic of the post), I agree. If rejected by one journal, publish elsewhere and in other venues. No need to bitch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How many papers have you have rejected Sal?

< Slimebag. >
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 11 2010,07:55

< Thread-banned > at Telic Thoughts again. Here's the offending post:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz: Unfortunately, Reznick's study is unable to address non-random evolutionary mechanisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course he did. It's called natural selection.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: The rates are well within theoretical ranges.

chunkdz: Is there a maximum theoretical limit to evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course there are limits to the rate at which adaptations can spread in populations.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: This study shows the comparative fitness of guppies before and after several years of adaptive evolution in the wild demonstrating an actual change in the genotype.

chunkdz: And a similar study of pigs would also show evolutionary change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Feral pigs rapidly adapt to more closely resemble their wild ancestors when in the wild.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz: There is apparently something non-random driving morphological change under predation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's all sorts of non-random factors involved in evolution. The most important non-random factor is inheritance.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: What exactly do you think happens with endogenous evolution? Can you express it as a hypothesis with entailed predictions?

chunkdz: Fodor thinks it's still elusive, but compelling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, "No."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: The specific variation is often present within the population Chlorella Vulgaris. Selection makes it predominant, then optimizes resource utilization against susceptibility to predation.

chunkdz: The population was unicellular before the introduction of the predator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, but the trait is heritable and persistent even after selection is relaxed, and it took 10-20 generations for multicellularity to evolve, indicating it was not due to an environmental trigger. Just a bit of microevolution that lets cells clump together, but it shows how important a small change can be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chunkdz demonstrates the proper way to respond to arguments.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: That cable TV subscription is really paying off for you. Did you learn that from watching "Hogzilla" on Nat Geo?
...
Just a bit of endogenous evolution in response to predation. {After admitting that "endogenous evolution" can't be expresssed as a scientific hypothesis and entails no empirical predictions.}
...
BTW, three intentionally obtuse answers in one response earns you the "Most Boring Commenter of the Day" award and a one way ticket to threadbannage. So sorry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great argument, chunkdz! Thanks for the  opportunity to  respond, but banning people speaks for itself.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 11 2010,17:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz: Unfortunately, Reznick's study is unable to address non-random evolutionary mechanisms.

Zachriel: Of course he did. It's called natural selection.

chunkdz: Besides natural selection, as the authors said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is apparently what chunkdz is referring to:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Reznick et al. >: Some have argued that selection among individuals within populations (natural selection) cannot account for these large-scale trends in evolution. Specifically, Gould and Eldredge argue for the necessity of bursts of speciation followed by species selection to sustain the rapid change associated with punctuations in the fossil record. Our work cannot address the efficacy of mechanisms other than natural selection, but it extends our understanding of what is attainable through this process. It is part of a growing body of evidence that the rate and patterns of change attainable through natural selection are sufficient to account for the patterns observed in the fossil record.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What the authors refer to are large-scale trends and species selection.  However, it is quite clear that the authors directly measured the rate of evolution in the studied organisms. This doesn't directly speak directly to other evolutionary transitions, but as they say, it does lend support to the capabilities of natural selection.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: The rates are well within theoretical ranges.

chunkdz:  Is there a maximum theoretical limit to evolution?

Zachriel: Of course there are limits to the rate at which adaptations can spread in populations.

chunkdz: That wasn't the question. Please don't start with your usual obfuscations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zachriel's original statement referred to rates, which were the object of study in Reznick's paper. Chunkdz then asks if there are "limits to evolution," an ill-phrased question which was answered in terms of rates. There are all sorts of other limitations to evolution. If chunkdz wanted clarification, then all he had to do was rephrase his question.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz: There is apparently something non-random driving morphological change under predation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's all sorts of non-random mechanisms involved, but chunkdz is suggesting something called "endogenous evolution."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz: The question is whether the changes are from non-random endogenous evolutionary mechanism, or random mutations acted upon by natural selection.
...
Zachriel: What exactly do you think happens with endogenous evolution? Can you express it as a hypothesis with entailed predictions?

chunkdz: Fodor thinks it's still elusive, but compelling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the  answer is "No." Endogenous evolution can't be expressed as a hypothesis with entailed predictions. Elusive yes, compelling no.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 11 2010,21:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Zachriel quotes the first sentence of my response, but intentionally leaves out the very next sentence where I state unequivocally:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact, both issues were addressed. If it is boring, simply ignore the comments. You said it was obfuscation, to which the reply was



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: But it was an honest attempt to make sense of your quasi-scientific concept, "endogenous evolution," which you admitted can't be expressed as a hypothesis and entails no empirical predictions. Instead, you should have made some sort of attempt to define "endogenous evolution."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This not only directly addresses your complaint, but suggests a way to move the discussion forward.

Well, Telic Thoughts. You really need to decide if you are trying to have an open discussion, or just pretending. The answer is plain.
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 11 2010,21:33

Bradford has been conspicuously absent for the entire day.  Heh.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 11 2010,23:01

Zach, I can't speak to the popularity of thread-banning at TT these days. Heck, I didn't know chunk had the power to ban, but then, I haven't been around enough lately to know who's 'in' and who's 'out'.

But I can speak a little about the concept of endogenous evolution. That would include mechanisms of creative genetic expression suiting to adapt or overcome internal and environmental stress, as well as mechanisms for frame reading (moving over, substituting, piecing together) of genetic elements for the purpose of either tweaking product sequences (thus binding proclivities, configurations, etc.) or trying out new products. In the EAM model adaptation generally comes first in the process of living, and if successful adaptations are found (and 'marked' epigenetically), only later get encoded into the nuclear genome. This of course means there would have to be a write mechanism (genomes couldn't be read-only).

And there may also be a whole different form of recordkeeping that documents past adaptations and trials which could help guide present dynamics or provide a reversion to a previous version if one becomes necessary. Arabidopsis has demonstrated this capability of reversion to genes/gene expression suites of past generations NOT contained in the present generation. I haven't done the lab work, but I see the same sort of ability in some local plants stressed by kudzu. They're quite creative in altering their life cycle to get around the competition, even to changing color and size of blooms to attract alternative pollenators. Move them back to an unstressed environment and they revert at a significant rate in the next generation.

This is not to say accidents don't happen to genes and genomes, in the several ways already documented. Expression suites can get messed up by such accidents ('random' mutations), toxins and other environmental stresses, etc. During gestation these lead to developmental issues, during life they cause disease. One need only look at our immune system and ability to heal to see that the system continually attempts to right wrongs, though in the end it always fails from one thing or another. And it's no surprise that creative trial and error is fallible. Some solutions work, many don't. Life does usually put in a good effort, though.

An endogenous model would credit endogenous mechanisms for virtually all significant evolutionary developments over time. Which is reasonable, since so many systems are connected and highly coordinated. Consider something like big brains, which require changes in not just in the individual's morphology (skull), but the morphology (pelvic bones) and gestational period (neonateny) of the mother in order to happen at all. A coordination NOT confined to a single "hopeful monster," but to its mother as well. Worse, the genes for big brains came from the father. Looks to be a well coordinated development from a certain point of view...

You could find examples of this sort of thing if you looked. It would thus lend evolution a telic quality, at least as telic as life itself. And it would consider 'random' genetic damage a detriment to life and evolution - the cause of disease and suffering and death. Any 'random' accident that might prove useful (if indeed there are any that weren't really generated endogenously) would be so vanishingly rare as to be a non-consideration in the overall process of evolution.

I don't see this as so unreasonable. Don't even see it as unscientific, considering how complex the systems are and how little science really knows about them at this point in time. New discoveries are coming in at a quickening pace as our tools get more sophisticated, we're learning a lot. Will no doubt learn much more. Trying to force all of it into the RM-NS model just won't work if that's not where it belongs.

If an endogenous, teleologically oriented view of evolution allows some religious people to believe that their God/gods are guiding the process, what's it to you? Haven't we grown past the infantile stage where someone like Harlow Shapely can exert all his considerable "orthodox" clout to argue against letting the public know about the evidence that the universe had a beginning, just because it sounds too much like "Let There Be Light"? Isn't science risking its value to humanity with that kind of corruption and deception?

Can't we all just get along?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 12 2010,02:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Isn't science risking its value to humanity with that kind of corruption and deception?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As opposed to the corruption and deception propagated in the name of religion? I don't think so. Religion has created so much corruption and deception in it's time I'm surprised that people like Joy fail to realise that corruption in science pales in comparison. And yet people like Joy, with obvious agendas harp on about how poor science's ethics are without seeing the beam in their own eye.

Systematic abuse of children? Not scientists. Religion.
Preventing contraceptive use? Not scientists. Religion.
Against equality for women? Not scientists. Religion.

etc etc.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Can't we all just get along?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.

Religion has made that perfectly clear. We are either converted or we are worthless. We live by their moral rules or we are worthless sinners. We convert or our opinions are worthless. We convert or forget about being elected to positions of power.

Replace "Religion" with "some vague idea of telic nonsense that amounts to the same thing, ultimately" if preferred.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 12 2010,06:05

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 11 2010,23:01)
Zach, I can't speak to the popularity of thread-banning at TT these days. Heck, I didn't know chunk had the power to ban, but then, I haven't been around enough lately to know who's 'in' and who's 'out'.
----snip----
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy, this comment is exactly why physicist wannabes who don't understand evolutionary theory are guffaw-worthy.

There is nothing in your comment (e.g. reversion to another phenotype when the environment changes) that is incompatible with our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms. More pertinently, there is nothing in those observations that is evidence for teleology.

Wishful thinking is not science.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 12 2010,06:38

Thank you, Joy, for taking the time to explain "endogenous evolution."

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 11 2010,23:01)
That would include mechanisms of creative genetic expression suiting to adapt or overcome internal and environmental stress, as well as mechanisms for frame reading (moving over, substituting, piecing together) of genetic elements for the purpose of either tweaking product sequences (thus binding proclivities, configurations, etc.) or trying out new products.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are epigenetic mechanisms that have evolved to provide a suite of adaptations that can be called upon depending on a changeable environment. This is no more surprising that cell differentiation, and uses a similar mechanism.

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 11 2010,23:01)
In the EAM model adaptation generally comes first in the process of living, and if successful adaptations are found (and 'marked' epigenetically), only later get encoded into the nuclear genome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is some evidence that epigenetics may be able to adjust rates of evolution in segments of the genome. It is even conceivable that there is a write-back mechanism. Of course, the source of the epigenetic variations would presumably still be random with respect to fitness, though capable of faster evolution than genome evolution, and determining 'successful adaptations' would apparently still be through natural selection, i.e. success breeds success. In other words, it would still be consistent with Darwin's Theory of Evolution which didn't posit a mechanism of inheritance. It would be rather astonishing if Darwin's Pangenesis Theory turned out to be correct (even though there was no support for it when it was proposed). None of this is evidence for Intelligent Design, of course.

It seemed more as if "endogenous evolution" was like embryonic development, with the future more-or-less mapped out and unfolding according to plan. But that might just be the requisite equivocation necessary for Intelligent Design to exist.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,09:14

Albatrossity2:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy, this comment is exactly why physicist wannabes who don't understand evolutionary theory are guffaw-worthy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You know, I find it rather self-defeating (for wannabe mind-tyrants) to appeal to the esoteric complexity of evolutionary theory every time someone suspects that 'random' accidents sifted by the conditions of life in time isn't a good enough explanation for evolution. Given that RM-NS is precisely what the public has been taught for many decades as sufficient explanation for the evolution of life.

But do keep it up. It works very well to ensure the public continues to distrust "scientific elites." Which, I must presume, is your intent. Helps to keep science safely distanced from the Power business, where it has always done way more harm than good.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 12 2010,09:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is even conceivable that there is a write-back mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Violating the central dogma?

Any evidence for such a mechanism, or even a conjecture about how it would work?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 12 2010,09:54

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,09:14)
Albatrossity2:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy, this comment is exactly why physicist wannabes who don't understand evolutionary theory are guffaw-worthy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You know, I find it rather self-defeating (for wannabe mind-tyrants) to appeal to the esoteric complexity of evolutionary theory every time someone suspects that 'random' accidents sifted by the conditions of life in time isn't a good enough explanation for evolution. Given that RM-NS is precisely what the public has been taught for many decades as sufficient explanation for the evolution of life.

But do keep it up. It works very well to ensure the public continues to distrust "scientific elites." Which, I must presume, is your intent. Helps to keep science safely distanced from the Power business, where it has always done way more harm than good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it is completely self-defeating for folks who want to claim that they have new insights into biology to fail completely at understanding how their insights are, well, not.

Moreover it is difficult to generate sympathy for someone who erects a strawman (RM+NS is sufficient) and seemingly refuses to consider the breadth of evolutionary mechanisms now known.

If you have data, let's see 'em. If you have new explanations, let's hear 'em. But don't feign surprise or disappointment when you are challenged by someone who actually knows as much or more than you do. That's how science works. Deal with it rather than claiming persecution or invoking some conspiracy of the "scientific elites".
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,10:39

Zach:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are epigenetic mechanisms that have evolved to provide a suite of adaptations that can be called upon depending on a changeable environment. This is no more surprising that cell differentiation, and uses a similar mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, the source of the epigenetic variations would presumably still be random with respect to fitness, though capable of faster evolution than genome evolution, and determining 'successful adaptations' would apparently still be through natural selection, i.e. success breeds success. In other words, it would still be consistent with Darwin's Theory of Evolution which didn't posit a mechanism of inheritance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's this presumption that is at issue. Apart from SNPs, damage and errors, adaptive and evolutionary genomic developments may not be so random with regard to fitness (or anything else).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
None of this is evidence for Intelligent Design, of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How "intelligent" design may be is eternally arguable, like any metaphysical, philosophical or theological argument. Teleology does not require intelligence, depending upon how that word is defined, of course. For the most part, biologists have been adamant about restricting it to higher mammals. Though some birds are starting to encroach on the idea, which makes mincemeat of the also prevalent scientific notion that it takes a human-like brain in order to qualify.

Teleology merely indicates purpose. It takes some sophistication to add conscious intent to the mix, and even then you may not be all the way to intelligence. The label "Intelligent Design" is primarily a theological construct, to suggest a superior - and exterior - intelligence imposing design top-down. "Telic Design" can more easily be used to describe endogenous bottom-up design.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,11:01

Albatrossity2:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it is completely self-defeating for folks who want to claim that they have new insights into biology to fail completely at understanding how their insights are, well, not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't claim any 'new' insights. I'm just not buying the "dogma" [h/t midwifetoad]. Fortunately for me and every other member of the general public - you know, those 99+% of the population who are not practicing biologists - there is no legal, ethical or existential requirement that knees must bend to that dogma. All we have to do is regurgitate the requisite "RM-NS" for the test on that chapter, then we get to worry about the next chapter's requisite test answers.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Moreover it is difficult to generate sympathy for someone who erects a strawman (RM+NS is sufficient) and seemingly refuses to consider the breadth of evolutionary mechanisms now known.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, heavens! I surely don't want or need your sympathy, Al. Unlike a majority of other people who had a week or two of RM-NS in high school and never bothered with it again, I have followed developments in evolutionary research so as to keep myself generally up on this fascinating subject. For a non-biologist I've got a fair grasp of how things are going. And am looking forward to new developments as they come in. Including theoretical developments, since there's some increasing dissent in the ranks of late against the dogma of orthodoxy. Fun to keep track of, as are such in-house challenges to orthodoxy in other scientific fields. Science being an adversarial construct, after all.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But don't feign surprise or disappointment when you are challenged by someone who actually knows as much or more than you do. That's how science works. Deal with it rather than claiming persecution or invoking some conspiracy of the "scientific elites".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL!!! You're quite the fine example. Love the circular, multi-fallacious argumentation!

I am not surprised, I am not disappointed, and I am certainly not jealous of your ever-so superior intelligence and absolute knowledge. I'm dealing just fine, thanks. Neither persecuted nor paranoid, merely amused.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 12 2010,11:23

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,11:01)
Albatrossity2:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it is completely self-defeating for folks who want to claim that they have new insights into biology to fail completely at understanding how their insights are, well, not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't claim any 'new' insights. I'm just not buying the "dogma" [h/t midwifetoad]. Fortunately for me and every other member of the general public - you know, those 99+% of the population who are not practicing biologists - there is no legal, ethical or existential requirement that knees must bend to that dogma. All we have to do is regurgitate the requisite "RM-NS" for the test on that chapter, then we get to worry about the next chapter's requisite test answers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And your reasons for "just not buying" are not scientific, just so you know. Furthermore your strawman is duly noted - nobody said you have to "bend to the dogma". What is being said, and continually ignored, is that challenges to the current paradigm must be scientific, or they will be rightfully mocked. As is the case in all modern science, the dogma will bend to the data. You have no data, so you rail against the dogma as if that was a useful way to change anything.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unlike a majority of other people who had a week or two of RM-NS in high school and never bothered with it again, I have followed developments in evolutionary research so as to keep myself generally up on this fascinating subject. For a non-biologist I've got a fair grasp of how things are going.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you don't. You're deluding yourself, but not others. You're looking for things to jibe with your presuppositions, and ignoring just about everything else. That's not a "fair grasp"; it's just cherry-picking.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And am looking forward to new developments as they come in. Including theoretical developments, since there's some increasing dissent in the ranks of late against the dogma of orthodoxy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there isn't anything of the sort. There is expansion of our knowledge (particularly with regard to mechanisms), but absolutely none of it remotely challenges the basic principles laid down by Darwin. It merely enhances it. If that is "dissent", I need a new dictionary. If you really think that this is true, please provide an example of this "dissent".
Posted by: Tom Ames on Feb. 12 2010,12:45

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,09:01)
Albatrossity2:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it is completely self-defeating for folks who want to claim that they have new insights into biology to fail completely at understanding how their insights are, well, not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't claim any 'new' insights. I'm just not buying the "dogma" [h/t midwifetoad]. Fortunately for me and every other member of the general public - you know, those 99+% of the population who are not practicing biologists - there is no legal, ethical or existential requirement that knees must bend to that dogma. All we have to do is regurgitate the requisite "RM-NS" for the test on that chapter, then we get to worry about the next chapter's requisite test answers.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Moreover it is difficult to generate sympathy for someone who erects a strawman (RM+NS is sufficient) and seemingly refuses to consider the breadth of evolutionary mechanisms now known.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, heavens! I surely don't want or need your sympathy, Al. Unlike a majority of other people who had a week or two of RM-NS in high school and never bothered with it again, I have followed developments in evolutionary research so as to keep myself generally up on this fascinating subject. For a non-biologist I've got a fair grasp of how things are going. And am looking forward to new developments as they come in. Including theoretical developments, since there's some increasing dissent in the ranks of late against the dogma of orthodoxy. Fun to keep track of, as are such in-house challenges to orthodoxy in other scientific fields. Science being an adversarial construct, after all.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But don't feign surprise or disappointment when you are challenged by someone who actually knows as much or more than you do. That's how science works. Deal with it rather than claiming persecution or invoking some conspiracy of the "scientific elites".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL!!! You're quite the fine example. Love the circular, multi-fallacious argumentation!

I am not surprised, I am not disappointed, and I am certainly not jealous of your ever-so superior intelligence and absolute knowledge. I'm dealing just fine, thanks. Neither persecuted nor paranoid, merely amused.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy,

I think the main problem many of us have with the EAM idea is that it invokes a much more complicated but wholly undescribed and unspecified internal force when, in fact, the external forces of the environment look (modulo the things we don't fully understand yet) like they may be sufficient.

Furthermore, there's this idea that biologists are clinging against all evidence and theory to the "dogma" of evolution as currently understood. This is simply false, as a passing familiarity with the literature would demonstrate.

There's a parallel with Group Selection: a lovely idea that ran counter to the "dogma" that NS acts upon individuals. Despite the heterodoxy of the idea, there was a huge amount of discussion and experimentation about it in the 60s. It turned out that the processes of individual selection can account for the apparent process of group selection, which was then better understood as a kind of epiphenomenon.

To invoke group selection, in other words, was to posit a process for which there was no known mechanism, and which was also unnecessary as an explanation of the observations. Note that the research did get done, and by smart people, many of whom were motivated to try to demonstrate that individual selection was NOT sufficient. That is, the challengers to the orthodox picture were "allowed" to propose a testable model of their proposed process. (Of course, they needed no permission, and there would have been no-one to grant it if they did. Science is not a monolithic power structure, contra many internet conspiricist's claims.)

Back in the old ARN days I frequently brought up actual research with EAM's leading proponent, mturner. Every time I did so, he refused to engage at that level, preferring to fall back on dictionary definitions and the like as being the more egalitarian source of knowledge.

Well, that's not good enough. This is a technical field, and the intuitions of 99.9% of the population do not counter the evidence that is found by people who do the research. It may not be PC to recognize the fact, but expertise matters. And if someone proposes a world-changing concept, it's incumbent upon them to figure out how to test it. Not to shout "elitism" and pretend that they're being suppressed.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 12 2010,13:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't claim any 'new' insights. I'm just not buying the "dogma" [h/t midwifetoad].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If you are going to invoke my precious screen name, at least be clear about your intended meaning.

I asked if there is any evidence for a write-back mechanism, or any conjecture about how it would work.

Midwifetoad is something of an icon in the annals of Lamarckianism.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,13:03

Albatrossity2:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And your reasons for "just not buying" are not scientific, just so you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course my motivations aren't scientific, Al. I'm not a scientist hoping to convince my colleagues that I know more than them, nor am I vying for a Nobel Prize. I'm just a schmuck out here in the real world watching the show with great interest, because I find it fascinating. I believe I've mentioned this several times in the past few days.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As is the case in all modern science, the dogma will bend to the data. You have no data, so you rail against the dogma as if that was a useful way to change anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course the dogma will fall to reality and new information. In the end, it always does. Though this has been known to take centuries or many decades, depending on how entrenched the dogma being challenged happens to be. The Darwinian dogma is deeply entrenched due to its accompanying philosophical and political baggage, so it's taking many decades even as new and challenging discoveries are coming in at an amazing rate. That's what makes this particular field's revolution so fascinating.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're looking for things to jibe with your presuppositions, and ignoring just about everything else. That's not a "fair grasp"; it's just cherry-picking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course it's cherry-picking to preconceived notions. Though my notions have been known to change on occasion with new evidence. Isn't that what's supposed to happen? I'm not ignoring the dogma, though. I'm rooting for it to be overturned by sheer accumulation of anomalies. I like anomalies. I believe I've mentioned that at least once in the last few days as well.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, there isn't anything of the sort [dissent in the ranks]. There is expansion of our knowledge (particularly with regard to mechanisms), but absolutely none of it remotely challenges the basic principles laid down by Darwin. It merely enhances it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gee, that's funny. A simple Google search on the keywords "challenge central dogma darwinism" returns nearly 40,000 sources. Many of those are from the creationist/id and Teabagger contingents, but many more are from scientific literature or press coverage of that. Allain Bussard writing in Nature calls the discovery that prions encode hereditary information < a "scientific revolution" >. Philip Ball in Seed mentions the Arabidopsis anomaly in the context of recent discoveries about RNA also calls it < a "revolution" >. Susan Mazur's piece on the < Altenberg Summit > describes the situation of increasing dissent thusly:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: "ham-fisted", "looney Marxist hangover", "secular creationist", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "quack", "crackpot"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good description of what passes for discussion around here, for sure! Seems it's happening in-house as well. Mazur is no slouch herself, calling evolution an "industry of greed," she claims the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, and that self-assembly is real. She labels the endeavor an "evolution remix." But the conference was held last summer and I've seen no announcement of what this revolutionary remix looks like. Have you?

Perhaps you don't consider Animal House tactics engaged by a scientific industry of greed and oversized egos to amount to dissent. And maybe you don't consider scientific revolutions to be the least bit revolutionary. But some other scientists obviously don't agree. It all looks like a good knock-down drag-out to me, and I've got plenty of popcorn. §;o)
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,13:19

Tom Ames:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, that's not good enough. This is a technical field, and the intuitions of 99.9% of the population do not counter the evidence that is found by people who do the research. It may not be PC to recognize the fact, but expertise matters. And if someone proposes a world-changing concept, it's incumbent upon them to figure out how to test it. Not to shout "elitism" and pretend that they're being suppressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi, Tom. I vaguely recall some of your back and forth with Mike, mostly as being somewhat civil. Here you express much the same problem with the idea of endogenously generated adaptation and evolution - it's not "scientific" enough for your tastes.

Which would be a valid complaint if EAM were a scientific theory vying to replace Darwinism/Neodarwinism or whatever they'll call their remix when they're done incorporating the anomalous and incoming evidence. But it's not. It's a semantic formalization of a concept of bottom-up, self-organized evolution from 'civilians' interested in evolution and biology's researches bearing on evolution.

Thus it needs no rigorous scientific defense to any critical review panel of scientists, no exhaustive citations of supporting research, no succinct mathematical formulas to describe the processes, no lengthy list of co-authors or establishment supporters. It does, however, offer some general predictions about where evolutionary biology will be somewhere down the road after the dust from this 'revolution' clears.

At which point, if any of us are still alive or still care when it's over, we shall all see how good the predictions were, won't we? §;o)
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,13:23

midwifetoad:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are going to invoke my precious screen name, at least be clear about your intended meaning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It was a simple, bracketed aside referring to your mention < here > of the "central dogma." I know what the midwife toad refers to. You're the one who chose it as your user name, not me.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 12 2010,13:27

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,13:03)
Albatrossity2:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And your reasons for "just not buying" are not scientific, just so you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course my motivations aren't scientific, Al. I'm not a scientist hoping to convince my colleagues that I know more than them, nor am I vying for a Nobel Prize. I'm just a schmuck out here in the real world watching the show with great interest, because I find it fascinating. I believe I've mentioned this several times in the past few days.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As is the case in all modern science, the dogma will bend to the data. You have no data, so you rail against the dogma as if that was a useful way to change anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course the dogma will fall to reality and new information. In the end, it always does. Though this has been known to take centuries or many decades, depending on how entrenched the dogma being challenged happens to be. The Darwinian dogma is deeply entrenched due to its accompanying philosophical and political baggage, so it's taking many decades even as new and challenging discoveries are coming in at an amazing rate. That's what makes this particular field's revolution so fascinating.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're looking for things to jibe with your presuppositions, and ignoring just about everything else. That's not a "fair grasp"; it's just cherry-picking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course it's cherry-picking to preconceived notions. Though my notions have been known to change on occasion with new evidence. Isn't that what's supposed to happen? I'm not ignoring the dogma, though. I'm rooting for it to be overturned by sheer accumulation of anomalies. I like anomalies. I believe I've mentioned that at least once in the last few days as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least you admit to cherry-picking. That necessarily also means that your self-described familiarity with the science is, as we all can see for ourselves, somewhat spotty. Thanks for making that point so cogently for me.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gee, that's funny. A simple Google search on the keywords "challenge central dogma darwinism" returns nearly 40,000 sources. Many of those are from the creationist/id and Teabagger contingents, but many more are from scientific literature or press coverage of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, that's funny, IDiots and creationists, who have no replacement theory other than think/poof, think that evolution is in crisis. That's quite a change from "dissent within the scientific community", in case you didn't notice.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Allain Bussard writing in Nature calls the discovery that prions encode hereditary information < a "scientific revolution" >. Philip Ball in Seed mentions the Arabidopsis anomaly in the context of recent discoveries about RNA also calls it < a "revolution" >. Susan Mazur's piece on the < Altenberg Summit > describes the situation of increasing dissent thusly:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: "ham-fisted", "looney Marxist hangover", "secular creationist", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "quack", "crackpot"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good description of what passes for discussion around here, for sure! Seems it's happening in-house as well. Mazur is no slouch herself, calling evolution an "industry of greed," she claims the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, and that self-assembly is real. She labels the endeavor an "evolution remix." But the conference was held last summer and I've seen no announcement of what this revolutionary remix looks like. Have you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is also duly noted that all of the things that you characterize as "dissent" are nothing of the sort. They are discoveries that merely extend our understanding of how the world works, and don't even remotely threaten to change the basics of evolutionary theory. As for Susan Mazur's description, which you characterize as "dissent", well, it ain't nothing of the sort. I'm also having a hard time with that whizzing goalpost that turned from "dissent" to "greed". Read < this > for an excellent take-down of her hysteria. Or if that's TL:DR, here's a snippet.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But in the land of cranks & ID/creationists, the Altenberg 16 meeting has become the latest bit of evidence that evolution is a theory in crisis. The primary person who got the crazy-train going was “journalist” Suzan Mazur, who has written a series of stories that mis-portray almost everyone and everything involved and, no matter what her interviewees tell her, end up with the inevitable conclusion that evolution is on its last legs. No one seriously informed would pay attention to this kind of schlock, but ID/creationists will jump on anything with a vestige of credibility
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You seem to have found a kindred spirit: another cherry-picker.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 12 2010,13:41

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,13:23)
midwifetoad:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are going to invoke my precious screen name, at least be clear about your intended meaning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It was a simple, bracketed aside referring to your mention < here > of the "central dogma." I know what the midwife toad refers to. You're the one who chose it as your user name, not me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darwinism is not the "central dogma."

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology >

Screen names can be ironic.

Yours, for example.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 12 2010,13:47

Don't worry Joy, I made you this:



Go get 'em!
Posted by: Robin on Feb. 12 2010,14:11

[quote=Joy,Feb. 12 2010,13:03][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mazur is no slouch herself,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh don't sell her so short; she's a a huge slouch.  'bout as effective in making ID and creationism look silly as Dembski in fact. Her piece on the Altenberg 16 was about as disjointed and uninformative as the current ramblings of Charles Manson. Well ok...and Manson's earlier ramblings.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps you don't consider Animal House tactics engaged by a scientific industry of greed and oversized egos to amount to dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Two problems here: 1) by definition Animal House tactics engaged in by any group is NOT by definition, dissent. I'm not even sure why you'd think otherwise. 2) What dissent? Mazur doesn't provide any evidence or even actual anecdotes on such. She provides random quotes from (mostly) a group of philosophers of science from a fairly obscure workgroup. How does this represent dissent in the WHOLE of the scientific (or even just biology for that matter) community?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And maybe you don't consider scientific revolutions to be the least bit revolutionary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, the term revolution used by scientific news reporting outlets merely refers to some breakthrough or new understanding, not an actual overturning of some major theory. Go ahead - read the actual articles you referenced. I'll wait. Find a reference to an actual - complete - Scientific Theory Revolution? I didn't think so.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But some other scientists obviously don't agree. It all looks like a good knock-down drag-out to me, and I've got plenty of popcorn. §;o)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, so long as you're entertained I suppose it doesn't much matter whether your undestanding of the entertainment is accurate or not. Enjoy.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,14:13

midwifetoad:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinism is not the "central dogma."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I never said it was.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yours, for example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How positively infantile of you. If you have a problem with my name you'd have to take it up with my parents. Who are both dead, so don't expect any apologies from them.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 12 2010,14:42

At least they had a sense of humor. Recessive trait, apparently.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,14:52

Robin:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Find a reference to an actual - complete - Scientific Theory Revolution? I didn't think so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, I simply clicked on three links provided on page one of the Google search, to demonstrate that some scientists predict a "revolution" in evolutionary theory because even the last revision of Darwin's simplistic RM-NS (known as the 'synthesis') is grossly insufficient to describe what is now known and becoming known. The Mazur piece was quite entertaining. My reference to her being "no slouch" referred to her prowess in the insult department, since she was complaining about insults and all...

But you are right in certain respects. Whatever the 'new' end product theory looks like, it's still going to be a theory of evolution. Just as the final victory of the big bangers over Hoyle's defensive (against GR) steady state was still a cosmological theory. In the rarified halls of ivory towers there are still some hold-outs for steady state (of one version or another), but the consensus finally flipped in 1964 with confirmation of CMB radiation. But I'm sure you wouldn't consider that an actual overturning of any actual major scientific theory.

The way it happened out in the public educational sphere was simply a matter of re-writing the textbooks. I changed schools in 1965 from New York to Oklahoma. New York's old science textbooks taught as "received scientific wisdom and fact" (the way such things are taught to rowdy teenagers) that the universe was eternal and forever self-creating. The new textbooks in Oklahoma for the very same general science course simply taught as "received scientific wisdom and fact" that the universe began with a big bang from singularity some billions of years ago. Questions about the material were highly discouraged in both classes, so I kept my amusement to myself. My father had been a big banger since the '40s, I grew up aware of the inevitable 'revolution'.

So it will be with evolutionary theory. Textbooks are already changing, the simplistic Darwinian pablum is no longer offered as "received scientific wisdom and fact." One of these days a different theory will hold the 'current' pages, but Darwin will still be mentioned on the historical sidebar where he belongs. It'll still be about evolution.

And thanks. I'm enjoying the hoopla very much.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 12 2010,15:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I changed schools in 1965 from New York to Oklahoma. New York's old science textbooks taught as "received scientific wisdom and fact" (the way such things are taught to rowdy teenagers) that the universe was eternal and forever self-creating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting. When I ask somone to cite an actual reference (title, year of publication and page number) for claims like that, they usually have some excuse why they can't do it.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 12 2010,16:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Cease the discussions on nested hierarchies while on my threads. It is off topic and going nowhere anyway. This thread is closed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm. From the original post:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: This remark reminded me of the ongoing feud between Zachriel and ID guy over nested hierarchies...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bradford's exasperation is understandable, but his stated reasons for closing the thread are only partially correct. No, the discussion was not off-topic. Yes, the discussion was going nowhere.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,16:18

Yeah. Mine is that I never owned my junior high school science textbooks, so I don't have them 45 years later. But you are of course perfectly free to doubt that public school science textbooks would mention theories current among scientists when the book is written.

[/forehead slap] This is just dumb. Surely you can think up an insulting come-back with a worthier hook. Care to try again?
Posted by: Tom Ames on Feb. 12 2010,16:19

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,11:19)
Hi, Tom. I vaguely recall some of your back and forth with Mike, mostly as being somewhat civil. Here you express much the same problem with the idea of endogenously generated adaptation and evolution - it's not "scientific" enough for your tastes.

Which would be a valid complaint if EAM were a scientific theory vying to replace Darwinism/Neodarwinism or whatever they'll call their remix when they're done incorporating the anomalous and incoming evidence. But it's not. It's a semantic formalization of a concept of bottom-up, self-organized evolution from 'civilians' interested in evolution and biology's researches bearing on evolution.

Thus it needs no rigorous scientific defense to any critical review panel of scientists, no exhaustive citations of supporting research, no succinct mathematical formulas to describe the processes, no lengthy list of co-authors or establishment supporters. It does, however, offer some general predictions about where evolutionary biology will be somewhere down the road after the dust from this 'revolution' clears.

At which point, if any of us are still alive or still care when it's over, we shall all see how good the predictions were, won't we? §;o)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See, to me this sounds fundamentally dishonest. It's like the snake oil salesman who strongly implies that his Ultra-Pure Colloidal Silver Water will cure cancer but who, when asked for evidence to back up the claims says "whoa, I'm not claiming THAT! I'm just telling you what my customers have experienced".

On one hand we're asked to incorporate an undefined, unspecified force deriving from within the organism as part of our model for how evolutionary change happens. When we (as scientists are wont to do) ask "why should I accept that?" we're told that this isn't really a scientific claim, so none of the practices that we apply to keep from misleading ourselves (such as peer review, statistical tests, etc.) are necessary.

Does the idea behind EAM (a mere "semantic formalization") have any connection to modern biology? Are there any predictions (about the biology rather than about the state of the field as a social-political entity) that it makes that we can test?

Why do the "civilians" who promote it insist on ignoring any evidence that does not support the idea? Why are real examples of how the field of evolution really changes in response to data--examples such as the one I gave about group selection--ignored in favor of another reiteration of the Suppression by Big Science myth?

Why should the civilian's--or the dilettante's--judgment about the state of the field of biology with respect to evolution be given more credence than that of the biologists who work in the field? Can it really be that populist sentiment trumps the expertise that comes from long years of hard study? Or that direct experience in a field is trumped by a google search?

I'm a cancer biologist. My field has undergone tremendous paradigmatic changes in the last 50 years. But these changes have never--NEVER--come from people who haven't spent big chunks of time mastering a complex literature.

It takes more than a passing familiarity with a field to take that field in a new direction. I guess the fact that anyone should think otherwise could be seen as a testament to our populist ideals. But I'd rather have a populace that understands how science really works, and how much effort and expertise it really takes to break new ground.




Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 12 2010,16:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: This gets to the previous point which Zachriel tried to dodge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The rate is limited by natural variation and by the rate at which traits can spread through a population.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Reznick, et. al. "Our work cannot address the efficacy of mechanisms other than natural selection"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A quote taken out of context, as < explained above. >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
KC: In addition, the availability of enough genetic variation to meet the adaptive need quickly via recombination is another plausible explanation for the populational response.

< chunkdz >: Perhaps, but I have yet to see a step by step explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a whole field dedicated to that step-by-step explanation. It's called population genetics.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: But if we consider the fact that a pig under predation undergoes much more dramatic evolution irrespective of natural selection or recombination, then we can't really assume that a guppy is evolving solely because of natural selection, can we?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does that mean, a pig under predation ... irrespective of natural selection or recombination?
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 12 2010,16:31

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 12 2010,16:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: But if we consider the fact that a pig under predation undergoes much more dramatic evolution irrespective of natural selection or recombination, then we can't really assume that a guppy is evolving solely because of natural selection, can we?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does that mean, a pig under predation ... irrespective of natural selection or recombination?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay. < Acipenser > is making pork sausage out of chunkdz's pig story.
Posted by: Tom Ames on Feb. 12 2010,16:35

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,12:52)
So it will be with evolutionary theory. Textbooks are already changing, the simplistic Darwinian pablum is no longer offered as "received scientific wisdom and fact."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


History textbooks have also changed, no longer offering the simplistic notion that Manifest Destiny motivated the Civilization of the natives of North America by the benevolent colonizers. The fact that the modern view of American history as taught to high-schoolers differs from that of the 19th century doesn't change the fact that certain events happened, even down to their details.

(I'd appreciate it if you would read a book like Michael Lynch's "The Origins of Genome Architecture" and then tell if you still think that current evolutionary theory--still grounded firmly in the concept of RM-NS--is "simplistic".)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 12 2010,16:53

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 12 2010,16:19)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,11:19)
Hi, Tom. I vaguely recall some of your back and forth with Mike, mostly as being somewhat civil. Here you express much the same problem with the idea of endogenously generated adaptation and evolution - it's not "scientific" enough for your tastes.

Which would be a valid complaint if EAM were a scientific theory vying to replace Darwinism/Neodarwinism or whatever they'll call their remix when they're done incorporating the anomalous and incoming evidence. But it's not. It's a semantic formalization of a concept of bottom-up, self-organized evolution from 'civilians' interested in evolution and biology's researches bearing on evolution.

Thus it needs no rigorous scientific defense to any critical review panel of scientists, no exhaustive citations of supporting research, no succinct mathematical formulas to describe the processes, no lengthy list of co-authors or establishment supporters. It does, however, offer some general predictions about where evolutionary biology will be somewhere down the road after the dust from this 'revolution' clears.

At which point, if any of us are still alive or still care when it's over, we shall all see how good the predictions were, won't we? §;o)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See, to me this sounds fundamentally dishonest. It's like the snake oil salesman who strongly implies that his Ultra-Pure Colloidal Silver Water will cure cancer but who, when asked for evidence to back up the claims says "whoa, I'm not claiming THAT! I'm just telling you what my customers have experienced".

On one hand we're asked to incorporate an undefined, unspecified force deriving from within the organism as part of our model for how evolutionary change happens. When we (as scientists are wont to do) ask "why should I accept that?" we're told that this isn't really a scientific claim, so none of the practices that we apply to keep from misleading ourselves (such as peer review, statistical tests, etc.) are necessary.

Does the idea behind EAM (a mere "semantic formalization") have any connection to modern biology? Are there any predictions (about the biology rather than about the state of the field as a social-political entity) that it makes that we can test?

Why do the "civilians" who promote it insist on ignoring any evidence that does not support the idea? Why are real examples of how the field of evolution really changes in response to data--examples such as the one I gave about group selection--ignored in favor of another reiteration of the Suppression by Big Science myth?

Why should the civilian's--or the dilettante's--judgment about the state of the field of biology with respect to evolution be given more credence than that of the biologists who work in the field? Can it really be that populist sentiment trumps the expertise that comes from long years of hard study? Or that direct experience in a field is trumped by a google search?

I'm a cancer biologist. My field has undergone tremendous paradigmatic changes in the last 50 years. But these changes have never--NEVER--come from people who haven't spent big chunks of time mastering a complex literature.

It takes more than a passing familiarity with a field to take that field in a new direction. I guess the fact that anyone should think otherwise could be seen as a testament to our populist ideals. But I'd rather have a populace that understands how science really works, and how much effort and expertise it really takes to break new ground.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


POTW.
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 12 2010,17:32

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,14:52)
But you are right in certain respects. Whatever the 'new' end product theory looks like, it's still going to be a theory of evolution. Just as the final victory of the big bangers over Hoyle's defensive (against GR) steady state was still a cosmological theory. In the rarified halls of ivory towers there are still some hold-outs for steady state (of one version or another), but the consensus finally flipped in 1964 with confirmation of CMB radiation. But I'm sure you wouldn't consider that an actual overturning of any actual major scientific theory.

The way it happened out in the public educational sphere was simply a matter of re-writing the textbooks. I changed schools in 1965 from New York to Oklahoma. New York's old science textbooks taught as "received scientific wisdom and fact" (the way such things are taught to rowdy teenagers) that the universe was eternal and forever self-creating. The new textbooks in Oklahoma for the very same general science course simply taught as "received scientific wisdom and fact" that the universe began with a big bang from singularity some billions of years ago. Questions about the material were highly discouraged in both classes, so I kept my amusement to myself. My father had been a big banger since the '40s, I grew up aware of the inevitable 'revolution'.

So it will be with evolutionary theory. Textbooks are already changing, the simplistic Darwinian pablum is no longer offered as "received scientific wisdom and fact." One of these days a different theory will hold the 'current' pages, but Darwin will still be mentioned on the historical sidebar where he belongs. It'll still be about evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This story didn't sound right, so I went upstairs to a library room where we have some dusty old textbooks and fished out Leighton's 1959 Principles of Modern Physics, a college course for physics majors.  

In Ch. 21-3, The Formation of the Elements, Leighton wrote:  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Until relatively recently most theories of the formation of the elements have placed great emphasis upon the fact that several lines of evidence seem to point to a cataclysmic "beginning" of the universe as we know it, about 5 x 10^9 years ago.  Foremost among these indications is that of the "red shift" of the galaxies, in which the light now reaching us from a distant galaxy appears systematically reddened by an amount proportional to its apparent distance, and independent of its direction from us.  If this reddening is interpreted as a Doppler shift, one concludes that the nebulae are in a state of homogeneous, isotropic expansion; and if thos expansion is extrapolated backwards in time one finds that some 5 to 10 x 10^9 years ago the galaxies would have been much more densely packed than they are now.  The further fact that the earth and the meteorites are of substantially this same age is taken as a strong indication that the elements were formed in an explosive, prestellar state of the universe a few billion years ago.  Several attempts have been made to interpret the present relative abundances of the nuclides in terms of the short-term action of known nuclear processes within a hot, dense, expanding protouniverse, and a subsequent modification by the radioactive decay of the many unstable species formed in this relatively sudden process.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a clear reference to the big bang theory.  I searched the book for any mention of Hoyle's steady state hypothesis and found no mention of it.  If Hoyle's theory was indeed "received scientific wisdom and fact," why would Leighton even mention the alternative theory that was presumably out of favor?
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,17:47

Tom Ames:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See, to me this sounds fundamentally dishonest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks for the extended civility.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On one hand we're asked to incorporate an undefined, unspecified force deriving from within the organism as part of our model for how evolutionary change happens. When we (as scientists are wont to do) ask "why should I accept that?" we're told that this isn't really a scientific claim, so none of the practices that we apply to keep from misleading ourselves (such as peer review, statistical tests, etc.) are necessary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, for Pete's sake! Get off your cross, Tom. I haven't asked you or anybody else to do anything whatsoever. Nada, zilch, zero. I decided to offer EAM - a round view of endogenous evolution - on this thread because Zach complained that chunk didn't explain what HE means by endogenous evolution over at TT (before summarily banning Zach from the thread). Take it or leave it, no skin off my teeth.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do the "civilians" who promote it insist on ignoring any evidence that does not support the idea?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What evidence have you got that would make me believe evolution is a magical odds-defying outside force acting upon hapless clay? Oh... hapless insentient clay, since consciousness is just an illusion hapless clay is forced by the external environmental-god of evolution (named "improbable coincidence happening over and over again," or ICHOOA, and no, that's not onomatopoeic for a sneeze) to think it owns, because it thinks it can think thanks to ICHOOA because... um... shit happens.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why are real examples of how the field of evolution really changes in response to data--examples such as the one I gave about group selection--ignored in favor of another reiteration of the Suppression by Big Science myth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've got no problem with group selection. Seems a reasonable inclusion in all things selective per what gets into (and stays) in the gene pool and what gets killed off. It's just that selection (any sub-heading) is not the creative engine of evolution. It's just a sieve, and it can only sift what exists to be sifted. EAM is about the engine, not the governor on the carburetor.

Moreover, I certainly do NOT feel the least bit of "Suppression by Big Science," as Big Science hasn't anywhere near enough power to suppress me on this subject - I outrank the lot of 'em in all pertinent matters of right to believe as I choose. Now, one or more of you regulars can lobby to have me banned, and if successful that would qualify as suppression of my voice in this forum, but since you aren't Big Science, what would that prove other than that you feel threatened by what I say? Distinctly unimpressive as a display of power, let me tell ya... extreme sheepherding is MUCH more awe-inspiring!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should the civilian's--or the dilettante's--judgment about the state of the field of biology with respect to evolution be given more credence than that of the biologists who work in the field? Can it really be that populist sentiment trumps the expertise that comes from long years of hard study? Or that direct experience in a field is trumped by a google search?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd never expect the opinions of non-scientists to govern scientific theory or the beliefs of any scientist working in the fields. Never said I did, you've just constructed a grand scarecrow to represent your own insecurities and hung a sign around its neck that reads "Joy." Nobody will be surprised when you lynch it from the nearest live oak and set it on fire. I have always maintained, in all forums to the subject of evolution I've ever posted in, that science will eventually, inevitably, follow the evidence wherever it leads. Even if there ends up being an intervening dark age. It simply might take awhile, and given the state of sociopolitics these days and the possibility of that dark age, it might take more than awhile. That would be a shame, but... shit happens. History demonstrates so.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm a cancer biologist. My field has undergone tremendous paradigmatic changes in the last 50 years. But these changes have never--NEVER--come from people who haven't spent big chunks of time mastering a complex literature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Good for you. I am a cancer survivor. Spontaneous remission, back in the days when there were no "cancer biologists" other than those mostly military flunkies busy documenting the epidemic effects of atmospheric bomb testing (using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as their body of complex material to master). I was only seven, so I hadn't spent big chunks of time mastering much of anything.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I'd rather have a populace that understands how science really works, and how much effort and expertise it really takes to break new ground.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd rather have a well educated populace too. A shame that the Department of Education in this country doesn't agree, unless by education you mean not being able to making change for a dollar or find California on a map. I grew up in a scientific household around scientists who didn't mind opining when kids were present. I went into science because I liked it so much. So did two of my sisters and my brother (other sister went into medicine). That's why I know that eventually, inevitably, science will follow the evidence wherever it leads. Even if where it leads doesn't look like RM-NS.

It's all just grist for the thought-mill, so please stop with scarecrow lynching. Every time I drop into this site I am instantly reminded of why it's a waste of bandwidth. Always the same kind of back-slapping and fart jokes anyone could find on any of a few million rudie-boy rave sites on the 'net. I strongly suspect at least a few of you could do much better if you tried. Why not try?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 12 2010,18:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you are of course perfectly free to doubt that public school science textbooks would mention theories current among scientists when the book is written.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But that bears no resemblance to your claim that mid 1960s textbooks presented a steady state universe as "fact." ("the universe was eternal and forever self-creating")

I seem to be about the same age and was a Scientific American junkie and reader of folks like Gamow. I distinctly recall three cosmological theories, each presented as possible: the steady state theory, the oscillating universe, and the one shot big bang.

By 1970, the steady state universe was dead. I doubt if it was ever presented as fact in any high school text. I'll bet money on that.

Unless it was church affiliated text.
Posted by: Tom Ames on Feb. 12 2010,18:13

Joy,

I think that you could have chosen to read my post in the spirit in which it was written, that is, as a serious attempt to engage with an idea I disagree with.

Instead you've taken EVERY SINGLE POINT I made and interpreted it as a personal attack upon yourself. Even my comment about the changing paradigms in the field of cancer biology was turned into some kind of personal reflection on yourself.

My point that maybe biologists know more about the status evolutionary theory has among scientists--contra your google results--was interpreted, QUITE bizarrely, as an attempt to lynch you in effigy.

It really seems to me that you're being overly touchy and defensive. Too bad--I would have liked to continue this discussion.


Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 12 2010,18:23

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 12 2010,19:13)
Joy,

I think that you could have chosen to read my post in the spirit in which it was written, that is, as a serious attempt to engage with an idea I disagree with.

Instead you've taken EVERY SINGLE POINT I made and interpreted it as a personal attack upon yourself. Even my comment about the changing paradigms in the field of cancer biology was turned into some kind of personal reflection on yourself.

My point that maybe biologists know more about the status evolutionary theory has among scientists--contra your google results--was interpreted, QUITE bizarrely, as an attempt to lynch you in effigy.

It really seems to me that you're being overly touchy and defensive. Too bad--I would have liked to continue this discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There may be no joy in Mudville, but there's always plenty of mud in Joyville.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,18:27

olegt:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This story didn't sound right, so I went upstairs to a library room where we have some dusty old textbooks and fished out Leighton's 1959 Principles of Modern Physics, a college course for physics majors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ROTFLOL!!!! [wipes eyes] Oh, golly Oleg! I realize you may not have gone to primary school in this country - heck, you might even be a genius who went straight to college from kindergarten for all I know. But since when is a college physics textbook equivalent in any conceivable way to an 8th grade general science textbook? That's literally hilarious, I mean it.

Dad was a physicist. I already knew about evidence in favor of the big bang, and believed that was the cosmological story (but mostly because Daddy believed it, I admit - I was 14 in 1965 when the new books came out, not all school districts change their books every year here in America).

Of course college physics courses were teaching about evidence for BB, which had been coming in steadily since the 1930s!

To give you a glimpse of what science education in U.S. middle primary grades is actually like, check this anecdote out -

When my daughter was in 9th grade in Florida, she was taking high school junior level science because she had been labeled 'gifted' some years previously. Her science teacher informed the class one fine day that there were a total of nine planets in the universe. She didn't quite stifle her snicker in time, the teacher demanded to know what her issue was. Daughter asked if she had perhaps misspoken, perhaps she meant to say there were a total of nine [known] planets in our solar system?

She was immediately sent to the principal's office, who called me in to tell me why he was suspending her from school for two weeks (long enough to flunk her for missed classes, conveniently enough for that 'hole in the floor' US education loves to lose children through) - she "asked entirely too many questions" of her teachers, and did not display "appropriate respect." I asked him pointedly if that's the way he always treated his gifted kids who ask too many questions in science classes taught by idiots. He gave me this jaw-dropped 'DUH' look before asking... "she's gifted?"

He couldn't be bothered to even look at her records before deciding to suspend-flunk her on the word of said idiot science teacher who was offended at being called out for idiocy by a student a lot smarter than she was. Suddenly the whole thing changed into consideration of how much federal money the school was getting to offer advanced classes to a gifted student - which was more than the teacher was worth, for sure. I pulled her out immediately and enrolled her in a small private school near our home (no 30-mile bus trip!). Where she managed to win awards in science, latin and language at the end of the term.

Before midwifetoad or some other whiner comes back with "nyah, nyah, I don't believe it," just take it as it's offered - a short course in American Primary Education, late 20th century edition. There's a reason we no longer rule the scientific world. As well as a reason we've got a public so ill-educated they can't find California on a map or make change for a dollar. Sociopolitics in this country trumps science every time. It's not going to change because y'all want to play at Dueling Metaphysics. Honest. Change takes much more honest effort than that.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 12 2010,18:39

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 12 2010,18:13)
Joy,

I think that you could have chosen to read my post in the spirit in which it was written, that is, as a serious attempt to engage with an idea I disagree with.

Instead you've taken EVERY SINGLE POINT I made and interpreted it as a personal attack upon yourself. Even my comment about the changing paradigms in the field of cancer biology was turned into some kind of personal reflection on yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it is a given that IDC advocates inevitably turn the conversation to the personal, finding insults whether they exist or not, and focusing on those to the exclusion of intellectually honest discourse.

Joy = FtK = Luskin = FL etc.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 12 2010,18:41

Tom Ames:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think that you could have chosen to read my post in the spirit in which it was written, that is, as a serious attempt to engage with an idea I disagree with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This may indeed be so, as I see upon reflection. I've been put on the defensive, and am as guilty of reading-in as I've accused you of being. I apologize, will make a sincere effort to consider all possible commutations of sentences. Can we start over?
Posted by: Tom Ames on Feb. 12 2010,18:47

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,16:41)
Tom Ames:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think that you could have chosen to read my post in the spirit in which it was written, that is, as a serious attempt to engage with an idea I disagree with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This may indeed be so, as I see upon reflection. I've been put on the defensive, and am as guilty of reading-in as I've accused you of being. I apologize, will make a sincere effort to consider all possible commutations of sentences. Can we start over?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly, and I appreciate your apology.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 12 2010,19:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before midwifetoad or some other whiner comes back with "nyah, nyah, I don't believe it," just take it as it's offered - a short course in American Primary Education, late 20th century edition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I take it for what it is: lying bullshit. Your story about the textbook doesn't pass the sniff test. I'm exactly the age to have seen mid 1960s science books, and I know that cosmology was not presented as settled.

Aside from having been there, I know from ten years of online debates that anytime an evolution skeptic starts a discussion by saying that something was presented in textbooks as fact in such and such a year (where the year is just long enough in the past so it's difficult to check), that the claim is bullshit.

You made the claim. Now back it up. I'm not whining. I'm calling you a fucking liar.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 12 2010,19:20

Hi Oleg,

I will add my two cents to what Joy said.

I started Junior High in 1967.  Our textbooks were hand-me-downs from High School.  It was not unusual to see the names of a dozen students who previously had our books (i.e. twelve years old).

Being part of the baby boom meant our schools were overcrowded with class sizes of 30, our more, students.

Generally, the teachers presented the facts verbatim from the books.  Some of them all but read to us.

The test questions came directly from the book (end of chapter), because the teacher's edition had the answers.

In High School, I had to explain to the physics teacher why the Lissajous patten on the oscilloscope changed when I moved the amplified microphone closer to and further away from the sound source.

And she was one of the better teachers, because she was actually interested in learning new things.

In short, our science text books were a joke and the teachers didn't know enough to augment them.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 12 2010,19:31

From "Theories of the Universe," Milton K. Munitz, Free Press, 1957, p.397:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
About five years ago an entirely new idea was introduced into theoretical cosmology by the British mathematicians Herman Bondi and Thomas Gold. They started from the assumption that if the Universe is homogeneous in space, must also be homogeneous in time.

This would mean that any region of the Universe must always have looked in the past, and will always look in the future essentially the same as it looks now. The only way to reconcile this postulate with the well established movement of the galaxies away from one another was to assume that new galaxies are continuously being formed to compensate for the dispersal of the older ones.

If new galaxies are being formed, then new matter must be continuously created throughout space. Bondi and Gold calculated that the creation of new matter must proceed at the rate of one hydrogen atom per hour per cubic mile in intergalactic space. This idea of Bondi and Gold was soon extended by the British astronomer Fred Hoyle, who modified the original Einstein equations of general relativity so that they would permit the continuous creation of matter in space.

Besides circumventing the philosophical question as to the "beginning" of the Universe, the Bondi-Gold-Hoyle theory claimed to dispose of the painful discrepancy in the estimates of the age of the Universe that was still troubling astronomers at the time. If new galaxies were continuously being created, the Universe must be populated with galaxies of all ages, from babies to oldsters living on borrowed time.

Bondi, Gold and Hoyle assumed that the average age of the population was about one third of the figure of 1.8 billion years that Hubble had arrived at for the total age of the Universe, that is, 600 million years. According to this point of view, since our own galaxy is estimated to be several billion years old, we are living in a rather elderly member of the population.

The recent revision of distances that eliminated the age discrepancy and placed the age of the Universe at five billion years does not disprove the Bondi-Gold-Hoyle theory of a steady-state Universe; it merely raises the average age of galaxies to about 1.7 billion years and makes our own galaxy three times instead of nine times as old as the average.

Nevertheless the elimination of the discrepancy does deprive the steady-state idea of its main support. As far as observations go, the weight of the evidence at present is definitely in favor of the idea of an evolving Universe rather than a steady-state one such as is envisioned by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is eight years before your mid-1960s. Note that the steady state theory was only five years old, and was already on shaky ground.

The only other steady state theories would have to have been based on religion or philosophy.

I've got textbooks from that era also. Not exactly mid 1960s, but 1970s. They don't support your claim.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 12 2010,19:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our textbooks were hand-me-downs from High School.  It was not unusual to see the names of a dozen students who previously had our books (i.e. twelve years old).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If your 1967 textbooks were 12 years old, the Bondi-Gold hypothesis would have been only three years old at the time of printing. The hypothesis was never mainstream. By the time it was 12 years old it was pretty much dead.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 12 2010,21:07

< duplicate >
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 12 2010,23:16

So everyone can save their breath (or just be aware), Joy has informed me that she won't be returning because you guys didn't believe her and used bad words and I didn't make you do what she wanted.

...or something.

Just so y'know.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 12 2010,23:26

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 12 2010,23:16)
So everyone can save their breath (or just be aware), Joy has informed me that she won't be returning because you guys didn't believe her and used bad words and I didn't make you do what she wanted.

...or something.

Just so y'know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"The swamp" is in for more badmouthing at Tardic Tards. Disagreement will be sent to the memory hole.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 13 2010,00:16

glad i missed this.  shit hell fuck.  i never saw a clown climb up on the cross before
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 13 2010,01:45

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 12 2010,23:16)
So everyone can save their breath (or just be aware), Joy has informed me that she won't be returning because you guys didn't believe her and used bad words and I didn't make you do what she wanted.

...or something.

Just so y'know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suppose "liar" was a bit strong. Could be she simply isn't smart enough to know why a textbook wouldn't have taught steady state cosmology as an undisputed fact.

EDIT: "member of the youth brigade" couldn't be be me.


Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 13 2010,06:31

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 13 2010,00:16)
glad i missed this.  shit hell fuck.  i never saw a clown climb up on the cross before
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Y'all should have seen it coming. For some, being the victim of persecution is all part of being Christ-like*. And since there aren't many packs of Romans wandering around anymore, those folks will conveniently carry their own cross around with them to climb upon at the slightest hint of offense. That is why Casey Luskin keeps a running list of all the nasty names people have called him.  And why the more retrograde of the "Christian" advocacy groups like to feign persecution when the subject of equal rights for gay people comes up.

* Personally, I think they skipped  < Mark 12:31 > and went right for the slasher-pic ending, but what do I know?
Posted by: RupertG on Feb. 13 2010,08:04

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 13 2010,06:31)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 13 2010,00:16)
glad i missed this.  shit hell fuck.  i never saw a clown climb up on the cross before
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Y'all should have seen it coming. For some, being the victim of persecution is all part of being Christ-like*. And since there aren't many packs of Romans wandering around anymore, those folks will conveniently carry their own cross around with them to climb upon at the slightest hint of offense. That is why Casey Luskin keeps a running list of all the nasty names people have called him.  And why the more retrograde of the "Christian" advocacy groups like to feign persecution when the subject of equal rights for gay people comes up.

* Personally, I think they skipped  < Mark 12:31 > and went right for the slasher-pic ending, but what do I know?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's something that was taught to me at Sunday School, thirtymumble years ago: persecution validates you. Our teacher, a terribly nice, terribly devout evangelist-end-of-Anglican churchwarden, was telling us all about how the early Christians were hunted down, rounded up, fed to lions, mutilated, spindled and spiked. "Nobody would go through all that unless they knew what they believed in was true", he said.

"Or they were stupid", I said, in one of my early did-I-say-that-outloud? moments.

I got told off for that, but I noticed then (even then!) that a telling-off is not a counter-argument. Since then, I've worked out that there are other reasons than stupidity for entrenched self-delusion - well, that's self-evident, otherwise I'd be stupid too - and for willingly seeking out persecution. Hell, the psychosexuality alone could fill a (rather disturbing) book.

Nonetheless, in the minds of some Christans, Being Persecuted means I Am Right, and it must be endured but _never_ examined.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 13 2010,09:05

Quote (RupertG @ Feb. 13 2010,08:04)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 13 2010,06:31)
       
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 13 2010,00:16)
glad i missed this.  shit hell fuck.  i never saw a clown climb up on the cross before
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Y'all should have seen it coming. For some, being the victim of persecution is all part of being Christ-like*. And since there aren't many packs of Romans wandering around anymore, those folks will conveniently carry their own cross around with them to climb upon at the slightest hint of offense. That is why Casey Luskin keeps a running list of all the nasty names people have called him.  And why the more retrograde of the "Christian" advocacy groups like to feign persecution when the subject of equal rights for gay people comes up.

* Personally, I think they skipped  < Mark 12:31 > and went right for the slasher-pic ending, but what do I know?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's something that was taught to me at Sunday School, thirtymumble years ago: persecution validates you. Our teacher, a terribly nice, terribly devout evangelist-end-of-Anglican churchwarden, was telling us all about how the early Christians were hunted down, rounded up, fed to lions, mutilated, spindled and spiked. "Nobody would go through all that unless they knew what they believed in was true", he said.

"Or they were stupid", I said, in one of my early did-I-say-that-outloud? moments.

I got told off for that, but I noticed then (even then!) that a telling-off is not a counter-argument. Since then, I've worked out that there are other reasons than stupidity for entrenched self-delusion - well, that's self-evident, otherwise I'd be stupid too - and for willingly seeking out persecution. Hell, the psychosexuality alone could fill a (rather disturbing) book.

Nonetheless, in the minds of some Christans, Being Persecuted means I Am Right, and it must be endured but _never_ examined.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I jump at the opportunity to
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the end of the second century, the Literalists had begun to establish rules for who was and who was not a Christian. According to them, a Christian must confess the Literalist creed, be baptized, and above all obey the bishops. For the Gnostics, however, the true Church was "invisible" and only its members could perceive who belonged to it and who did not. Gnostics insisted that it took more than baptism to become a Christian. The Gospel of Philip explains that many people "go down to the water and come up without having received anything" and yet claim to be Christians. Nor did profession of a creed or even martyrdom make someone a Christian, since “anyone can do these things." The Gnostics quoted Jesus' saying "By their fruits you shall know them" and demanded evidence of spiritual maturity to demonstrate that a person belonged to the true Church. … Clement of Alexandria writes of those who court martyrdom more sympathetically as children who have "not yet become men in love with God, as the Gnostic is."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(From The Jesus Mysteries, my bolding)
Posted by: RupertG on Feb. 13 2010,09:46

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 13 2010,09:05)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I jump at the opportunity to
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the end of the second century, the Literalists had begun to establish rules for who was and who was not a Christian. According to them, a Christian must confess the Literalist creed, be baptized, and above all obey the bishops. For the Gnostics, however, the true Church was "invisible" and only its members could perceive who belonged to it and who did not. Gnostics insisted that it took more than baptism to become a Christian. The Gospel of Philip explains that many people "go down to the water and come up without having received anything" and yet claim to be Christians. Nor did profession of a creed or even martyrdom make someone a Christian, since “anyone can do these things." The Gnostics quoted Jesus' saying "By their fruits you shall know them" and demanded evidence of spiritual maturity to demonstrate that a person belonged to the true Church. … Clement of Alexandria writes of those who court martyrdom more sympathetically as children who have "not yet become men in love with God, as the Gnostic is."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(From The Jesus Mysteries, my bolding)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, well, the Gnostics. (or Teflons - Gnonstics - as a ascerbic pal describes some of the modern wooists that fly under that flag.) That's a whole different kettle of ichthys.

To be fair, there have been and continue to be terrible persecutions visited on Christians, and if you subscribe to the philosophy that the victim automatically deserved your support these are not matters to be taken glibly.

Which is another point against those who use their own proclaimed persecution as a political tool, when there is none. And when those people are part of a tradition which has a tendency towards and history of persecuting others...

[edited 'cos I'd put ichthys in Greek first of all, preview showed it correctly, but it got replaced by ????? in the live post. That's what you get for being poncy.]
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 13 2010,13:32

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 12 2010,23:16)
So everyone can save their breath (or just be aware), Joy has informed me that she won't be returning because you guys didn't believe her and used bad words and I didn't make you do what she wanted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, Joy, if you are still reading this, you might want to check out Jeffrey Shallit's < recent comments > on Susan Mazur's failures in understanding how science works.

She may be a kindred spirit for you, however. As one of the commenters there noted:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Her article seems to boil down to, "Science is mean to people whose ideas suck."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry if people are mean to you here. But if your ideas were better, maybe that wouldn't be the case.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 13 2010,15:45

I'd settle for basic honesty. I'm pretty tired of the old dogmatic science textbook thing.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 13 2010,16:26

Al2:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But if your ideas were better, maybe that wouldn't be the case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My 'ideas' weren't the issue. The issues were my name and my experience in 8th grade science. You do know what "ad hominem" means, don't you? Hint: it's not about ideas.

midwifetoad:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I suppose "liar" was a bit strong. Could be she simply isn't smart enough to know why a textbook wouldn't have taught steady state cosmology as an undisputed fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, "fucking liar" was strong. Unnecessary, unwarranted, unacceptable and frankly bizarre. So thanks for this admission. To answer your objections...

Textbooks are just ink on paper. They don't teach anything, they just present basic concepts and facts (usually a paragraph or so), have a list of questions at the end of each chapter which may or may not appear on the test depending on what the teacher cares to include or the admin/school board requires. When I was in upstate NY, the textbook was older than me. Its paragraph on 'current' cosmology was the eternal clockwork.

Requisite public school science instruction is NOT aimed at the 2 out of 100 students who will become future scientists [h/t US Census Bureau], and never has been. It's aimed low enough for a majority of students to pass. If instruction were geared even to 'average' ability [IQ 100], 50% would likely fail. Kids with ~140 IQs and an interest in science get what they need elsewhere. Or, that's the presumption.

All this is plain enough for any casual reader to accept as-is, will jive with most people's own experience of public school in this country. One of my main beefs is the incredibly lousy state of education in this country, for anyone not rich enough to send their kids to good private schools, or who doesn't live in a city where there are magnets and charters. This is a huge detriment to our society.

Hell, they don't even pretend to teach civics in my area's schools anymore, and not a single American history/government textbook has a copy of the Constitution in the appendices! NONE of 'em, any grade! As if 'they' purposely intend to produce a population completely un-versed in American democracy, the "Voters of the Future." Reminds me of when Abbie Hoffman got arrested in the Congressional gallery for passing out "subversive literature" - the Declaration of Independence, which not a single rep he gave it to recognized! Now, THAT was some excellent street theater...

Things haven't gotten any better since the heady days of the Space Race (when I went to school, and when science was considered a regular Big Deal). In fact, it's gotten much worse, particularly in the south following desegregation. It's like 'they' decided if they had to educate everybody, they'd educate nobody! Arrogantly figuring the 'worthy' would put their kids in private school, of course. Compliant wage-slaves and highly suggestible consumers is what it's all about. It stinks, and I can opine on it endlessly... But I'll spare you. Just acknowledging your mea culpa, and foolishly trying again.

Now Al can pick apart my 'ideas', since I've offered some.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 13 2010,16:43

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,16:26)
Al2:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But if your ideas were better, maybe that wouldn't be the case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My 'ideas' weren't the issue. The issues were my name and my experience in 8th grade science. You do know what "ad hominem" means, don't you? Hint: it's not about ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In your discussion with me, your unsupported notions (not exactly "ideas") about dissent re evolution within the scientific community were the issue. I frankly don't care about your experience in 8th grade science.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

---snip---
Now Al can pick apart my 'ideas', since I've offered some.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess I missed them. I did see a lot of stuff about textbooks, but nothing about evolutionary theory being in crisis.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 13 2010,17:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Its paragraph on 'current' cosmology was the eternal clockwork.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe it was written by William Paley.

At any rate, that's a religious or philosophical metaphor for the universe and does not represent mainstream science of the 50s or 60s.

I doubt it the actual text corresponds to your description of it. If the clockwork image appears at all, I bet it's qualified as a metaphor.

My thought on you remains unchanged and I am unrepentent. I've been in this game a ling time, and I see claims made all the time about older textbooks.

Which is why I collect them; so I can check the claims.

If you had actually been interested in science and cosmology in the 60s, you would have read books like "One, Two, Three, Infinity," by Gamow. That one and half a dozen others were written for interested laymen. All my junior high friends read and discussed them.

Then you'd know why your clockwork cosmology wasn't something likely to be presented as fact in a textbook.

I've posted a picture of myself and a friend (on another thread, I think).

I took four years of science in high school and five years of math. I don't recall getting to cosmology in physics, at least not past Newton. The clockwork universe was popular in Newton's time, although Newton himself suspected that orbits were unstable and needed occasional tweaking by angels. I suspect he'd have thought the same about genomes if he'd known of their existence.

But I have a mission now. Find textbooks from the 50s and 60s and see what they say about cosmology.

My Biology text from 1960 -- a really expensive one published for prep schools -- doesn't mention evolution, not even in the index. Not a peep about change over time.

Whatever was deficient about textbooks of the era, it was not the doing of leftists or atheists. Books were firmly in the hands of society's most conservative elements.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 13 2010,17:43

Al2:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In your discussion with me, your unsupported notions (not exactly "ideas") about dissent re evolution within the scientific community were the issue. I frankly don't care about your experience in 8th grade science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fine. No, those weren't your issues. To your issues, I personally recognize that the current bruhaha in biology about whatever is going to be the 'new' version of evolutionary theory will of course work itself out eventually according to the evidence. No matter how nasty the in-house debates get. That's how science works, and how paradigms change in science (the point of my textbook anecdote).

I also recognize with no reservations that biology isn't ever going to endorse any theological version of creation. That anybody believes it should is, IMO, just another symptom of the incredibly lousy state of education in Amerika as well as just another front in the inane "Culture War" that has spawned such ridiculous spectacles as those crazy Teabaggers who demand that the government keep its hands off their Medicare. Geez, it looks like all the "dumbing down" worked better than anybody dreamed!

Given the dismal state of education and marginal intelligence of the broad public science would dearly love to control (on policy levels), of course it's been way too easy to steer them toward believing that science should confirm their particular religious beliefs. Hence the Culture War. Deal is, those religious beliefs (of literalist Bibolators) actually aren't as common as you may have been led to believe by your fellow warriors. About all of the mainstream and orthodox religious denominations in this country have no problems at all with evolutionary theory. Why, even the Pope recognizes that all the metaphysical "extras" are metaphysical, and metaphysics isn't science's job. But for the Bibolators out there, you're never going to make a dent. It's foolish to try (and I'm a professional fool, so I know a little about foolishness).

You can't win this Culture War with mean-spirited Evangelical Atheism. You can't win it by insulting everybody's intelligence when it's just a percentage of the >50% who qualify as hopeless. Even that >50% outnumber you by a large margin, and they're both armed and mean as hell because they feel threatened. [Yeah, they ARE threatened by reality, but that's a lesser consideration IMO, given reality.]

I don't know if you've heard about the shooting at UAH yesterday, but things are weird all over these days and scientists aren't exempt. All the way to desperation for way too many people, and we have no idea how many people who have lost their homes, their jobs, their last hope are committing murders out there in the broad nation. I am of the considered opinion (take it FWIW) that we stand on the razor's edge right now. The quest could fail, most spectacularly. And history demonstrates that a dark age could ensue if it all falls apart. Science will be the #1 victim of that, and it would be a terrible shame. I'd like to do what little I might be able to do to prevent it. So here I am, in the belly of the beast (so to speak).

Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think.

Worst case scenario - a new 'dark age' might be the only way humanity can survive. God! I'd sure hate that to be true!!!

I've got more, of course. Maybe this is a good start on issues you may want to discuss?
Posted by: khan on Feb. 13 2010,17:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can't win this Culture War with mean-spirited Evangelical Atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



WTF are you talking about?

Reality is not evangelical.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 13 2010,17:56

Joy,

I was going to attempt to say something funny about people thinking you were part of the "conservative element" but I see you are on a roll.

I think I will step back and watch. :D

Welcome back
Posted by: someotherguy on Feb. 13 2010,17:57

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So true.  While traveling in between the chemistry, biology and physics buildings, I am accosted on a near-daily basis by angry hippies who accuse me of being a subservient, suck-up to "The Man."  Furthermore, whenever I tell people outside a university setting about my love for science, they always get this strange, agitated look on their faces and begin quoting Rage Against the Machine lyrics at me.  It's the damnedest thing!  

It's hard out here for an evolutionary biologist.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 13 2010,18:11

Hi Kahn,

Quote (khan @ Feb. 13 2010,17:55)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can't win this Culture War with mean-spirited Evangelical Atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



WTF are you talking about?

Reality is not evangelical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please, excuse me for butting in but I think I can address this.

While I am technically an agnostic, most people would classify as an Atheist.

I have even been very vocal about how the "under God" phrase in the pledge of allegiance is an obvious and egregious abridgement of the constitution.

However, I also ascribe to NOMA principles.  And beyond that, I hold that no one gets to claim the Truth for all.

To me, science is about knowledge, not truth.

When Atheists argue against NOMA and attempt to interfere with parents teaching their children their Truth, then it becomes evangelical, IMO.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 13 2010,18:31

someotherguy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's hard out here for an evolutionary biologist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL!!! Very funny. I'm just trying to engage based on about five years' worth of trying to engage the "other side" in this sideshow, on their turf, on their terms. I'm trying (without much success so far) to report what I've learned to those here willing to engage honestly long enough for the data to be passed and assimilated. I readily recognize from past attempts that there's not much hope of actually connecting with gung-ho leathernecks just in it for the anarchistic thrill. I want to be justifiably able to say "I tried," before the pressure cooker blows. A selfish desire, purely.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 13 2010,19:20

midwifetoad:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whatever was deficient about textbooks of the era, it was not the doing of leftists or atheists. Books were firmly in the hands of society's most conservative elements.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Still are. Between California and Texas (the 'Big' markets), most textbooks are controlled by the Orange County Teabag contingent or ...Texas (insert whatever epithet here). And now that the feds are footing the bill to replace textbooks regularly - as opposed to local schools based on their tax revenue - they spread like wildfire.

My live-in grandson's biology textbook (which I examined closely on the evolution chapter) in 2006 sophomore level was surprisingly good. A production of National Geographic and McMillan, they actually offered a slightly different version for each state's leanings on the ID vs Neodarwinism issue, without stepping on too many toes. Left metaphysical/philosophical interpretations open, left out a lot of the schlock, and offered web addresses for more information after every presentation for kids who wanted to know more. Very, very clever. As well as an excellent way to encourage and enable interested and able students to immediately connect to the more information that students in my day had to get some other way.

In this extremely conservative area where they still sing hymns in the Christmas program (though there is a Menorah on the square during solstice celebration season these days) you might be surprised at how many of the students - even the ones not planning or able to go to college - accessed the NG website from the school library during study period, now that they've got a bank of connected computers for the purpose. I'm beginning to suspect kids are smarter than culture warriors on either 'side' want them to be.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 13 2010,19:27

I think that beats FuckTheKids' record for shortest flounce-out ever.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 13 2010,19:28

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:26)
You do know what "ad hominem" means, don't you? Hint: it's not about ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently, you don't.
Posted by: rhmc on Feb. 13 2010,19:37

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 13 2010,20:27)
I think that beats FuckTheKids' record for shortest flounce-out ever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i dunno about that but it's close.  :)
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 13 2010,20:09

Lou, your "fuck you" on the moderation request was superseded by two things. First, Tom Ames' PM acknowledging our small 'breakthrough' on discussion, which I do hope to continue. Second, by midwife's small admission that "liar" was perhaps a bit strong. Closest thing anybody can expect to a mea culpa in the swamp (before you get bent, I live in hillbilly-land and admit to anybody who asks about the red rubber nose that I am indeed a proud professional fool). Don't forget that I've been occasionally commenting/reading since 2007. I know a little about who's here and what the agenda is.

And yes, "fucking liar" is ad hominem. Want me to cite an authoritative definition so you'll know what it is too?

Never mind. Totally academic question. I have determined to try my best to ignore what is best ignored, hoping for substantial dialogue with those who care to engage honestly. Please don't make it impossible for me to justify that just because you're bored and I'm handy. I'm bored too (snowed in way too long) or I wouldn't be here. Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 13 2010,20:39

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,21:09)
Lou, your "fuck you" on the moderation request was superseded by two things. First, Tom Ames' PM acknowledging our small 'breakthrough' on discussion, which I do hope to continue. Second, by midwife's small admission that "liar" was perhaps a bit strong. Closest thing anybody can expect to a mea culpa in the swamp (before you get bent, I live in hillbilly-land and admit to anybody who asks about the red rubber nose that I am indeed a proud professional fool). Don't forget that I've been occasionally commenting/reading since 2007. I know a little about who's here and what the agenda is.

And yes, "fucking liar" is ad hominem. Want me to cite an authoritative definition so you'll know what it is too?

Never mind. Totally academic question. I have determined to try my best to ignore what is best ignored, hoping for substantial dialogue with those who care to engage honestly. Please don't make it impossible for me to justify that just because you're bored and I'm handy. I'm bored too (snowed in way too long) or I wouldn't be here. Thanks in advance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, let's be clear. I did not at any time use the phrase "fuck you". That would be a lie by implication, Joy.

Second, I disagree that "fucking liar" is too strong.

Third, "you are a fucking liar" is an observation, and an insult. An ad hom would be "your argument is wrong because you are a woman" or "your argument is wrong because you suck". "You suck" is not an ad hom. "You are a liar" is not an ad hom. ETA: "You have lied before, repeatedly, constantly, therefore your argument this time is wrong" would be an ad hom, but that's not what was said.

"I know who is who and you suck therefore your argument is wrong" would be an ad hom.

Before you cite an authoritative definition, it might behoove you to read and understand it. Of course, that'd be a first in your case.


Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 13 2010,20:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Message:
Please note this post, particularly the last sentence. I have been attempting to negotiate the critical atmosphere in a straightforward manner, and honestly dont care who believes what. But this is beyond the pale, and I will not participate further if this is to be allowed. Which would be a shame, since its been fairly interesting up to this point. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lol, come on down off your cross Mary. Self-martyrdom isn't worth a nickel here. I'll not be bullied into protecting your nonsense from critical examination, so save your breath.

Feel free to report a post to the moderators when there's actually something to report.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks, Lou. Have fun circle-jerking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're welcome, Joy. Have a nice life in the cloister.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 13 2010,21:20

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 13 2010,20:39)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,21:09)
Lou, your "fuck you" on the moderation request was superseded by two things. First, Tom Ames' PM acknowledging our small 'breakthrough' on discussion, which I do hope to continue. Second, by midwife's small admission that "liar" was perhaps a bit strong. Closest thing anybody can expect to a mea culpa in the swamp (before you get bent, I live in hillbilly-land and admit to anybody who asks about the red rubber nose that I am indeed a proud professional fool). Don't forget that I've been occasionally commenting/reading since 2007. I know a little about who's here and what the agenda is.

And yes, "fucking liar" is ad hominem. Want me to cite an authoritative definition so you'll know what it is too?

Never mind. Totally academic question. I have determined to try my best to ignore what is best ignored, hoping for substantial dialogue with those who care to engage honestly. Please don't make it impossible for me to justify that just because you're bored and I'm handy. I'm bored too (snowed in way too long) or I wouldn't be here. Thanks in advance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, let's be clear. I did not at any time use the phrase "fuck you". That would be a lie by implication, Joy.

Second, I disagree that "fucking liar" is too strong.

Third, "you are a fucking liar" is an observation, and an insult. An ad hom would be "your argument is wrong because you are a woman" or "your argument is wrong because you suck". "You suck" is not an ad hom. "You are a liar" is not an ad hom. ETA: "You have lied before, repeatedly, constantly, therefore your argument this time is wrong" would be an ad hom, but that's not what was said.

"I know who is who and you suck therefore your argument is wrong" would be an ad hom.

Before you cite an authoritative definition, it might behoove you to read and understand it. Of course, that'd be a first in your case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 13 2010,21:24

baaaaaaah hughes has been holding on to that one for a while.

joy i gotta say you don't live in the middle of hillbilly land.  when you look around and your closest neighbors are Fran and Morty, and on the other side it's a couple of lesbian wiccan priestesses*, the hillbillies have moved out of the neighborhood.  just saying.**

* I do know some hillbilly lesbian wiccan priestesses but they don't claim it

** and yes there are still some rednecks in McDowell county but they can't hold a meth spoon to grundy county tennessee.  i decided.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 13 2010,21:50

Erasmus:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
joy i gotta say you don't live in the middle of hillbilly land.  when you look around and your closest neighbors are Fran and Morty, and on the other side it's a couple of lesbian wiccan priestesses*, the hillbillies have moved out of the neighborhood.  just saying.**
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry to disappoint you, 'ras. I've got no neighbors. Within hoot or holler distance, anyway. Half a mile as the crow flies, with a substantial ridge in between. Makes for being able to crank the amps all the way up whenever we like...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 13 2010,22:25

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,22:50)
Erasmus:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
joy i gotta say you don't live in the middle of hillbilly land.  when you look around and your closest neighbors are Fran and Morty, and on the other side it's a couple of lesbian wiccan priestesses*, the hillbillies have moved out of the neighborhood.  just saying.**
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry to disappoint you, 'ras. I've got no neighbors. Within hoot or holler distance, anyway. Half a mile as the crow flies, with a substantial ridge in between. Makes for being able to crank the amps all the way up whenever we like...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


damn

well i got a good sig line out of it anyway

best!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 14 2010,06:31

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
I've got more, of course. Maybe this is a good start on issues you may want to discuss?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it's not.

If you remember, the issue is your statement that there is increasing dissent within the scientific community about evolutionary theory. I challenged you to come up with evidence for that. You have been unable to do that. This comment is basically ineffectual hand-waving. If you really don't have any evidence for that assertion, it would be best to admit it. Hand-waving is obvious to all of us (except, of course, TP).

And I truly don't understand the relevance of the shootings at UAH to this discussion. I have colleagues in the Biology department there. As a Biology department head, I have had to inform colleagues about a tenure denial decision. Those are gut-wrenching conversations, and that whole incident at UAH is just a tad too close to home for me on a personal level. But it is completely irrelevant to a discussion about dissent within the scientific community re evolution.

If you want to talk about the culture war, and persist in your unsupported (and unsupportable) notions about teleology, go right ahead. But it would be even better if you could admit that, in the context of our discussion, you have no evidence for your assertions.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 14 2010,08:55

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
...Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To my bolded bit.

I think I know what you are referring to, but just to be sure could you elaborate? Evidence would be nice too.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 14 2010,10:24

Erasmus:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
well i got a good sig line out of it anyway
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah, yes. Bathtub Meth - biggest industry in the county, and one for which we outrank all other counties in the nation! We also boast another top ranking... teenage pregnancies. Though it's highly doubtful that those can be blamed on those lesbian Pagan priestesses.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Feb. 14 2010,11:01

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,16:26)
Al2:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But if your ideas were better, maybe that wouldn't be the case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My 'ideas' weren't the issue. The issues were my name and my experience in 8th grade science. You do know what "ad hominem" means, don't you? Hint: it's not about ideas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Insufferable bores are always persecuted and misunderstood. You should be accustomed to it by now. It  doesn't deter you from being insufferably boring, after all.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 14 2010,11:42

Jim Wynne:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Insufferable bores are always persecuted and misunderstood. You should be accustomed to it by now. It  doesn't deter you from being insufferably boring, after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Huh. Kinda makes me wonder how come people like you are so fascinated by insufferable bores that you waste time, thought (relatively speaking) and carpal tunnel on them. When it would seem to be much more apropos to simply ignore them, and all...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 14 2010,11:48

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 14 2010,11:42)
Huh. Kinda makes me wonder how come people like you are so fascinated by insufferable bores that you waste time, thought (relatively speaking) and carpal tunnel on them. When it would seem to be much more apropos to simply ignore them, and all...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sort of like how you are seemingly going to continue to ignore my request for you to back up one of your assertions...

Part of the reason that people don't ignore folks like you, Joy, is that it is not wise to let falsehoods or misconceptions go unchallenged. Even if those challenges are going to be ignored by folks like you, there might be others out there who need to hear that reality is not at all like the mythical constructs in your head.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 14 2010,12:17

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 14 2010,11:42)
thought (relatively speaking)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Says somebody who was at one point a proud contributor to TT. Who found TT "interesting". Who admitted that most people at TT were "creationists" but still hung around anyway.

ROFL.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 14 2010,13:59

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 13 2010,18:39)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,21:09)
Lou, your "fuck you" on the moderation request was superseded by two things. First, Tom Ames' PM acknowledging our small 'breakthrough' on discussion, which I do hope to continue. Second, by midwife's small admission that "liar" was perhaps a bit strong. Closest thing anybody can expect to a mea culpa in the swamp (before you get bent, I live in hillbilly-land and admit to anybody who asks about the red rubber nose that I am indeed a proud professional fool). Don't forget that I've been occasionally commenting/reading since 2007. I know a little about who's here and what the agenda is.

And yes, "fucking liar" is ad hominem. Want me to cite an authoritative definition so you'll know what it is too?

Never mind. Totally academic question. I have determined to try my best to ignore what is best ignored, hoping for substantial dialogue with those who care to engage honestly. Please don't make it impossible for me to justify that just because you're bored and I'm handy. I'm bored too (snowed in way too long) or I wouldn't be here. Thanks in advance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, let's be clear. I did not at any time use the phrase "fuck you". That would be a lie by implication, Joy.

Second, I disagree that "fucking liar" is too strong.

Third, "you are a fucking liar" is an observation, and an insult. An ad hom would be "your argument is wrong because you are a woman" or "your argument is wrong because you suck". "You suck" is not an ad hom. "You are a liar" is not an ad hom. ETA: "You have lied before, repeatedly, constantly, therefore your argument this time is wrong" would be an ad hom, but that's not what was said.

"I know who is who and you suck therefore your argument is wrong" would be an ad hom.

Before you cite an authoritative definition, it might behoove you to read and understand it. Of course, that'd be a first in your case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy, this may help you understand Lou's point about your misuse of the term ad hominem:

< the ad hominem fallacy fallacy >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 14 2010,15:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy, this may help you understand Lou's point about your misuse of the term ad hominem:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beating a dead horse, but "liar" was a conclusion, not a premise.

My claim that the textbook quote (or pharaphrase) is bogus is backed by evidence from books printed in the 50s.

I might note that two different claims were made by Joy.
The first was:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
New York's old science textbooks taught as "received scientific wisdom and fact" (the way such things are taught to rowdy teenagers) that the universe was eternal and forever self-creating. The new textbooks in Oklahoma for the very same general science course simply taught as "received scientific wisdom and fact" that the universe began with a big bang from singularity some billions of years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The second was:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I was in upstate NY, the textbook was older than me. Its paragraph on 'current' cosmology was the eternal clockwork.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would point out that these claims are not easily reconciled. One looks like the steady state hypothesis; the other looks like Deism. Neither looks like something that woild be presented as fact in a science textbook.

So the assertion made twice without evidence must be examined for motive. One doesn't have to look far, because Joy follows up with an anccdote:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When my daughter was in 9th grade in Florida, she was taking high school junior level science because she had been labeled 'gifted' some years previously. Her science teacher informed the class one fine day that there were a total of nine planets in the universe. She didn't quite stifle her snicker in time, the teacher demanded to know what her issue was. Daughter asked if she had perhaps misspoken, perhaps she meant to say there were a total of nine [known] planets in our solar system?

She was immediately sent to the principal's office, who called me in to tell me why he was suspending her from school for two weeks (long enough to flunk her for missed classes, conveniently enough for that 'hole in the floor' US education loves to lose children through) - she "asked entirely too many questions" of her teachers, and did not display "appropriate respect." I asked him pointedly if that's the way he always treated his gifted kids who ask too many questions in science classes taught by idiots. He gave me this jaw-dropped 'DUH' look before asking... "she's gifted?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So the unevidenced textbook claim is part of a general jihad against the stupidity and evil of public schools. Assuming any of it is true and accurate and reflects the context of the situation.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 14 2010,15:41

Al2:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you remember, the issue is your statement that there is increasing dissent within the scientific community about evolutionary theory. I challenged you to come up with evidence for that. You have been unable to do that. This comment is basically ineffectual hand-waving. If you really don't have any evidence for that assertion, it would be best to admit it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It seems quite odd to me that you don't recognize dissent in the biological community about the theory of evolution, its 'neodarwinian orthodoxy' and the 'central dogma' it still pushes as sacrosanct.

I originally said:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For a non-biologist I've got a fair grasp of how things are going. And am looking forward to new developments as they come in. Including theoretical developments, since there's some increasing dissent in the ranks of late against the dogma of orthodoxy. Fun to keep track of, as are such in-house challenges to orthodoxy in other scientific fields. Science being an adversarial construct, after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dissent in science about theories (and about conclusions drawn from particular research) is as old as science. Because science is designed to be an adversarial system where new evidence or failure of confirmational experiments or new theories are supposed to challenge previous ideas and theories and eventually replace them with better ideas and theories. All that depends upon consensus, meaning a simple majority of qualified scientists in the field accept the new evidence, falsification or new theory and it becomes the king of the hill until the next round of challenge succeeds in gaining consensus. Usually the changed paradigm leaves behind 'true believers' in the old paradigm who never manage to change their minds, but as they die off and new generations trained in the new consensus reduce their numbers even further, their adherence to the old paradigm doesn't hinder the forward progress of science from the new to the (eventual) newer.

I presume you understand this. Dissent has a long history in science, as does the suppression of dissent.

I am of the opinion that in the issue of biological evolution, attempts at suppression are based primarily on philosophical/metaphysical concerns. There is also ample evidence of political or corporate suppression. Since most scientific funding these days is provided by government or industry, direct and indirect suppression of dissent from these sources are a significant concern per the validity and trustworthiness of the science itself. < Brian Martin's work > on exposing this situation is well known, as are articles and editorials dealing with Big Pharma's influence over research and publication. < Dylan Krider > has a pretty good report on political suppression (things like global warming). < A friend of mine > who has experienced corporate, political and even legal suppression of his research has written about it, as has < Neil Pearce >.

At any rate, the < Altenberg workshop > would tend to confirm to interested observers the existence of disagreement (dissent) among scientists about the adequacy of current evolutionary theory. And while denizens of this speakeasy would dearly love to pretend there are no 'real' scientists who dissent from neodarwinian orthodoxy, hundreds of scientists and professors of medicine did sign a statement of skepticism that random mutation and natural selection can account for the complexity of life. Moreover, research challenging various orthodox tenets comes in fairly regularly - and is reported in the scientific press as challenging. That is clearly evidence of dissent, even if you give it no credit.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...that whole incident at UAH is just a tad too close to home for me on a personal level. But it is completely irrelevant to a discussion about dissent within the scientific community re evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then I apologize for mentioning it. However, I mentioned in a sociopolitical context, not in any context of dissent over evolution.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 14 2010,16:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The new concepts include (but are not limited to): evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection.

By incorporating these new results and insights into our understanding of evolution, we believe that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory is greatly expanded within biology and beyond. As is the nature of science, some of the new ideas will stand the test of time, while others will be significantly modified. Nonetheless, there is much justified excitement in evolutionary biology these days. This is a propitious time to engage the scientific community in a vast interdisciplinary effort to further our understanding of how life evolves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.scientificblogging.com/rationa....appened >

EDIT: One would be hard pressed to justify the word "new."
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 14 2010,16:01

midwifetoad:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So the unevidenced textbook claim is part of a general jihad against the stupidity and evil of public schools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, kids of my generation got pretty good educations from the public school system. At least, relatively better than my kids and grandkids got/are getting. But as has always been the case, local conditions can be variable and the bright, interested kids will tend to supplement their instruction with material they access on their own time.

Can I ask where you attended public school? I went to school in South Carolina, New York and Oklahoma. Husband's public school experience included Arkansas, Texas as well as Oklahoma. Our kids attended public schools in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Florida, grandson graduated high school here in North Carolina.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 14 2010,16:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can I ask where you attended public school?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I went to a private high school. My kids went to public schools. I think my daughter's school was academically better than mine.

I could tell horror stories about teachers at all these schools, including some in college. Nothing in life is perfect. Parents who care about their children will supplement their schools, if only by reading in the presence of the kids, making curiosity a normal part of life.

My beef with you is that you have made rather specific claims that I don't think are true. I've looked at a bunch of science textbooks from a number or eras, and I fail to find the kinds of dogmatic statements that you imply are common.

I've been through textbooks looking for the kinds of errors claimed by Jonathan Wells, and I just don't find anything worth commenting on. When you read the books in full context, broad statements are nearly always appropriately qualified.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 14 2010,16:21

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 14 2010,15:41)
Al2:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you remember, the issue is your statement that there is increasing dissent within the scientific community about evolutionary theory. I challenged you to come up with evidence for that. You have been unable to do that. This comment is basically ineffectual hand-waving. If you really don't have any evidence for that assertion, it would be best to admit it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It seems quite odd to me that you don't recognize dissent in the biological community about the theory of evolution, its 'neodarwinian orthodoxy' and the 'central dogma' it still pushes as sacrosanct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing is sacrosanct in science; thanks for giving us yet another strawman. As pointed out before, your examples of dissent were merely science as usual, and extended our understanding of evolution rather than challenged it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I originally said:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For a non-biologist I've got a fair grasp of how things are going. And am looking forward to new developments as they come in. Including theoretical developments, since there's some increasing dissent in the ranks of late against the dogma of orthodoxy. Fun to keep track of, as are such in-house challenges to orthodoxy in other scientific fields. Science being an adversarial construct, after all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You also wrote


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A simple Google search on the keywords "challenge central dogma darwinism" returns nearly 40,000 sources. Many of those are from the creationist/id and Teabagger contingents, but many more are from scientific literature or press coverage of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Challenge" is an interesting search term, and implies far more than simple disagreement over the details of the research methods or results. "Challenge" implies an attempt to overthrow. Yet you seem to back off from that, and, more amusingly, try to dissociate yourself from the creationist antecedents of that argument.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dissent in science about theories (and about conclusions drawn from particular research) is as old as science. Because science is designed to be an adversarial system where new evidence or failure of confirmational experiments or new theories are supposed to challenge previous ideas and theories and eventually replace them with better ideas and theories. All that depends upon consensus, meaning a simple majority of qualified scientists in the field accept the new evidence, falsification or new theory and it becomes the king of the hill until the next round of challenge succeeds in gaining consensus. Usually the changed paradigm leaves behind 'true believers' in the old paradigm who never manage to change their minds, but as they die off and new generations trained in the new consensus reduce their numbers even further, their adherence to the old paradigm doesn't hinder the forward progress of science from the new to the (eventual) newer.

I presume you understand this. Dissent has a long history in science, as does the suppression of dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the science lesson. You could have saved a lot of electrons by omitting that boilerplate. And you would have saved yourself a lot of grief by omitting that last bit about suppression of dissent. There are precious few examples of scientists effectively suppressing dissent in science. Finally, as noted previously, disagreement about methods and data are NOT equivalent to challenging (attempting to overthrow) a theory as deeply embedded in biology as evolutionary theory.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am of the opinion that in the issue of biological evolution, attempts at suppression are based primarily on philosophical/metaphysical concerns.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please give examples of "attempts at suppression" by scientists. If these examples are nothing more than cases where unsupported ideas were not allowed a fast track into textbooks, however, please don't bother.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is also ample evidence of political or corporate suppression. Since most scientific funding these days is provided by government or industry, direct and indirect suppression of dissent from these sources are a significant concern per the validity and trustworthiness of the science itself. < Brian Martin's work > on exposing this situation is well known, as are articles and editorials dealing with Big Pharma's influence over research and publication. < Dylan Krider > has a pretty good report on political suppression (things like global warming). < A friend of mine > who has experienced corporate, political and even legal suppression of his research has written about it, as has < Neil Pearce >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Governments and corporations are different from scientists, aren't they? Political and ideological disagreements with the science are not scientific attempts to challenge a theory, are they?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At any rate, the < Altenberg workshop > would tend to confirm to interested observers the existence of disagreement (dissent) among scientists about the adequacy of current evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet, as pointed out previously, the organizer of the Altenberg conference says that this sort of statement is sheer hyperbole. Can you read?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And while denizens of this speakeasy would dearly love to pretend there are no 'real' scientists who dissent from neodarwinian orthodoxy, hundreds of scientists and professors of medicine did sign a statement of skepticism that random mutation and natural selection can account for the complexity of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you are talking about the DI's "< dissent from Darwinism" > list, please pardon me while I guffaw again. If you are talking about something else, please provide details.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Moreover, research challenging various orthodox tenets comes in fairly regularly - and is reported in the scientific press as challenging. That is clearly evidence of dissent, even if you give it no credit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is evidence of a vibrant ongoing scientific research enterprise, not dissent. And the reporting of science by the "scientific press" (assuming you don't mean primary journals like Science or Nature, but rather articles in the mainstream media) is hilariously inaccurate, sensationalized so as to sell more copies and great more buzz, and pathetic. If that is the place where you get your "fairly good grasp", you've grabbed a greasy stick.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 14 2010,16:34

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2010,16:21)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am of the opinion that in the issue of biological evolution, attempts at suppression are based primarily on philosophical/metaphysical concerns.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please give examples of "attempts at suppression" by scientists. If these examples are nothing more than cases where unsupported ideas were not allowed a fast track into textbooks, however, please don't bother.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


100/1 We hear some actual examples of this.

1/1 We don't and hear some more of the same hand wringing "it's wrong but I can't say why but others agree and ohh, you are so mean asking me to support my statements with actual facts".
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 14 2010,17:35

Would "dissent" include disagreements over technical details? (Such as revisions of geneological trees.)

Would it include discovery and documentation of a previously undescribed process? (Or even an expressed opinion that there is such a process waiting to be discovered?)

Would it include discussions of the prevalence of horizontal DNA transfers, esp. among early single celled species?

Henry
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 14 2010,21:49

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,21:09)
Closest thing anybody can expect to a mea culpa in the swamp
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hypocrite.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 14 2010,21:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2010,22:20)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's awesome.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 14 2010,22:02

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 14 2010,21:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2010,22:20)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's awesome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It demands Memedom.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 14 2010,22:07

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2010,23:02)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 14 2010,21:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2010,22:20)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's awesome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It demands Memedom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed.

I don't know what tickles me more about it: Tigger and Roo dancing and waving, or Piglet poking Pooh's dead ass with a stick.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 14 2010,22:16

More correctly, a pooh-stick.

That's really harsh.  Why would anyone want to kill Pooh Bear?

Tigr's in for a serious ass-whooping when Christopher Robin finds out.

Besides I always liked Shepard's pencil drawings better than the Disneyfication.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 14 2010,22:55

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 14 2010,22:16)
More correctly, a pooh-stick.

That's really harsh.  Why would anyone want to kill Pooh Bear?

Tigr's in for a serious ass-whooping when Christopher Robin finds out.

Besides I always liked Shepard's pencil drawings better than the Disneyfication.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Pooh ripped out Roo's eye - that's why he has the eyepatch?  Waterboarding Roo to find out where his hunny went didn't work, so Pooh took his hunny spoon...
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 14 2010,22:55

Al2:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the organizer of the Altenberg conference says that this sort of statement is sheer hyperbole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I linked you to part 1 of Pigliucci's Notes from Altenberg. His summary of Eva Jablonka's presentation talks very specifically about "challenges to MS" [Mutation-Selection] offered by discoveries of non-DNA heritable variation and other 'soft' inheritance. And there are several mentions throughout the 3 parts of challenges and controversies over these findings or those findings or this theory or that one.

That most biologists already know evolution is about much more than MS is not the issue of contention in this culture war. That biologists learn about the (accepted) additional mechanisms of evolution at the college level is not the issue either. The issue is what the public is taught about evolution if you're expecting them to compliantly shut up and believe.

To an interested member of the public who has followed the war, the "you don't know enough about evolution to reject evolution" assertion begs the question of why. All high school graduates since evolution became mandatory have passed the course. If what we were taught is indeed inadequate for forming an opinion, whose fault is that? The public can see how scientific dissenters are treated. I'm the public and it's sure not hard to see how I'm treated. Why the hell would the interested public have any reason to 'shut up and believe'? What are you guys so scared of?

Martin has compiled lists of the various methods standard for suppression of dissent, including < suppression of research data >. In this essay (not about biology) he offers some signs of suppression that can be present in other fields (think Sternberg):

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Defining suppression is one issue; deciding whether it has occurred is another. It is a major topic in itself, which can only be mentioned here. There are a few convenient indicators that suggest that suppression may be occurring.

• Double standard: research data threatening to an interest group is dealt with differently than unthreatening data. For example, if a paper produced in a government agency is censored to remove information showing environmental impacts caused by the agency's policies, but information about other environmental impacts is allowed to be published, there is a double standard involved.

• Timing: attacks are made shortly after a threatening use of research data. For example, if scientists are reprimanded just after speaking to the media about recent findings that are embarrassing to their employer, this suggests suppression even though the official reason for the reprimands is related to performance.

• Pattern: there is evidence of a number of cases of suppression in a particular field or organization, with a plausible reason for it to occur. For example, when there is evidence that an industry has previously kept secret data about hazards from its products, then it is plausible to treat new claims of suppression seriously. Patterns of suppression have been documented in several areas, including attacks on parapsychologists (Hess, 1992), attacks on proponents of nonstandard cancer therapies (Hess, 1999; Moss, 1996), and attacks on scientist opponents of nuclear power (Freeman, 1981; Martin, 1986), pesticides (Martin, 1996b; van den Bosch, 1978), and fluoridation (Martin, 1991; Waldbott, 1965).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



While Martin's areas of concern for scientific dissent and the systematic suppression of dissent aren't biology, his article about < Harold Hillman's dissent > against standard investigative techniques in cell and neurobiology - and the concerted efforts to suppress his views - describe a very familiar operating procedure echoed here regularly. One paragraph is particularly enlightening...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The incredible intolerance towards Hillman and his views was hard for me to believe. Although I have studied many similar instances in different fields of science, each new story comes as a shock. In one case, Hillman gave a talk to a large audience at what he calls "a well known Welsh university". The many undergraduates in the audience seemed sympathetic to his case. A lecturer stood up and claimed to have pictures from an electron microscope which showed that Hillman was wrong. After the talk, Hillman asked the lecturer to see the pictures. "I have not got any", he said, laughing. "Why did you say you had in front of that large audience?" "Because I did not want the students to be misled by you."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah. The old lies in the service of orthodoxy are no sin defense. It's no secret that fully qualified biological scientists have dissented from orthodoxy, and anybody paying attention can see orthodoxy's attempts at suppression. It's what this 'culture war' is all about. And while many here would love to convince the public that every dissenter can be dismissed as a Bibolator who believes the world was created in 6 days 6 thousand years ago, that's patently untrue. Lies in the service of orthodoxy are no sin, right?

I am no fan of the DI. The culture war mission of that organization tends to cast doubt on the motivations of affiliated scientists. But I've no reason to believe their scientific dissents against neodarwinian orthodoxy are necessarily insincere, or "bad science," or even lies just because someone with equally questionable culture war motivations says so. If you want me to believe that all the 700 scientists, engineers and MDs who signed the DI's statement of dissent are affiliated with the DI, then you need to provide some evidence. Simply pointing to the statement of dissent does not establish affiliation.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 14 2010,23:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All high school graduates since evolution became mandatory have passed the course. If what we were taught is indeed inadequate for forming an opinion, whose fault is that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well of course high school grads can form an opinion. But if their opinion is one thing, and the shared opinion of a million experts in the field is something else, which opinion is more reliable?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why the hell would the interested public have any reason to 'shut up and believe'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Believe what? That scientists have reached conclusions about something?

Henry
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,00:15

Henry J:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would "dissent" include disagreements over technical details? (Such as revisions of geneological trees.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would count as dissent any hypothesis, finding or theory supported by evidence or sound interpretation of evidence that challenges an established orthodoxy. Not all dissent is met with suppression or attempts at suppression. Some are revolutionary right from the start and are quickly accepted as the new orthodoxy.

I seem to recall there being some resistance to Carl Woese's theories of multiple first common ancestors and the HGT field. Maybe that's been accepted by now, but were considered challenging. James Shapiro's cellular memory and Buehler's cell intelligence are fairly challenging. They may be making some progress in-house too. Margulis' endosymbiotic theory was rejected by more than a dozen journals before it was published and is now an accepted extension, but she suffered constant criticism for decades.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well of course high school grads can form an opinion. But if their opinion is one thing, and the shared opinion of a million experts in the field is something else, which opinion is more reliable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To whom? I'm sure the million experts and their millions of believers consider their opinions reliable. I'm pretty sure millions of high school graduates and their favored experts think their opinions are reliable too. One might suspect it doesn't really matter either way, except that there's a whole culture war ongoing over it. Motivations for that reek of Dueling Metaphysics, not standard adversarial science. Same thing appears to be happening over climate science and global climate change, though the motivations there are political more than metaphysical.

Just to clarify, I am of the opinion that it doesn't really matter what my opinions (or anyone else's) about evolution may be. So the culture war sideshow is quite an amusing respite from the political world's main events right now. And the real world's endless parade of horrors and lousy weather. If I were a gambler, I'd wager that it'll end in a draw. Which will confirm my opinion that it doesn't really matter. §;o)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 15 2010,01:58

Joy:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If what we were taught is indeed inadequate for forming an opinion, whose fault is that?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Making biological education inadequate has been an explicit goal of the antievolution movement since before the time of Tennessee v. Scopes. Antievolution efforts have targeted both textbook content and textbook adoption; see the long-term project in Texas by Mel and Norma Gabler for just one example of how a broad effect in a market can be made by a small number of private citizens with a huge axe to grind.

A few years ago, the National Science Teachers Association polled public school biology teachers concerning creationism, and came up with a figure that about 30% of teachers either already are teaching creationism of some form in classes, or would do so if they felt that their administrators would allow it. Then there is the other figure that about two-thirds of public school science teachers feel pressure to either play down or skip teaching evolutionary science concepts entirely. If those are mostly disjoint, and one would expect they mostly would be, that leads to the inference that the great preponderance of the public school science teachers either already have personal reasons to sabotage evolutionary science content or feel pressured not to teach it well or at all. This leads to a cycle of ignorance. Students by and large don't learn biology with evolutionary science as an integrating principle because their teachers are either complicit in the antievolution movement, hampered by antievolutionary direction of curriculum, or because of intimidation. The same old tired ensemble of antievolutionary arguments gets passed on despite the fact that none of them withstands scrutiny. Some part of the student population eventually becomes science teachers, who generally don't get specific training at the college level in the topic that they will teach. More will simply never learn biology properly at all, and of that group, a fraction will buy the antievolution dreck entirely and end up doing their part by continuing to pressure science teachers to play down or avoid teaching biology well, that is, with the evolutionary science that distinguishes biology from natural history.

So, yeah, we do know who is to blame, and the socio-political process that perpetuates ignorance from generation to generation.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 15 2010,03:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Margulis' endosymbiotic theory was rejected by more than a dozen journals before it was published and is now an accepted extension, but she suffered constant criticism for decades.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So may we assume that you would be happy if more time were devoted to the details of evolutionary theory in high school, rather than less? Perhaps schools should require two years of biology for graduation rather than one.

It's a shame, really, that schools don't have time to cover radiometric dating and all the other lines of evidence that support evolution. The result is that decades later, students are able to claim that dogma was taught as received wisdom.

While they are at it, perhaps physics classes could take time to repeat some of the classic demonstrations of the shape of the earth. Lest students be drilled in the anti-flat dogma.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 15 2010,03:34

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 14 2010,22:55)
I am no fan of the DI. The culture war mission of that organization tends to cast doubt on the motivations of affiliated scientists. But I've no reason to believe their scientific dissents against neodarwinian orthodoxy are necessarily insincere, or "bad science," or even lies just because someone with equally questionable culture war motivations says so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We know what motivates the DI. Their mission has been explained in their own words.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html >

I wonder what Joy thinks the motivations are of the opposing side in this "culture war".
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 15 2010,06:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of reality and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the real sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific realism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of reality
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does that make any less sense?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 15 2010,06:32

Joy

"Challenges to MS" are not challenges to the idea of evolution. I don't know how to say this more clearly than I have said it - NONE of this challenges the framework of evolutionary theory; it extends and enhances our understanding of mechanisms. Simply finding the word "challenge" in a document is not sufficent; you actually do have to understand the context and the field of research. Literalistic readings of texts are not a worthwhile argumentative technique in science.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The issue is what the public is taught about evolution if you're expecting them to compliantly shut up and believe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, guess what? I teach introductory biology at a university. We teach students about epigenetics, endosymbiosis, the hypothesis that there might be several organisms at the base of the phylogenetic tree, and all of those other things that you think are challenges. The fact that you didn't learn them 40 years ago is not really relevant here, it is merely an anecdote. Woese and Margulis and others were criticized, but, unlike the DI, they did the hard work and convinced the skeptics, just like scientists with new big ideas have done for centuries. And, as Wes notes, if there are problems with evolution education in high schools, the blame lies not with "dogmatic" scientists but with the pseudoscientists and religious dogmatists who would prefer never to hear the word evolution again.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why the hell would the interested public have any reason to 'shut up and believe'? What are you guys so scared of?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've never told anyone to "shut up and believe". You're projecting again. As as for "scared", I think you've mistaken anger for fear. I am angered by folks who don't understand science AND who decide that their flawed understanding is what I should teach. I am angered by folks like you who are WILLFULLY ignorant. I am angered by lies; in science a liar is the worst possible offender. But anger is not fear.

Most of the examples in your "suppression of research data" are not suppression by other scientists. I already agreed that governments and corporations do suppress things. But you originally claimed that there was suppression by scientists within the scientific community. I don't see it; I see a moving goalpost.

I hadn't heard of Harold Hillman before. Yet he seems to be a quack. As I understand his argument, it is that structures seen in electron microscopes are all artifacts. He fails to explain why identical artifacts can be produced by so many different methods, and his argument was blown away by cryopreservation methods of specimen preparation. So the fact that his ideas were scoffed at is not an example of dogma trumping truth; it is merely another example of something far more common. He is just plain wrong. He can claim persecution; that doesn't make it true.

Sternberg, whom you mention in passing, is a laughable example of suppression. We can talk about that one if you want, but it's been beat to death by others if you care to do some research.

Re the DI's list of "scientists", you wrote  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Simply pointing to the statement of dissent does not establish affiliation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Strawman. I didn't claim anything about affiliation. My beef with that list is that it includes precious few practicing research biologists. Dissent from within, which has been your mantra here all along, requires folks from within to be the dissenters. I shouldn't have to point that out to you, but it appears necessary again.

In summary, the DI's persecution complex, like Hillman's, is based on the fact that they are wrong. They do not make "scientific dissents against Darwinian orthodoxy", they propound pseudoscientific lies based on their religious and cultural beliefs. The scorn that they receive from actual working biologists is well-deserved.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 15 2010,07:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To an interested member of the public who has followed the war, the "you don't know enough about evolution to reject evolution" assertion begs the question of why. All high school graduates since evolution became mandatory have passed the course. If what we were taught is indeed inadequate for forming an opinion, whose fault is that? The public can see how scientific dissenters are treated. I'm the public and it's sure not hard to see how I'm treated. Why the hell would the interested public have any reason to 'shut up and believe'? What are you guys so scared of?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bolding mine. OK, a non controversial example for you:



Please, using your US high school chemistry (something I've encountered btw), provide me with 1) an original retrosynthesis of azadirachtin (shown above) giving clear indications of why you chose each step, 2) a fully planned original forward synthesis detailing your chemical reasoning for all reagents and conditions, with references, 3) probable byproducts for each step of your forward synthesis and potential pitfalls, 4) predicted spectra (specifically IR, UV, 1HNMR and 13CNMR, LRMS and HRMS (using ionisation methods of choice), and calculated elemental analyses) for each intermediate and final product.

I await your answer with some interest. Doing that with US highschool chemistry will be....impressive.

As for your claims of statist/scientist oppression of your views etc. Sagan still said it best:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your highschool evolutionary biology is inadequate to challenge or even really fully appreciate any field of modern science beecause it is simply highschool science. Designed to get people a very basic appreciation of a few key facts about the subjects. This isn't a conspiracy, it's a reflection of the make up of the population (for one thing) and the political lack of ambition (amongst other things) when it comes to education that persists in many countries where the intellectual is seen as "elitist" or evil. (Evere heard of an elitist sportsman? Nope. An elite one perhaps. Can you spot the difference?)

Your problems with your education system, Joy, are not a million miles away from the problems I guarantee you everyone here has with the education system. Especially anyone who has had to work in it or deal with the products of it in a unversity. They don't make you a revolutionary. Which brings me to my last observation.

I get a strong whiff of the American Frontier from your posts. The rebel heart. This is not a uniquely American...well, the word "problem" is the wrong word, because I actually support rebels and am one myself in many ways, so I can't help but sympathise, let's go with..."phenomenon", but it's very familar from a certain type of American if you'll forgive me that. Let's get one thing clear: your beefs with orthodoxy of all types, of statism, governments, politics, the education system etc are all sblimely irrelevant. Your ability to be a rebel there (and all power to you) is not the same ability as that of a rebel in science. You are making howling errors with regards to science (and don't quote your singularly unimpressive credentials and course numbers at me, I'm not even remotely interested) that can only come from a woeful ignorance about what it is and what research has been done. You might be a rebel in other areas of your life, but a scientific rebel you ain't. A scientific rebel (like Margulis etc) has to come up with the evidence. The DI, their other creationist predecessors and compatriots, anyone on their laughable list of irrelevants have utterly failed to do this. Mockery when they try to alter the law or claim their special pleads are science, is one of the better appropriate responses. All mockery ceases the second they come up with some evidence.

So unpin yourself from your self appointed martyr's cross, you look silly up there with your red nose, big shoes and large polka dot pants*, and go out and try to actually substantiate your claims. This far all your sound and fury has signified nothing.

Louis

* Tip of the hat to Erasmus for the beautiful mental image.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,10:18

Wesley:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A few years ago, the National Science Teachers Association polled public school biology teachers concerning creationism, and came up with a figure that about 30% of teachers either already are teaching creationism of some form in classes, or would do so if they felt that their administrators would allow it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, because introduction to evolutionary theory constitutes approximately two weeks (if that much) out of a single semester of required biology in most public schools, it would not be surprising that the 30% you describe here haven't been part of my experience (to include kids and grand). As I mentioned, my grandson's instruction was pretty good - the new textbook was good even if the teacher was a hack. Luckily enough, my instruction was exceptional, but mostly because my teacher (who I had for two years for chemistry and advanced biology) and his brother (who taught physics and calculus) actually had degrees in these fields. That's an exception.

Can I ask what you are including under the heading of "creationism of some form?" Thanks.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,10:57

midwifetoad:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So may we assume that you would be happy if more time were devoted to the details of evolutionary theory in high school, rather than less? Perhaps schools should require two years of biology for graduation rather than one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd like required instruction in evolutionary theory to include more than RM-NS plus endosymbiosis (which is usually tacked onto instruction of cell basics instead of evolutionary theory). I'd like the textbooks to all be as good as my grandson's was. Though he knew more about evolution than was included there years before he hit high school - could rattle off full names and prior/future evolutionary linkage details of obscure dinosaur species without hesitation by the time he started kindergarten.

Advanced biology - where instruction about evolutionary theory was confined - was an elective when I was in high school, as were chemistry, physics and higher mathematics. Designed for students on an academic science track and headed to college. I'm glad it's now required as part of basic biology for all, but because it's required for all it's naturally going to have to be very, very basic ('dumbed down'). Still, it should be open-ended and include more than RM-NS even if the more isn't on the test.

Truth is that a majority of high school students don't go to college, another significant percentage attend community colleges for trade-based instruction and A.A./A.S. credentials. In chronically economically 'challenged' regions like southern Appalachia, 4-year and professional degrees are even rarer. Another harsh truth is (as I previously mentioned) the basic intelligence level of the student body anywhere. 'Average' IQ is 100. Meaning that half of students fall below that level. This explains why instruction in the 'hard' subjects is dumbed down to such a serious extent. It's simply not fair or acceptable to deny your basic high school diploma - a minimal credential - to a student who has put in 12 years and managed an average level of competency across the board, just because they aren't capable of mastering the 'hard' subjects. If public education did that to 50% or more of the nation's children there would be serious sociopolitical ramifications.

Try to bear in mind that only about 2% - 2.5% of the population are classified as 'scientists' - the higher figure includes engineers but excludes large portions of the medical establishment. People who are accountants, business workers, salespeople, caterers, waiters, artists, construction and factory workers, etc., etc., etc. are productive members of society for whom the details about science (any field) simply don't matter much beyond whatever product spin-offs come their way.

A good deal of primary school instruction goes in one ear and out the other the moment the test is over. Someone would have to care and be paying attention to keep up with everything that matters to someone out there. When I was in primary school the political maps (several courses through the years) excluded all the Soviet republics. Just a big swath of red across a good portion of the world with "U.S.S.R." stamped on it - we never heard about Uzbekistan or Tajikistan or Turkmenistan or Latvia or Ukraine or Chechnya... had I not been best friends with a girl whose family had emigrated from Estonia, I wouldn't have been able to ask my teachers why those countries weren't on the map. Not one of 'em liked the question (or answered satisfactorily).

I don't know what to 'do' about the lousy state of public education in the U.S., I just know it's lousy. In the matter of science and math, I'd suggest that people with real understanding of those be trained and hired as teachers. I don't expect that'll happen across the board, though. The pay and work load are atrocious, and many degreed scientists don't have the disposition for rowdy, hormone-crazed teenagers. §;o)
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 15 2010,11:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd like required instruction in evolutionary theory to include more than RM-NS plus endosymbiosis...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A lot of words follow without building on this.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 15 2010,11:09

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 15 2010,11:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd like required instruction in evolutionary theory to include more than RM-NS plus endosymbiosis...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A lot of words follow without building on this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And none of those words come from someone who actually knows what she is talking about.

I've looked at plenty of high school biology textbooks. With very few exceptions, there's plenty about genetic drift, bottlenecks, and other mechanisms of evolution unknown in Darwin's day. The argument that it is just "RM-NS" is a strawman. Per usual.

Furthermore, if none of that is taught in a given school district, it is not the fault of the textbook writer or the broader scientific community. It might have more to do with the general anti-intellectual attitude of the American public, a symptom which Joy exhibits in abundance.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,11:14

oldman:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder what Joy thinks the motivations are of the opposing side in this "culture war".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For almost all the culture warriors I've encountered on either side, the motivation appears to be religion or anti-religion. But for some, and in other fronts of the war, it's just politics.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 15 2010,11:17

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,11:14)
For almost all the culture warriors I've encountered on either side, the motivation appears to be religionstupidity or anti-religionstupidity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for ya.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,11:20

Al2:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Challenges to MS" are not challenges to the idea of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, duh. And a majority of U.S. citizens have no problem with the idea of evolution. Even if they know little about it, and/or have forgotten what little they were taught about the details.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Literalistic readings of texts are not a worthwhile argumentative technique in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! I guess that's why so many here are as literalistic in reading my posts as Bibolators are about reading Genesis 1 & 2.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,11:32

Al2:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fixed that for ya.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hahahaha... you're a regular laugh riot, Al. You can't declare war on more than half of humanity (or everyone you believe to be dumber than you) and expect to 'win' anything. That would make you a MUCH bigger fool than me!

Admit it. It's not the intelligence level of the people you get to share the planet with that bothers you most, since there's exactly zip you can do to make anybody smarter than they are. It's the metaphysical beliefs of humans you get to share the planet with that bugs you. And their right to believe as they choose, of course.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 15 2010,12:00

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,11:32)
Admit it. It's not the intelligence level of the people you get to share the planet with that bothers you most, since there's exactly zip you can do to make anybody smarter than they are. It's the metaphysical beliefs of humans you get to share the planet with that bugs you. And their right to believe as they choose, of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your mind-reading skills are nearly as advanced as your reading comprehension skills.

I won't admit it, because it's not true. I am an educator, and believe in education and its ability to combat ignorance. It can't combat willful ignorance, or stupidity, as is abundantly obvious here.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 15 2010,12:02

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,11:20)
And a majority of U.S. citizens have no problem with the idea of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 15 2010,12:07

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 15 2010,11:09)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 15 2010,11:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd like required instruction in evolutionary theory to include more than RM-NS plus endosymbiosis...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A lot of words follow without building on this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And none of those words come from someone who actually knows what she is talking about.

I've looked at plenty of high school biology textbooks. With very few exceptions, there's plenty about genetic drift, bottlenecks, and other mechanisms of evolution unknown in Darwin's day. The argument that it is just "RM-NS" is a strawman. Per usual.

Furthermore, if none of that is taught in a given school district, it is not the fault of the textbook writer or the broader scientific community. It might have more to do with the general anti-intellectual attitude of the American public, a symptom which Joy exhibits in abundance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, she wants a lot taught in (to paraphrase) "maybe two weeks out of a semester."

I teach high school, and I teach a lot of different subjects, but I was hired for biology.  I'll have to see if I can get a textbook and scan the pages (I teach a computer-based curriculum now so I lack the books), and see what is taught now.  

The main problem is that I live and teach in Texas, where the religious bigots  and idiots have all but crippled science, and education in general, and are even now working to rewrite history to fit their mythology.  When you have a dentist who thinks he knows more than the "experts" and has a mission from his god to "put them in their place" (to paraphrase), well, that's definitely not the fault of scientists or educators, but the morons who elected these other morons to decide what children should think, rather than what they should learn (including critical thinking and skepticism).
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,12:10

Al2:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've never told anyone to "shut up and believe". You're projecting again. As as for "scared", I think you've mistaken anger for fear. I am angered by folks who don't understand science AND who decide that their flawed understanding is what I should teach. I am angered by folks like you who are WILLFULLY ignorant. I am angered by lies; in science a liar is the worst possible offender. But anger is not fear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sentence 1. There you go with the literalism thing again.

Sentence 2. Projecting what?

Sentence 3. Fear and anger are connected, just ask Master Yoda. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Sentence 4. You're a college professor, aren't you? How does anything the DI is selling affect what you are allowed to teach?

Sentence 5. Your opinion of my intelligence or relative level of knowledge about any subject is entirely irrelevant. You might try focusing on your own life. Being angry at me is pointless as well as possibly harmful (stress hormones can lead to a number of health issues).

Sentences 6 & 7. Reiteration.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 15 2010,12:25

One thing I've never gotten out of an evolution critic is a simple statement of what they'd teach if they could write the curriculum.

Maybe Joy will be different. Maybe she'll write out a list of key facts and concepts that can be taught in two weeks of high school biology.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,12:26

Badger:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, she wants a lot taught in (to paraphrase) "maybe two weeks out of a semester."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd rather schools devote an entire school year - or two semesters over the high school curriculum - for requisite biology. That would allow twice as much time or more for examination of evolutionary theory and its many sub-theories. Worse, I'd require some kind of science instruction from first through 12th grade every year - including early instruction in critical thinking and the nature of science reinforced in every course every year thereafter.

Science is so important to modern civilization that it really needs to enjoy more time and emphasis in the training of our young people. They've cut out so much instruction in language (no foreign language requirement many places, no spelling, no parts of speech diagramming, no penmanship, no emphasis on essay construction, etc.), math, history, geography - and whose school has requisite art, music or physical education anymore? - you'd think there would be plenty of time for science.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll have to see if I can get a textbook and scan the pages (I teach a computer-based curriculum now so I lack the books), and see what is taught now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hope your school is using the nifty NG text (which will be geared for your state's EOG testing requirements on the subject), the one for NC was darned good. Lots of intriguing tidbits and links to more info about those. A good way to impart what's required (not much), tease with hints of much more, and offer to brighter and more interested students easy ways to access the more.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,12:31

oh... and I'd also like schools to offer advanced science classes across the board as electives, even for those kids not on a college-bound academic track. Where their interest can be tickled further. Now that most of what used to be required is elective, too many districts reserve advanced academics to magnets or charters that a student may not qualify for in peripheral subjects. Or have access to (rural systems).
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,12:46

midwifetoad:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One thing I've never gotten out of an evolution critic is a simple statement of what they'd teach if they could write the curriculum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not sure how much can be taught to a required class that must pass a majority of students (or cause the school to fail). Maybe they're doing the best they can.

But in line with those better teachers and texts (I've mentioned grandson's NG test as a big improvement), there's another suggestion for my preference for offering advanced classes to all who wish to go further even if they aren't on a college/science track and don't have access to dedicated magnet/charters.

This seriously economically challenged region participated in an 'experiment' conducted by Duke University for a three year period a few years ago. Three years so they could document relative success or failure rates for students with access for the whole of their high school career. 'Volunteer' Ph.D. teachers who had decent ability to connect with teens, no textbooks but the teachers could provide any and all relevant material they wanted for what they wanted to impart. Full access to labs, libraries and the computer banks (they also brought their own software). Students who passed (or the teachers believed tried hard enough) got credits, no time wasted. Class sizes small, heavy on the prerequisites - mathematics plus B or better in requisite biology. They didn't have to be taking the college bound academic curriculum overall.

Perhaps a partnership with state universities (or private ones in-state) could work everywhere. Though I have not seen a publication yet on how this particular experiment worked out statistically.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 15 2010,12:53

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,12:10)
Sentence 4. You're a college professor, aren't you? How does anything the DI is selling affect what you are allowed to teach?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll leave the rest of your comment as a puzzle for you to figure out your own answers, but this one apparently needs an answer.

The DI is selling pseudoscience. I'm a scientist, and a science educator. What I teach, and at what level, is directly influenced by what the DI is selling. Furthermore it is absolutely true that it is far more difficult to expunge a misconception from someone's thinking than it is to teach them the correct ideas fresh. The DI is responsible for filling the minds of my students with misconceptions, making my job more difficult.

Hope that helps. I really do.
Posted by: khan on Feb. 15 2010,13:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
• Pattern: there is evidence of a number of cases of suppression in a particular field or organization, with a plausible reason for it to occur. For example, when there is evidence that an industry has previously kept secret data about hazards from its products, then it is plausible to treat new claims of suppression seriously. Patterns of suppression have been documented in several areas, including attacks on parapsychologists (Hess, 1992), attacks on proponents of nonstandard cancer therapies (Hess, 1999; Moss, 1996), and attacks on scientist opponents of nuclear power (Freeman, 1981; Martin, 1986), pesticides (Martin, 1996b; van den Bosch, 1978), and fluoridation (Martin, 1991; Waldbott, 1965).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(bolding is mine)

Crap, you left out the chem trails and the tetanus shots.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,13:23

Al2:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The DI is selling pseudoscience. I'm a scientist, and a science educator. What I teach, and at what level, is directly influenced by what the DI is selling. Furthermore it is absolutely true that it is far more difficult to expunge a misconception from someone's thinking than it is to teach them the correct ideas fresh. The DI is responsible for filling the minds of my students with misconceptions, making my job more difficult.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aw, hell. There's a million snake oil salesmen out there selling pseudoscience. Always have been, these here intertoobs only make it more available.

Let's look at reality for a moment. The vast, overwhelming majority of people in this country have never heard of the DI, would probably venture a guess that it's some branch of military intelligence or something if asked.

And despite their involvement in some notable public school violations of the church-state separation issue, they've never won a single case. And never will so long as this remains a constitutional republic/democracy. Just something to show their donors, that's all.

Kids get their misconceptions about the world from a lot of places, most of which aren't schoolteachers or textbooks. Peers are a big influence, are their own entirely natural magical thinking proclivities. For the metal church crowd, Sunday school teachers and preachers - and yes, parents - are a bigger issue. Unless your college level biology course is a requirement for all incoming freshmen (or for any type of degree), you probably encounter die-hard creationists only because they want to take the course to cause trouble. More advanced courses are reserved primarily to those who will go into science.

Students' preconceived misconceptions about the world - and science - are always a challenge for teachers to overcome. Getting angry about that is self-defeating. I'd likely suggest to someone in your position who spends their working life angry at their students and frustrated by their job to consider going into a different line of work. Life is too short for that. In my experience, of course.

Hope that helps. I really do.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,13:26

khan:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Crap, you left out the chem trails and the tetanus shots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL!!!!! It was just a copy-paste, khan. Not my stuff. But yeah, there's plenty of crap out there. A side effect of communication abilities and technology for dissemination, I'd venture.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 15 2010,13:45

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,13:23)
Al2:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The DI is selling pseudoscience. I'm a scientist, and a science educator. What I teach, and at what level, is directly influenced by what the DI is selling. Furthermore it is absolutely true that it is far more difficult to expunge a misconception from someone's thinking than it is to teach them the correct ideas fresh. The DI is responsible for filling the minds of my students with misconceptions, making my job more difficult.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aw, hell. There's a million snake oil salesmen out there selling pseudoscience. Always have been, these here intertoobs only make it more available.

Let's look at reality for a moment. The vast, overwhelming majority of people in this country have never heard of the DI, would probably venture a guess that it's some branch of military intelligence or something if asked.

And despite their involvement in some notable public school violations of the church-state separation issue, they've never won a single case. And never will so long as this remains a constitutional republic/democracy. Just something to show their donors, that's all.

Kids get their misconceptions about the world from a lot of places, most of which aren't schoolteachers or textbooks. Peers are a big influence, are their own entirely natural magical thinking proclivities. For the metal church crowd, Sunday school teachers and preachers - and yes, parents - are a bigger issue. Unless your college level biology course is a requirement for all incoming freshmen (or for any type of degree), you probably encounter die-hard creationists only because they want to take the course to cause trouble. More advanced courses are reserved primarily to those who will go into science.

Students' preconceived misconceptions about the world - and science - are always a challenge for teachers to overcome. Getting angry about that is self-defeating. I'd likely suggest to someone in your position who spends their working life angry at their students and frustrated by their job to consider going into a different line of work. Life is too short for that. In my experience, of course.

Hope that helps. I really do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a load of fucking bullshit.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Feb. 15 2010,14:11

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2010,12:02)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,11:20)
And a majority of U.S. citizens have no problem with the idea of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank God for Turkey!  :O
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 15 2010,14:28

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,13:23)
Aw, hell. There's a million snake oil salesmen out there selling pseudoscience. Always have been, these here intertoobs only make it more available.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And all of them deserve to be fought, vigorously, don't you think? Or should we accede to the dumbing down of our country and the resultant failure of our democracy?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's look at reality for a moment. The vast, overwhelming majority of people in this country have never heard of the DI, would probably venture a guess that it's some branch of military intelligence or something if asked.

And despite their involvement in some notable public school violations of the church-state separation issue, they've never won a single case. And never will so long as this remains a constitutional republic/democracy. Just something to show their donors, that's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet if we ignore them, the odds that they will win become a lot stronger, don't you think?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kids get their misconceptions about the world from a lot of places, most of which aren't schoolteachers or textbooks. Peers are a big influence, are their own entirely natural magical thinking proclivities. For the metal church crowd, Sunday school teachers and preachers - and yes, parents - are a bigger issue. Unless your college level biology course is a requirement for all incoming freshmen (or for any type of degree), you probably encounter die-hard creationists only because they want to take the course to cause trouble. More advanced courses are reserved primarily to those who will go into science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Strawman; I never denied that kids get misconceptions from lots of places. I'm merely trying to reduce the influence of one of those places. Why does that bother you?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Students' preconceived misconceptions about the world - and science - are always a challenge for teachers to overcome. Getting angry about that is self-defeating. I'd likely suggest to someone in your position who spends their working life angry at their students and frustrated by their job to consider going into a different line of work. Life is too short for that. In my experience, of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You really do have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you? Who said that I am angry with my students? Not me! I'm angry with those who are willfully ignorant, and who foster willful ignorance. And despite your quoting of Yoda, I think that is a good motivator.
Posted by: tsig on Feb. 15 2010,15:30

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
Al2:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In your discussion with me, your unsupported notions (not exactly "ideas") about dissent re evolution within the scientific community were the issue. I frankly don't care about your experience in 8th grade science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fine. No, those weren't your issues. To your issues, I personally recognize that the current bruhaha in biology about whatever is going to be the 'new' version of evolutionary theory will of course work itself out eventually according to the evidence. No matter how nasty the in-house debates get. That's how science works, and how paradigms change in science (the point of my textbook anecdote).

I also recognize with no reservations that biology isn't ever going to endorse any theological version of creation. That anybody believes it should is, IMO, just another symptom of the incredibly lousy state of education in Amerika as well as just another front in the inane "Culture War" that has spawned such ridiculous spectacles as those crazy Teabaggers who demand that the government keep its hands off their Medicare. Geez, it looks like all the "dumbing down" worked better than anybody dreamed!

Given the dismal state of education and marginal intelligence of the broad public science would dearly love to control (on policy levels), of course it's been way too easy to steer them toward believing that science should confirm their particular religious beliefs. Hence the Culture War. Deal is, those religious beliefs (of literalist Bibolators) actually aren't as common as you may have been led to believe by your fellow warriors. About all of the mainstream and orthodox religious denominations in this country have no problems at all with evolutionary theory. Why, even the Pope recognizes that all the metaphysical "extras" are metaphysical, and metaphysics isn't science's job. But for the Bibolators out there, you're never going to make a dent. It's foolish to try (and I'm a professional fool, so I know a little about foolishness).

You can't win this Culture War with mean-spirited Evangelical Atheism. You can't win it by insulting everybody's intelligence when it's just a percentage of the >50% who qualify as hopeless. Even that >50% outnumber you by a large margin, and they're both armed and mean as hell because they feel threatened. [Yeah, they ARE threatened by reality, but that's a lesser consideration IMO, given reality.]

I don't know if you've heard about the shooting at UAH yesterday, but things are weird all over these days and scientists aren't exempt. All the way to desperation for way too many people, and we have no idea how many people who have lost their homes, their jobs, their last hope are committing murders out there in the broad nation. I am of the considered opinion (take it FWIW) that we stand on the razor's edge right now. The quest could fail, most spectacularly. And history demonstrates that a dark age could ensue if it all falls apart. Science will be the #1 victim of that, and it would be a terrible shame. I'd like to do what little I might be able to do to prevent it. So here I am, in the belly of the beast (so to speak).

Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think.

Worst case scenario - a new 'dark age' might be the only way humanity can survive. God! I'd sure hate that to be true!!!

I've got more, of course. Maybe this is a good start on issues you may want to discuss?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You say:

"Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power."

What is the Power? Satan?

Amoral servant? You got your Bible crossed with your science book.
Posted by: tsig on Feb. 15 2010,15:34

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 13 2010,18:11)
Hi Kahn,

 
Quote (khan @ Feb. 13 2010,17:55)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can't win this Culture War with mean-spirited Evangelical Atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



WTF are you talking about?

Reality is not evangelical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please, excuse me for butting in but I think I can address this.

While I am technically an agnostic, most people would classify as an Atheist.

I have even been very vocal about how the "under God" phrase in the pledge of allegiance is an obvious and egregious abridgement of the constitution.

However, I also ascribe to NOMA principles.  And beyond that, I hold that no one gets to claim the Truth for all.

To me, science is about knowledge, not truth.

When Atheists argue against NOMA and attempt to interfere with parents teaching their children their Truth, then it becomes evangelical, IMO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I hold that no one gets to claim the Truth for all."

Except parents

"When Atheists argue against NOMA and attempt to interfere with parents teaching their children their Truth"
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 15 2010,15:40

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
Science will be the #1 victim of that, and it would be a terrible shame. I'd like to do what little I might be able to do to prevent it. So here I am, in the belly of the beast (so to speak).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does Joy really think that the people on this site would be leading the charge to kill "science"? That anything she could "do here" would change any of that? The people here are not the problem.

Erm, Joy, I think you are on the wrong site. There are at least two that I can think of that promote craven ignorance.  Perhaps your save science agenda would be best served at the places helping cause the problems?

Why not go and have a Pop at Salvador Cordova who is currently quote-mining Darwin
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How I did enjoy shooting
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


in relation to some recent killings.
Why don't you go climb into the belly of that < beast > and see if they'll even let you talk?
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 15 2010,15:42

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,12:26)
Badger:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, she wants a lot taught in (to paraphrase) "maybe two weeks out of a semester."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd rather schools devote an entire school year - or two semesters over the high school curriculum - for requisite biology. That would allow twice as much time or more for examination of evolutionary theory and its many sub-theories. Worse, I'd require some kind of science instruction from first through 12th grade every year - including early instruction in critical thinking and the nature of science reinforced in every course every year thereafter.

Science is so important to modern civilization that it really needs to enjoy more time and emphasis in the training of our young people. They've cut out so much instruction in language (no foreign language requirement many places, no spelling, no parts of speech diagramming, no penmanship, no emphasis on essay construction, etc.), math, history, geography - and whose school has requisite art, music or physical education anymore? - you'd think there would be plenty of time for science.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll have to see if I can get a textbook and scan the pages (I teach a computer-based curriculum now so I lack the books), and see what is taught now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hope your school is using the nifty NG text (which will be geared for your state's EOG testing requirements on the subject), the one for NC was darned good. Lots of intriguing tidbits and links to more info about those. A good way to impart what's required (not much), tease with hints of much more, and offer to brighter and more interested students easy ways to access the more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree that we should have two years of biology, but the current standards are geared more towards the other end - like physics.  The new 4x4 standards simply has one credit of biology, so the most we can do is one year.  Add in the C-Scope requirements, and there isn't a lot of control we have over classrooms.  

Our textbook is the Glencoe Science (Texas Edition, so you can guess how screwed we are) - Biology, the Dynamics of Life (the orca cover).  (I assume the NG is the Natural Geographic?  If it is, then yeah, this is one - it does have a lot of stuff for further exploration). So far, on a skim, chapters 15 and 16 deal with evolution in general, and primate and human evolution in particular.  I noticed cladistics and genetic variation (mutation, etc), and a section on population genetics and selection pressures.  

Overall, it's not a bad book, and since we have ten-thousand things to teach and not enough time, it really depends on the teacher.  So far, after three years I haven't had any problems, and have had a few interesting discussions.
Posted by: tsig on Feb. 15 2010,15:45

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 14 2010,10:24)
Erasmus:
We also boast another top ranking... teenage pregnancies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just say No isn't working out that good.

Should have thought the girls track and field.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 15 2010,15:47

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,12:26)
Badger:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, she wants a lot taught in (to paraphrase) "maybe two weeks out of a semester."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd rather schools devote an entire school year - or two semesters over the high school curriculum - for requisite biology. That would allow twice as much time or more for examination of evolutionary theory and its many sub-theories. Worse, I'd require some kind of science instruction from first through 12th grade every year - including early instruction in critical thinking and the nature of science reinforced in every course every year thereafter.

Science is so important to modern civilization that it really needs to enjoy more time and emphasis in the training of our young people. They've cut out so much instruction in language (no foreign language requirement many places, no spelling, no parts of speech diagramming, no penmanship, no emphasis on essay construction, etc.), math, history, geography - and whose school has requisite art, music or physical education anymore? - you'd think there would be plenty of time for science.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll have to see if I can get a textbook and scan the pages (I teach a computer-based curriculum now so I lack the books), and see what is taught now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hope your school is using the nifty NG text (which will be geared for your state's EOG testing requirements on the subject), the one for NC was darned good. Lots of intriguing tidbits and links to more info about those. A good way to impart what's required (not much), tease with hints of much more, and offer to brighter and more interested students easy ways to access the more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Missed some other things.  Here we're going to have four years of English (already have), four years of Social Studies (already have), and four years of both math and science (up from three).  We do teach such things as diagramming (one thing I don't mind helping them with, ironic considering how much I hated it when I was in school).  In order to pass with the minimum (what we deal with a lot in credit recovery/alternative ed), there is no foreign language requirement, but to get the recommended req you need two years of a foreign language.  

We need three courses (1.5 semesters) of PE, and while there are no music, art, or theatre requirements, they are popular electives (as are the autotech, robotics, some kind of aeronautics program - not sure exactly).  We also have dual credit courses with a local college here.  It's not all bad, but then again, we are in a city.  Smaller districts and schools may not have much of these things, so YMMV.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 15 2010,15:49

Quote (tsig @ Feb. 15 2010,15:45)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 14 2010,10:24)
Erasmus:
We also boast another top ranking... teenage pregnancies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just say No isn't working out that good.

Should have thought the girls track and field.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought it was "read my lips"? :O

awright, awright, that was a bit sick, considering my job, but when you deal with teenage parents every day...

nah, still inappropriate.
Posted by: tsig on Feb. 15 2010,15:57

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,10:57)
midwifetoad:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So may we assume that you would be happy if more time were devoted to the details of evolutionary theory in high school, rather than less? Perhaps schools should require two years of biology for graduation rather than one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd like required instruction in evolutionary theory to include more than RM-NS plus endosymbiosis (which is usually tacked onto instruction of cell basics instead of evolutionary theory). I'd like the textbooks to all be as good as my grandson's was. Though he knew more about evolution than was included there years before he hit high school - could rattle off full names and prior/future evolutionary linkage details of obscure dinosaur species without hesitation by the time he started kindergarten.

Advanced biology - where instruction about evolutionary theory was confined - was an elective when I was in high school, as were chemistry, physics and higher mathematics. Designed for students on an academic science track and headed to college. I'm glad it's now required as part of basic biology for all, but because it's required for all it's naturally going to have to be very, very basic ('dumbed down'). Still, it should be open-ended and include more than RM-NS even if the more isn't on the test.

Truth is that a majority of high school students don't go to college, another significant percentage attend community colleges for trade-based instruction and A.A./A.S. credentials. In chronically economically 'challenged' regions like southern Appalachia, 4-year and professional degrees are even rarer. Another harsh truth is (as I previously mentioned) the basic intelligence level of the student body anywhere. 'Average' IQ is 100. Meaning that half of students fall below that level. This explains why instruction in the 'hard' subjects is dumbed down to such a serious extent. It's simply not fair or acceptable to deny your basic high school diploma - a minimal credential - to a student who has put in 12 years and managed an average level of competency across the board, just because they aren't capable of mastering the 'hard' subjects. If public education did that to 50% or more of the nation's children there would be serious sociopolitical ramifications.

Try to bear in mind that only about 2% - 2.5% of the population are classified as 'scientists' - the higher figure includes engineers but excludes large portions of the medical establishment. People who are accountants, business workers, salespeople, caterers, waiters, artists, construction and factory workers, etc., etc., etc. are productive members of society for whom the details about science (any field) simply don't matter much beyond whatever product spin-offs come their way.

A good deal of primary school instruction goes in one ear and out the other the moment the test is over. Someone would have to care and be paying attention to keep up with everything that matters to someone out there. When I was in primary school the political maps (several courses through the years) excluded all the Soviet republics. Just a big swath of red across a good portion of the world with "U.S.S.R." stamped on it - we never heard about Uzbekistan or Tajikistan or Turkmenistan or Latvia or Ukraine or Chechnya... had I not been best friends with a girl whose family had emigrated from Estonia, I wouldn't have been able to ask my teachers why those countries weren't on the map. Not one of 'em liked the question (or answered satisfactorily).

I don't know what to 'do' about the lousy state of public education in the U.S., I just know it's lousy. In the matter of science and math, I'd suggest that people with real understanding of those be trained and hired as teachers. I don't expect that'll happen across the board, though. The pay and work load are atrocious, and many degreed scientists don't have the disposition for rowdy, hormone-crazed teenagers. §;o)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahh yes the good ole' days.

Well they produced you Joy so we can be sure the education system wasn't that good back in the good ole' daze.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,16:29

Al2:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And all of them deserve to be fought, vigorously, don't you think? Or should we accede to the dumbing down of our country and the resultant failure of our democracy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where their scams or plans influence or try to interfere with my life they will be fought, vigorously. There's a lot of issues in the sociopolitical world as-it-is that can take up a lot of time and energy in someone's life. Nobody's got time and energy for them all, so we pick our battles. You picked a career where this issue came attached, so you have some influence.

The single most effective brainwashing tool in sociopolitics (and economics) ever created by the wiles of humankind is the idiot box - television. Some would argue the internet is just as bad or worse, but I'm not yet convinced of that. We shall see. There's not a damned thing I can do about television, any of its supporting industries. I can't force all the hypnotized Zombies in this country to wake up - I can't even convince my own relatives to turn it off! What I can do is not pay anybody for the privilege of being hypnotized and brainwashed. So I don't. We've had no broadcase/cable television in our home since 1976. No, I'm not angry all the time about Zombies or the quacks who hypnotize them.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet if we ignore them, the odds that they will win become a lot stronger, don't you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I doubt it. I view the 'culture war' as distraction. Don't think anybody's ever going to win, or lose. That's not the point. Getting and keeping you angry at windmills is the point.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm merely trying to reduce the influence of one of those places. Why does that bother you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems like you've good opportunity to do that in your work. Good for you. It doesn't bother me at all. I've said I'd like to see science education vastly improved across the board, along with education in general. Seems that that would be good for all of us.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 15 2010,16:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not sure how much can be taught to a required class that must pass a majority of students (or cause the school to fail). Maybe they're doing the best they can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I asked a rather simple question. If you were given control over curriculum, what facts and concepts would you teach in high school, with regard to evolution?

Obviously you can't do everything, so my question implies that you list the items in priority order.

I've been asking this question of ID advocates for five or six years now. I was hoping you would be the first to respond.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 15 2010,17:04

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2010,06:07)
Bolding mine. OK, a non controversial example for you:



Please, using your US high school chemistry (something I've encountered btw), provide me with 1) an original retrosynthesis of azadirachtin (shown above) giving clear indications of why you chose each step, 2) a fully planned original forward synthesis detailing your chemical reasoning for all reagents and conditions, with references, 3) probable byproducts for each step of your forward synthesis and potential pitfalls, 4) predicted spectra (specifically IR, UV, 1HNMR and 13CNMR, LRMS and HRMS (using ionisation methods of choice), and calculated elemental analyses) for each intermediate and final product.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, now my brain hurts...

What do the dotted connection lines mean?

And what's "Me"?

Does "CO2Me" mean that each O is bonded once to the C and once to the Me?
Posted by: Raevmo on Feb. 15 2010,17:09

I wouldn't worry too much about Joy. She's mostly harmless and on our side in the culture wars, and she can be quite entertaining. I bet she used to be a hot chick 50 years ago.

Thing is, she's a pathological liar, making up stuff all the time. Like being a scientist, or that crap about her grandson knowing the dinosaurs. She's a wannabe.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 15 2010,17:59

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,16:29)
Al2:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And all of them deserve to be fought, vigorously, don't you think? Or should we accede to the dumbing down of our country and the resultant failure of our democracy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where their scams or plans influence or try to interfere with my life they will be fought, vigorously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is, as you hopefully can understand, what I am doing. Their scams interfere with my life; their plans would interfere with the lives of every single American.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I view the 'culture war' as distraction. Don't think anybody's ever going to win, or lose. That's not the point. Getting and keeping you angry at windmills is the point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the point is that if we don't combat them, they will win. I don't look at this as just science vs the DI. The DI is a (particularly mendacious) head of a hydra that has, at the neck, anti-intellectualism. The outcome of having them or one of the other heads win this would be a theocracy, or, at the very least, an idiotocracy. I wish I could discount that as being improbable, but since this country elected Reagan and Bush, I don't ever want to underestimate the power of propaganda over the ill-informed. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I just don't see the value in ceding any ground at all to the would-be theocrats and boobs.
Posted by: someotherguy on Feb. 15 2010,18:32

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 15 2010,17:04)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2010,06:07)
Bolding mine. OK, a non controversial example for you:



Please, using your US high school chemistry (something I've encountered btw), provide me with 1) an original retrosynthesis of azadirachtin (shown above) giving clear indications of why you chose each step, 2) a fully planned original forward synthesis detailing your chemical reasoning for all reagents and conditions, with references, 3) probable byproducts for each step of your forward synthesis and potential pitfalls, 4) predicted spectra (specifically IR, UV, 1HNMR and 13CNMR, LRMS and HRMS (using ionisation methods of choice), and calculated elemental analyses) for each intermediate and final product.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, now my brain hurts...

What do the dotted connection lines mean?

And what's "Me"?

Does "CO2Me" mean that each O is bonded once to the C and once to the Me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not a chemist, but I'll take a stab at your questions.  

The dotted connection lines are covalent bonds.  The dotted line is a convention meant to indicate 3D structure--specifically, it indicates that the bond is not in the plane of the page and is instead pointing "into" the screen (away from you).  

"Me" stands for "Methyl."  It is a carbon atom with three hydrogens covalently bonded to it.  The carbon atom is also bonded to another non-hydrogen atom (frequently another carbon).  

I believe the arrangement of Co2Me would be something like this: Carbon is doubled-bonded to one oxygen and single-bonded to the second oxygen.  The oxygen with the single bond is also bonded to the methyl (CH3) group.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 15 2010,19:04

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 15 2010,22:04)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2010,06:07)
Bolding mine. OK, a non controversial example for you:



Please, using your US high school chemistry (something I've encountered btw), provide me with 1) an original retrosynthesis of azadirachtin (shown above) giving clear indications of why you chose each step, 2) a fully planned original forward synthesis detailing your chemical reasoning for all reagents and conditions, with references, 3) probable byproducts for each step of your forward synthesis and potential pitfalls, 4) predicted spectra (specifically IR, UV, 1HNMR and 13CNMR, LRMS and HRMS (using ionisation methods of choice), and calculated elemental analyses) for each intermediate and final product.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, now my brain hurts...

What do the dotted connection lines mean?

And what's "Me"?

Does "CO2Me" mean that each O is bonded once to the C and once to the Me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's exactly like Someotherguy said:

1) This is a stereochemical (almost sort of 3D) representation of azadirachtin. The bold, wedged lines represent a covalent bond coming out of the plane of the page towards you, the hashed, wedged lines represent a covalent bond going back away from you. The solid, non bold, non hashed, non wedged lines are covalent bonds (supposedly) in the plane of the page.*

This is a simplification, but this is the everyday organic chemistry way of drawing a molecule and prepresenting the stereochemistry of that molecule.

2) "Me" stands for "Methyl" (in this case R-CH3, R = rest of molecule)

3) Rhe R-CO2Me is an ester group. It's a normal, 4 valent carbon with a carbon-oxygen double bond, a carbon-oxygen single bond the oxygen of which is bonded to the carbon of the methyl unit, and of course a bond to R, again in this case the rest of the molecule.

HTH!

Why did I ask the original question? The chances of Joy answering this question using US highschool chemistry are nil. That is my point. None of what I asked about is controversial or in dispute, and since it is chemistry it has important implications for origins (abiogenesis). Yet Joy isn't lamenting the fact that high school students can't do something I'd expect a first year UK grad student to certainly be able to have a good stab at. In fact I'd expect a decent undergrad would know what to do with that question, even if the practicalities of executing the synthesis were something they weren't familiar with.

If I were to stick up a proposed synthesis of azadirachtin I seriously doubt an IDCist/creationist/whatever-Joy-is-ist would even dream of critiquing it from the perspective of a US high school grad. They simply wouldn't be able to do it, they haven't yet learned what they need to learn to do it. Yet no hand wringing....I wonder why?

Just to be clear, I'm very ambitious for all public education systems, but I don't for a second expect that even in my utopian, all perfect school system fantasy land that high school grads would tackle this sort of problem. It's a pretty specialist problem (even if it isnt spectacularly difficult to propose a synthesis of azadirachtin, I never said it had to be a good or workable synthesis). Why the hell does any student not going into synthetic organic chemistry, and specifically natural product synthesis need to even attempt it? Apart from intellectual curiosity of course.

It's the curious absence of concern when it's anything other than the evil dogma of baby killing and human unimportanterising evolutionary biology. You know, evolutionary biology, the field of science which, just coincidentally I'm sure, various religious sects have been specifically targetting their opposition at. I'm sure is just a coincidence that Joy clearly has issues with this area of science more than any other. Must be. Couldn't be anything else.

Oh shit, my fingers appear to be stuck in sarcasm mode. Naughty fingers.

Louis

*For example, the two six membered rings in the "middle left) of the molecule are very, VERY far from flat and in the plane of the page, but like I said this is a simplification designed to show the stereochemical architecture of a molecule and not necessarily represent its 3D structure perfectly.
Posted by: rhmc on Feb. 15 2010,20:57

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 15 2010,18:59)
...the point is that if we don't combat them, they will win. I don't look at this as just science vs the DI. The DI is a (particularly mendacious) head of a hydra that has, at the neck, anti-intellectualism. The outcome of having them or one of the other heads win this would be a theocracy, or, at the very least, an idiotocracy. I wish I could discount that as being improbable, but since this country elected Reagan and Bush, I don't ever want to underestimate the power of propaganda over the ill-informed. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I just don't see the value in ceding any ground at all to the would-be theocrats and boobs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


absolutely.  

and it seems, to me at least, where ever we find a group attempting to derail public education in the sciences, one or more of the intelligent design covens are to some degree or another involved in supporting that effort.


Klotzen, nicht Kleckern!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 15 2010,22:12

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,11:14)
oldman:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wonder what Joy thinks the motivations are of the opposing side in this "culture war".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For almost all the culture warriors I've encountered on either side, the motivation appears to be religion or anti-religion. But for some, and in other fronts of the war, it's just politics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess I'd fall into the "religious" motivation group. I really dislike the way religious antievolution's ensemble of endlessly repeated falsehoods brings disrepute upon Christianity in general. I was brought up believing that God expected us to tell the truth. The deception that has been the organizing principle of religious antievolution in the USA since 1968 is antithetical to those beliefs.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 15 2010,22:28

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,10:18)
Wesley:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A few years ago, the National Science Teachers Association polled public school biology teachers concerning creationism, and came up with a figure that about 30% of teachers either already are teaching creationism of some form in classes, or would do so if they felt that their administrators would allow it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, because introduction to evolutionary theory constitutes approximately two weeks (if that much) out of a single semester of required biology in most public schools, it would not be surprising that the 30% you describe here haven't been part of my experience (to include kids and grand). As I mentioned, my grandson's instruction was pretty good - the new textbook was good even if the teacher was a hack. Luckily enough, my instruction was exceptional, but mostly because my teacher (who I had for two years for chemistry and advanced biology) and his brother (who taught physics and calculus) actually had degrees in these fields. That's an exception.

Can I ask what you are including under the heading of "creationism of some form?" Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You left out consideration of the alternative hypothesis of uneven geographic distribution of antievolution-leaning teachers.

Also, evolutionary science should be integrated throughout the biology curriculum. It's not being taught well if there's a neat two-week section that contains all the conceptual treatment of evolutionary science that the students get. College courses on evolutionary science easily fill a semester with an overview of material in the field; the odds are nil that that can be reduced to two weeks in a high school setting and be considered to impart comprehensive knowledge of the field.

I'm on record any number of places about what constitutes creationism, or, more precisely for the context, religious antievolution. But if you don't wish to go searching through other things I've written (Google returns about 606,000 hits on a search for "wesley elsberry", and Google groups ought to have about six thousand posts I made to talk.origins over the years), I'd be perfectly willing to go over what I meant in the quoted post in more detail once I see your reply to the topic of Stephen Elliott's question about your claim concerning "weaponized Ebola". I don't recall seeing an answer from you to Stephen Elliott previously; if I'm mistaken, just provide the permalink for me.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 15 2010,22:34

Louis:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yet no hand wringing....I wonder why?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For some reason, it is common for people without experience or even much exposure to evolutionary science to believe that they understand it at a level that validates their critiques of it. This isn't unique, but it is probably at its most egregious within the realm of biology.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 15 2010,22:45

Al2:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, the point is that if we don't combat them, they will win. I don't look at this as just science vs the DI. The DI is a (particularly mendacious) head of a hydra that has, at the neck, anti-intellectualism. The outcome of having them or one of the other heads win this would be a theocracy, or, at the very least, an idiotocracy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would expect no less from a committed anti-creationist (or just anti-religious) culture warrior. I simply recognize this bruhaha doesn't even rise to the level of gladiator games as the opening act in the big arena where the real shit's going down.

Anti-intellectualism is just another tool to ensure the continued hegemony of the status quo. As I said, there are a great many causes that can channel the passions, time and energy of people who, if left to their own devices, might be dangerous.

As an educator you should know that the best way to alleviate ignorance is through education. You're doing your part every day. As an intelligent person, you should also know that nothing you can ever do is going to cure stupidity. The moment you start believing you have the power or the right to control other people's minds you become no better than the wannabe mind-tyrants you're waging war against.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 16 2010,01:18

Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 15 2010,20:57)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 15 2010,18:59)
...the point is that if we don't combat them, they will win. I don't look at this as just science vs the DI. The DI is a (particularly mendacious) head of a hydra that has, at the neck, anti-intellectualism. The outcome of having them or one of the other heads win this would be a theocracy, or, at the very least, an idiotocracy. I wish I could discount that as being improbable, but since this country elected Reagan and Bush, I don't ever want to underestimate the power of propaganda over the ill-informed. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I just don't see the value in ceding any ground at all to the would-be theocrats and boobs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


absolutely.  

and it seems, to me at least, where ever we find a group attempting to derail public education in the sciences, one or more of the intelligent design covens are to some degree or another involved in supporting that effort.


Klotzen, nicht Kleckern!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I tried Duden but that wasn't of much help. A simple Google search did the trick though,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“Nicht Kleckern, Sondern Klotzen” is a German saying which means doing things in a big way. The title of this photo series is “Nicht klotzen ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 16 2010,03:31

As a falconer, should I explain myself to German-speaking people with, "Ich habe einen Vo­gel"?

ETA: capitalization.


Posted by: Quack on Feb. 16 2010,04:11

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 16 2010,03:31)
As a falconer, should I explain myself to German-speaking people with, "Ich habe einen Vo­gel"?

ETA: capitalization.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know, but I wouldn't show you a bird...






ETA show instead of give.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 16 2010,06:32

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,22:45)
...you should also know that nothing you can ever do is going to cure stupidity. The moment you start believing you have the power or the right to control other people's minds you become no better than the wannabe mind-tyrants you're waging war against.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gosh, all I said was that I was trying to combat ignorance. I'm pretty sure that I excluded willful ignorance and stupidity from the things that I thought could be cured.

Your reading/memory skills remain astonishing. Thanks for telling me what I might believe, even though, in this very thread, I explicitly tell you that I don't believe it at all.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 16 2010,08:29

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 16 2010,03:34)
Louis:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yet no hand wringing....I wonder why?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For some reason, it is common for people without experience or even much exposure to evolutionary science to believe that they understand it at a level that validates their critiques of it. This isn't unique, but it is probably at its most egregious within the realm of biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You get the same thing in medicine/chemistry/pharmacology, it's just a bit more subtle and less direct. Just talk to a homeopath or anyone who advocates homeopathy, for example.

I've lost count of the times I've used the "homeopathic alcohol" demonstration on people, only for them to tell me that the mega-dilutions in homeopathy still work. It's at this point I usually refuse to buy the next round.

Ignorance breeds confidence more than knowledge does...it seems to me that someone familiar and relevant said something very much like that once. Hmmmm.

Louis
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 16 2010,10:21

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 16 2010,08:29)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 16 2010,03:34)
Louis:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yet no hand wringing....I wonder why?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For some reason, it is common for people without experience or even much exposure to evolutionary science to believe that they understand it at a level that validates their critiques of it. This isn't unique, but it is probably at its most egregious within the realm of biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You get the same thing in medicine/chemistry/pharmacology, it's just a bit more subtle and less direct. Just talk to a homeopath or anyone who advocates homeopathy, for example.

I've lost count of the times I've used the "homeopathic alcohol" demonstration on people, only for them to tell me that the mega-dilutions in homeopathy still work. It's at this point I usually refuse to buy the next round.

Ignorance breeds confidence more than knowledge does...it seems to me that someone familiar and relevant said something very much like that once. Hmmmm.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I googled for ’french scientist+homeopathy’ and hit < a really bad experiment >
What I didn’t know was that even though
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Serious question marks remain over the Benveniste paper, but what is not in doubt is that its influence among homeopaths is still powerful and profound 20 years on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read an extensive report on this affair many years ago and the conclusion was quite damning.
(My bold)
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 16 2010,12:02

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 15 2010,22:28)
 
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,10:18)
Wesley:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A few years ago, the National Science Teachers Association polled public school biology teachers concerning creationism, and came up with a figure that about 30% of teachers either already are teaching creationism of some form in classes, or would do so if they felt that their administrators would allow it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, because introduction to evolutionary theory constitutes approximately two weeks (if that much) out of a single semester of required biology in most public schools, it would not be surprising that the 30% you describe here haven't been part of my experience (to include kids and grand). As I mentioned, my grandson's instruction was pretty good - the new textbook was good even if the teacher was a hack. Luckily enough, my instruction was exceptional, but mostly because my teacher (who I had for two years for chemistry and advanced biology) and his brother (who taught physics and calculus) actually had degrees in these fields. That's an exception.

Can I ask what you are including under the heading of "creationism of some form?" Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You left out consideration of the alternative hypothesis of uneven geographic distribution of antievolution-leaning teachers.

Also, evolutionary science should be integrated throughout the biology curriculum. It's not being taught well if there's a neat two-week section that contains all the conceptual treatment of evolutionary science that the students get. College courses on evolutionary science easily fill a semester with an overview of material in the field; the odds are nil that that can be reduced to two weeks in a high school setting and be considered to impart comprehensive knowledge of the field.

I'm on record any number of places about what constitutes creationism, or, more precisely for the context, religious antievolution. But if you don't wish to go searching through other things I've written (Google returns about 606,000 hits on a search for "wesley elsberry", and Google groups ought to have about six thousand posts I made to talk.origins over the years), I'd be perfectly willing to go over what I meant in the quoted post in more detail once I see your reply to the topic of Stephen Elliott's question about your claim concerning "weaponized Ebola". I don't recall seeing an answer from you to Stephen Elliott previously; if I'm mistaken, just provide the permalink for me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for reminding me Wes, I had about given up on that. Anyway, I will repeat the question here.

 
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
...Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To my bolded bit.

I think I know what you are referring to, but just to be sure could you elaborate? Evidence would be nice too.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 16 2010,13:31

Whatever happened to weaponized Cool-Aid?
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 16 2010,13:37

Wesley:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess I'd fall into the "religious" motivation group. I really dislike the way religious antievolution's ensemble of endlessly repeated falsehoods brings disrepute upon Christianity in general.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you obviously take your religion more seriously than I do. It's not an issue of much concern for me what Bibolators choose to believe. I do think they're misguided, and rather stupid. But there's no cure for stupidity and they have the same right as everybody else to make their own choices.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was brought up believing that God expected us to tell the truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Me too. Oddly enough, such belief has never managed to dent the level of dishonesty ubiquitous in human society and interpersonal relationships.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The deception that has been the organizing principle of religious antievolution in the USA since 1968 is antithetical to those beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We have whole classes of endeavor (law, politics, advertising, and often religion) so rife with deception that sifting for truth can be a full time job. Seems like a completely natural aspect of the human psyche to me. A facilitator for evil and a self-justification for it.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For some reason, it is common for people without experience or even much exposure to evolutionary science to believe that they understand it at a level that validates their critiques of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The concept of biological evolution is ubiquitous across many aspects of popular culture that kids can't escape unless they are held devoid of contact with popular culture. In which case they probably aren't going to public schools. Thus I don't see that evolution is as unknown or as controversial as it is portrayed by culture warriors. How much any random member of the public needs to know about the details is certainly arguable. Regardless, society has decided that some instruction is warranted. Most public schools follow the requirements.

I understand that teachers are personally committed to the alleviation of ignorance and the dissemination of knowledge. What I do not understand is the foolish belief that the offer of knowledge must automatically result in acceptance or assimilation of said knowledge in the mind of a student (or anybody else). Or that throwing more details at them will change the situation. Or that insulting them when it becomes clear they're unreachable will accomplish what the offer of knowledge didn't.

Some people remain ignorant because they haven't got the brainpower (or desire) to retain knowledge. They qualify as "stupid," though there are more PC labels for it. Stupidity is incurable.

Some people remain ignorant by conscious choice - "willfully." They reject knowledge because it conflicts with beliefs the person finds more important to their life than the knowledge. Individuals may change their minds at some point, but no one else can do it for them. Which makes willful ignorance incurable too.

Spending your time, energy and passion in life trying to cure the incurable (control other people's minds) seems pointless to me. For example, here's a tidbit of knowledge I consider to be one of the most important lessons a person can learn in their life -

You can't make people care about what they don't want to know.

There. I've offered valuable knowledge to you succinctly and for free. What I'm NOT doing is pinning any importance on whether you accept and incorporate my offered knowledge in your own life. It may be something you have to learn for yourself the hard way, or something you may be incapable of learning. Not my concern either way because your mind, life, experiences and abilities belong to you, not to me.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 16 2010,14:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The concept of biological evolution is ubiquitous across many aspects of popular culture that kids can't escape unless they are held devoid of contact with popular culture.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: keiths on Feb. 16 2010,14:05

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,11:37)
Spending your time, energy and passion in life trying to cure the incurable (control other people's minds) seems pointless to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In Joy's bizarre world, trying to combat ignorance is tantamount to mind control. I wish I had a nickel for every time she's used the phrase "wannabe mind tyrants".

By the way, Joy, how about answering Stephen Elliott's question?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 16 2010,14:10

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2010,14:05)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,11:37)
Spending your time, energy and passion in life trying to cure the incurable (control other people's minds) seems pointless to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In Joy's bizarre world, trying to combat ignorance is tantamount to mind control. I wish I had a nickel for every time she's used the phrase "wannabe mind tyrants".

By the way, Joy, how about answering Stephen Elliott's question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Joy considers it no big thing to accuse someone of advocating the murder of a few Billion people.
Posted by: khan on Feb. 16 2010,14:12

Joy is a thoroughly nasty POS, and I shall no longer read her ignorant diatribes.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 16 2010,16:04

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,13:37)
What I do not understand is the foolish belief that the offer of knowledge must automatically result in acceptance or assimilation of said knowledge in the mind of a student (or anybody else).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy,

What I don't understand is your apparently unlimited ability to generate strawman arguments.

Pray tell, who here has advocated this "belief"?
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 16 2010,16:32

Stephen Elliott:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps Joy considers it no big thing to accuse someone of advocating the murder of a few Billion people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sigh. I ignored it because it looked to me like the context of my comment was clear enough, and I have been ignoring rude asides and gross misrepresentations.

The post was to Albatrossity2 in response to his questioning of my observation that there is in-house dissent in regards to the mechanisms of evolution (and in challenge to the Theory of Evolution taught in public schools).

Given Al's curt dismissal of my experience with public education (and opinion of it), I perceived the looming presence of miscommunication in the exchange overall. So I responded with a lengthy (...so sue me) attempt to contextualize, a.k.a. 'clarify'. In the dim hope that small acknowledgment of my position - questioning both sides about the value to society of this 'Culture War' - would make for better communication.

I defended the importance of science itself, and listed some ways that science - or its most vocal culture warrior defenders - could lose the war. In my elucidation of why such tactics will likely backfire I described the unstable sociopolitical situation of the public (including scientists), and how that feeds into these Culture War distractions. Finally, the offending paragraph...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a cientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Lede to the paragraph is my observation that science has a nasty PR problem. To which I cited scientific involvement in WMD production. Notable things for which science hasn't earned the public's undying loyalty and support. "One too many" refers to Pianka and the infamous bruhaha his statements in Texas set off - in that same context of public distrust of science. The context is again made clear by the closing sentence of the paragraph.

Accept as-is or choose to misrepresent. I don't care. I days ago accepted the fact that no one here is likely to accept anything I care to say. I'm just another big-c IDiot who believes the world is 6,000 years old and Eve rode a dinosaur. Someone to insult with abandon, belittle amongst yourselves as if I weren't in the room, practice nit-picking skills on, vie with each other to deliver the final blow that safely expunges me from your clubhouse.

And in the end this situation will provide yet another excellent example of why this front in the Culture War is just a distraction [i.e., 'amusement'] along the sociopolitical midway. Not important enough to stage in the main arena, but still useful enough (to Power) to justify rent on the tent.
Posted by: khan on Feb. 16 2010,16:43

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,17:32)
Stephen Elliott:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps Joy considers it no big thing to accuse someone of advocating the murder of a few Billion people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sigh. I ignored it because it looked to me like the context of my comment was clear enough, and I have been ignoring rude asides and gross misrepresentations.

The post was to Albatrossity2 in response to his questioning of my observation that there is in-house dissent in regards to the mechanisms of evolution (and in challenge to the Theory of Evolution taught in public schools).

Given Al's curt dismissal of my experience with public education (and opinion of it), I perceived the looming presence of miscommunication in the exchange overall. So I responded with a lengthy (...so sue me) attempt to contextualize, a.k.a. 'clarify'. In the dim hope that small acknowledgment of my position - questioning both sides about the value to society of this 'Culture War' - would make for better communication.

I defended the importance of science itself, and listed some ways that science - or its most vocal culture warrior defenders - could lose the war. In my elucidation of why such tactics will likely backfire I described the unstable sociopolitical situation of the public (including scientists), and how that feeds into these Culture War distractions. Finally, the offending paragraph...

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a cientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Lede to the paragraph is my observation that science has a nasty PR problem. To which I cited scientific involvement in WMD production. Notable things for which science hasn't earned the public's undying loyalty and support. "One too many" refers to Pianka and the infamous bruhaha his statements in Texas set off - in that same context of public distrust of science. The context is again made clear by the closing sentence of the paragraph.

Accept as-is or choose to misrepresent. I don't care. I days ago accepted the fact that no one here is likely to accept anything I care to say. I'm just another big-c IDiot who believes the world is 6,000 years old and Eve rode a dinosaur. Someone to insult with abandon, belittle amongst yourselves as if I weren't in the room, practice nit-picking skills on, vie with each other to deliver the final blow that safely expunges me from your clubhouse.

And in the end this situation will provide yet another excellent example of why this front in the Culture War is just a distraction [i.e., 'amusement'] along the sociopolitical midway. Not important enough to stage in the main arena, but still useful enough (to Power) to justify rent on the tent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are an ignorant ass who thinks reality is one side of the 'cultural' war.

I don't like you or your horse.

(ETA typo)
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 16 2010,17:12

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,14:32)
I days ago accepted the fact that no one here is likely to accept anything I care to say. I'm just another big-c IDiot who believes the world is 6,000 years old and Eve rode a dinosaur. Someone to insult with abandon, belittle amongst yourselves as if I weren't in the room, practice nit-picking skills on, vie with each other to deliver the final blow that safely expunges me from your clubhouse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy, your martyr shtick doesn't play very well in a venue where you're being given every opportunity to back up your claims with evidence.  Can you defend your assertions, or are you just going to whine about how we're not granting you unearned respect?
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 16 2010,18:20

keiths:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you defend your assertions, or are you just going to whine about how we're not granting you unearned respect?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Assertions" of what? I cited the only paragraph in which Ebola was mentioned, just two posts above yours. Explained its context. The last sentence of that cited paragraph reads:

Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting in this sideshow Culture War with think.

Explain to me what it is about this sentence that you do not understand. That will help me understand why you do not understand the clearly indicated context. Thanks.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 16 2010,18:45

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,16:32)
Stephen Elliott:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps Joy considers it no big thing to accuse someone of advocating the murder of a few Billion people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sigh. I ignored it because it looked to me like the context of my comment was clear enough, and I have been ignoring rude asides and gross misrepresentations.

The post was to Albatrossity2 in response to his questioning of my observation that there is in-house dissent in regards to the mechanisms of evolution (and in challenge to the Theory of Evolution taught in public schools).

Given Al's curt dismissal of my experience with public education (and opinion of it), I perceived the looming presence of miscommunication in the exchange overall. So I responded with a lengthy (...so sue me) attempt to contextualize, a.k.a. 'clarify'. In the dim hope that small acknowledgment of my position - questioning both sides about the value to society of this 'Culture War' - would make for better communication.

I defended the importance of science itself, and listed some ways that science - or its most vocal culture warrior defenders - could lose the war. In my elucidation of why such tactics will likely backfire I described the unstable sociopolitical situation of the public (including scientists), and how that feeds into these Culture War distractions. Finally, the offending paragraph...

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a cientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Lede to the paragraph is my observation that science has a nasty PR problem. To which I cited scientific involvement in WMD production. Notable things for which science hasn't earned the public's undying loyalty and support. "One too many" refers to Pianka and the infamous bruhaha his statements in Texas set off - in that same context of public distrust of science. The context is again made clear by the closing sentence of the paragraph.

Accept as-is or choose to misrepresent. I don't care. I days ago accepted the fact that no one here is likely to accept anything I care to say. I'm just another big-c IDiot who believes the world is 6,000 years old and Eve rode a dinosaur. Someone to insult with abandon, belittle amongst yourselves as if I weren't in the room, practice nit-picking skills on, vie with each other to deliver the final blow that safely expunges me from your clubhouse.

And in the end this situation will provide yet another excellent example of why this front in the Culture War is just a distraction [i.e., 'amusement'] along the sociopolitical midway. Not important enough to stage in the main arena, but still useful enough (to Power) to justify rent on the tent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy,
You ignored my original question. Why wont you answer? I think this lead to the "ebola boys" claim and Dembski calling homeland security.

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
...Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To my bolded bit.

I think I know what you are referring to, but just to be sure could you elaborate? Evidence would be nice too.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 16 2010,18:56

Stephen Elliott:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think this lead to the "ebola boys" claim and Dembski calling homeland security.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Ebola boys"??? There's more than one?
Posted by: someotherguy on Feb. 16 2010,19:00

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,18:56)
Stephen Elliott:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think this lead to the "ebola boys" claim and Dembski calling homeland security.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Ebola boys"??? There's more than one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Church Burning Ebola Boys >:  my all-time favorite UD-related meme.

Getting back to the point, I, like Stephen Elliott, am still confused about whether or not you were accusing Eric Pianka of advocating mass murder.
Posted by: khan on Feb. 16 2010,19:07

Quote (someotherguy @ Feb. 16 2010,20:00)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,18:56)
Stephen Elliott:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think this lead to the "ebola boys" claim and Dembski calling homeland security.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Ebola boys"??? There's more than one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Church Burning Ebola Boys >:  my all-time favorite UD-related meme.

Getting back to the point, I, like Stephen Elliott, am still confused about whether or not you were accusing Eric Pianka of advocating mass murder.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She's probably lying.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 16 2010,19:18

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 16 2010,18:45)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,16:32)
Stephen Elliott:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps Joy considers it no big thing to accuse someone of advocating the murder of a few Billion people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sigh. I ignored it because it looked to me like the context of my comment was clear enough, and I have been ignoring rude asides and gross misrepresentations.

The post was to Albatrossity2 in response to his questioning of my observation that there is in-house dissent in regards to the mechanisms of evolution (and in challenge to the Theory of Evolution taught in public schools).

Given Al's curt dismissal of my experience with public education (and opinion of it), I perceived the looming presence of miscommunication in the exchange overall. So I responded with a lengthy (...so sue me) attempt to contextualize, a.k.a. 'clarify'. In the dim hope that small acknowledgment of my position - questioning both sides about the value to society of this 'Culture War' - would make for better communication.

I defended the importance of science itself, and listed some ways that science - or its most vocal culture warrior defenders - could lose the war. In my elucidation of why such tactics will likely backfire I described the unstable sociopolitical situation of the public (including scientists), and how that feeds into these Culture War distractions. Finally, the offending paragraph...

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a cientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Lede to the paragraph is my observation that science has a nasty PR problem. To which I cited scientific involvement in WMD production. Notable things for which science hasn't earned the public's undying loyalty and support. "One too many" refers to Pianka and the infamous bruhaha his statements in Texas set off - in that same context of public distrust of science. The context is again made clear by the closing sentence of the paragraph.

Accept as-is or choose to misrepresent. I don't care. I days ago accepted the fact that no one here is likely to accept anything I care to say. I'm just another big-c IDiot who believes the world is 6,000 years old and Eve rode a dinosaur. Someone to insult with abandon, belittle amongst yourselves as if I weren't in the room, practice nit-picking skills on, vie with each other to deliver the final blow that safely expunges me from your clubhouse.

And in the end this situation will provide yet another excellent example of why this front in the Culture War is just a distraction [i.e., 'amusement'] along the sociopolitical midway. Not important enough to stage in the main arena, but still useful enough (to Power) to justify rent on the tent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy,
You ignored my original question. Why wont you answer? I think this lead to the "ebola boys" claim and Dembski calling homeland security.

 
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
...Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To my bolded bit.

I think I know what you are referring to, but just to be sure could you elaborate? Evidence would be nice too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Yes, that is what she is referencing. > UD and TT both pitched fits about it, while the rest of world pretty much ignored it.

ETA: < Mike Gene did recant his/her statements >
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 16 2010,19:41

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,18:56)
Stephen Elliott:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think this lead to the "ebola boys" claim and Dembski calling homeland security.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Ebola boys"??? There's more than one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy,
Why will you not answer my original question? You made an unsubstantiated claim but fail to back it up.  

 
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
...Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To my bolded bit.

I think I know what you are referring to, but just to be sure could you elaborate? Evidence would be nice too.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 16 2010,19:57

Joy:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Spending your time, energy and passion in life trying to cure the incurable (control other people's minds) seems pointless to me.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My aim is to have science taught in public K-12 public school science classrooms, and that non-science not be presented as if it were science. This has nothing to do with controlling anybody's mind. I don't care what they believe so long as they don't misrepresent it as being science that must be presented to children when it is nothing of the sort.

The rest of your use of "you" following the above quote in that comment was similarly completely inappropriate.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 16 2010,20:08

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 16 2010,19:41)
 
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,18:56)
Stephen Elliott:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think this lead to the "ebola boys" claim and Dembski calling homeland security.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Ebola boys"??? There's more than one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joy,
Why will you not answer my original question? You made an unsubstantiated claim but fail to back it up.  

     
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
...Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow Culture War with think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To my bolded bit.

I think I know what you are referring to, but just to be sure could you elaborate? Evidence would be nice too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that we can consider Joy to have placed the context as the Pianka affair. The fact that she buys into the IDC propaganda about Pianka is quite damning enough; the fact that she participates in the < inflationary universe of antievolution > is documented by her unsupported use of the plural.

The notion that Pianka called for a program to intentionally weaponize ebola is a falsehood at best, and most likely is simply a lie.

ETA: subject-verb agreement.


Posted by: Joy on Feb. 16 2010,20:11

someotherguy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Getting back to the point, I, like Stephen Elliott, am still confused about whether or not you were accusing Eric Pianka of advocating mass murder.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I was not accusing Pianka of advocating mass murder. Read the paragraph again - bearing in mind the teaching that a paragraph should stick to a theme/thought. The theme laid out in sentence one is science's PR problem and from there a short comment on why it's got a PR problem. The inclusion of reference to the Pianka bruhaha in that comment was because it is illustrative of that PR problem - the casually interested churchy 'base' doesn't know about or credit any clarifications or justifications from Pianka that came after Mims' complaint. Any more than you are capable of crediting my clarifications here.

Moreover, the last sentence of the paragraph clearly indicates that I'm talking about the way your opposition thinks. A good reader would take that (in context of the entire post) to be a warning that feeding ammunition to the opposition is not a winning strategy. In-house it may be a regular laugh riot. Out amongst the public that pays to watch the sideshow, it's a serious offense. Another PR problem science doesn't need.

I shouldn't have to explain this so exhaustively to any halfway educated adult. Wow. I thought it was the other 'side' that was hopelessly challenged... §:o(

afarensis:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, that is what she is referencing. UD and TT both pitched fits about it, while the rest of world pretty much ignored it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



THANK YOU. I'm having a hard time figuring out how anyone could have missed it the first time. The second time was even more puzzling. With this third clarification it's all the way to stupid. No one who reads the words...

"'One too many' refers to Pianka and the infamous bruhaha his statements in Texas set off..."

...and still pretends not to understand that Pianka's statements and resulting bruhaha are what is being referred to, is...

a troll not worth the trouble.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 16 2010,20:30

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,20:11)
The inclusion of reference to the Pianka bruhaha in that comment was because it is illustrative of that PR problem - the casually interested churchy 'base' doesn't know about or credit any clarifications or justifications from Pianka that came after Mims' complaint.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, even though you said that some scientist was advocating weaponized Ebola, you really have no evidence that any scientist said that. It was merely an unsubstantiated assertion from Mims, and now you repeat it. Furthermore even though you barely seem to acknowledge that the opposition created the problem, you would like to blame it on a "PR problem" that scientists have.

Got it.

thanks
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 16 2010,20:55

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,18:11)
No, I was not accusing Pianka of advocating mass murder.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's your paragraph, Joy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're not idiots, Joy. We can read what you wrote.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 16 2010,21:03

Wesley:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that she buys into the IDC propaganda about Pianka is quite damning enough; the fact that she participates in the inflationary universe of antievolution is documented by her unsupported use of the plural.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So much bullshit, so little time...

1. Where did I "buy into" the IDC propaganda about Pianka? Come on, Wesley. I know you are capable of parsing a paragraph. I've left multi-detailed instructions.

2. Where did I use the plural? Using your own fan club's misrepresentations as fodder for pointless re-misrepresentation is awfully low-level even for you [personally]. This stupid shit is enough for me. I've learned everything I needed from you [figurative].

Figuring you [figurative] out fortunately didn't take the five-plus years it took to figure out the 'other' guys. Comparatively, you [figurative] are rank amateurs. I think you're [figurative] out of your [figurative] depth on this front of the Culture War. Explains a lot, actually.

How disappointed I am personally is probably just a leftover of my long-time desire that science grow up to be all that its promise once held. I'll live. It's the frustration I can no longer tolerate. Buh-bye.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 16 2010,21:19

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,21:03)
It's the frustration I can no longer tolerate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's mutual. Don't need much more of that myself.

Oh, that and the persecution complex.
Posted by: someotherguy on Feb. 16 2010,21:24

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,21:03)
Wesley:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that she buys into the IDC propaganda about Pianka is quite damning enough; the fact that she participates in the inflationary universe of antievolution is documented by her unsupported use of the plural.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So much bullshit, so little time...

1. Where did I "buy into" the IDC propaganda about Pianka? Come on, Wesley. I know you are capable of parsing a paragraph. I've left multi-detailed instructions.

2. Where did I use the plural? Using your own fan club's misrepresentations as fodder for pointless re-misrepresentation is awfully low-level even for you [personally]. This stupid shit is enough for me. I've learned everything I needed from you [figurative].

Figuring you [figurative] out fortunately didn't take the five-plus years it took to figure out the 'other' guys. Comparatively, you [figurative] are rank amateurs. I think you're [figurative] out of your [figurative] depth on this front of the Culture War. Explains a lot, actually.

How disappointed I am personally is probably just a leftover of my long-time desire that science grow up to be all that its promise once held. I'll live. It's the frustration I can no longer tolerate. Buh-bye.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The considerable pleasure of a semi-weekly flounce out notwithstanding, if you can seriously not understand how we would read the text keiths quoted above, even in context, as a statement in support of the claim that Eric Pianka advocated mass murder, then I think you may have taken one too many lessons from the "Denyse O'leary School of Opacity in Communication."
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 16 2010,21:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do think they're misguided, and rather stupid. But there's no cure for stupidity and they have the same right as everybody else to make their own choices.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, I have to chime in here.

Joy, do you really, really not understand that almost everyone here is fine with the stupid making their own choices, but not with them making those choices for our children, too?

Seriously. Clue in already.  What was Epperson v. Arkansas? Kitzmiller et al v. Dover?  Does the name John Freshwater mean anything to you?
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 16 2010,23:23

keiths:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We're not idiots, Joy. We can read what you wrote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You [figurative] look pretty darned idiotic from here, keith.

I seem to recall you being fairly bright and in possession of some 'normal' ability to appreciate humor. Even sarcasm, a somewhat sophisticated sub-classification making liberal use of ridicule, directly or turned backwards (even more sophisticated), I would have guessed you[figurative] were up to that much.

The context of the paragraph has already been exhaustively explained in minute detail more than once, emphasis on clues in the introduction and conclusion toward the satirical construct that falls in between. So let's just take THIS whole sentence you [personal] can't understand and parse it, mkay?

"Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a scientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola."

"Thus you can't really expect" - standard set-up, figurative "you" as opposed to "guy" who walks into a bar...

"the public" overbroad subject = generalization.

"to suddenly come to believe" - almost like magic!

"science and scientists are going to solve all problems" - Reeeeeeally?! is that a reasonable expectation or an obviously unreasonable expectation? Do you grok that extention to the obviously unreasonable = ridiculous [i.e., "ridicule"]?

"or willingly submit to a scientocracy" - real expectation or ridiculous-ness? Come on, I know you know this...

"when one too many scientists" - how many is one too many? Does the sudden specificity help to identify precisely WHAT ridiculous-ness is being satirized? Does it suggest presumed familiarity?

"has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola?" - See above item. This is the designed-to-hit-hard punch line. Denouement follows at the end of the paragraph - the way the opposition thinks.

I am a professional Fool and an 'expert' on the nature and importance of humor to human sociology, psychology and history. see: Parabola Magazine, Fall 2001; A Fool's History of Human Civilization. I have taught hundreds of students through three decades about what is funny and how to present it for best effect. Kids from 3 to 92, all social and economic classes, a wide variety of physical and intellectual capabilities, in a multitude of settings.

I have never - and I mean never - had to explain the humor to ANYBODY to this depth of total cluelessness. A surprisingly sophisticated sense of humor generally comes standard issue with the human mind.

It's a truism on the circuit that those who have no sense of humor are the ones you have to worry about. The notable absence of a sense of humor can indicate obsession and attached feelings of persecution. Or it can simply be that you [figurative] take yourself [figurative] way, way too seriously. In which case you're [figurative] all too likely to end up as the butt of someone else's slapstick joke, since 'everybody' resents the pompous white-face and cheers the auguste buffoon.

Classic comedy is built around such themes, has been since the first clowns rose up out of a sinkhole and became humankind's (in Native American mythology) first policemen. Their weapon was ridicule. It worked rather well until the natives met some humorless white guys who took themselves so seriously they'd kill you [literally] - and your [literal] wife and children, and even your [literal] whole tribe and civilization - just for the gold (glorified cowry shells).

I am frankly appalled and disgusted, but then again, maybe I'm the butt of this joke you're [figurative] all playing on me. In which case I deserve it because I missed the punch line. If so I'll have to order another gross of noses so you [figurative] can receive what you've earned. But you'll need some serious work on delivery and timing before taking it to the clubs...

Al2:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, that and the persecution complex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



TELL me about it! ...Geez. This place is chock full of paranoiacs.

Okay. Now I'm really hitting the hay. Buh-bye.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 16 2010,23:29

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2010,14:05)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,11:37)
Spending your time, energy and passion in life trying to cure the incurable (control other people's minds) seems pointless to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In Joy's bizarre world, trying to combat ignorance is tantamount to mind control. I wish I had a nickel for every time she's used the phrase "wannabe mind tyrants".

By the way, Joy, how about answering Stephen Elliott's question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least she hasn't brought up "mendacious intellectual pornographers" and asked for a camera.  :p
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 16 2010,23:46

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 16 2010,23:29)
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2010,14:05)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,11:37)
Spending your time, energy and passion in life trying to cure the incurable (control other people's minds) seems pointless to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In Joy's bizarre world, trying to combat ignorance is tantamount to mind control. I wish I had a nickel for every time she's used the phrase "wannabe mind tyrants".

By the way, Joy, how about answering Stephen Elliott's question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least she hasn't brought up "mendacious intellectual pornographers" and asked for a camera.  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 17 2010,00:02

Ok, so can anyone explain to me who has stated that they would like to reduce the population of the planet with weaponized Ebola?  I know the Pianka non-affair was caused by a nutjob with a grudge, and the morons at DI blew it up into the manufactroversy of the day.  How is this a problem for scientists?  Some idiot quote mines or takes things out of context, or reads their own ideas into what someone else says, and that is their responsibility...how?

This seems more like the "framing" bullshite again - scientists are bad communicators because what they say gets twisted around by others, and that's all the fault of the bad scientists?  

In a similar line, where did the "scientism" strawman come from?  Seriously, is there anyone who here who actually expects    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Who believes this?  I've yet to meet anyone who actually thinks that science, by itself, will solve everything (hell, I don't think even the batshit insane transhumanists I've met would go that far)  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
or willingly submit to a scientocracy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why would scientists be any better at governing than anyone else, and why would they want to - in general, that is - this isn't Krypton.  How did wanting people to be educated into accepting scientific facts and understanding how we come to understand these facts (ie, basic scientific literacy that is really better in a lot of countries other than the US) morph into Mind Tyrants (shades of < Mindok >!)?  finally, as everyone else has piled on but I can't get a clear answer:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

- only if you buy into the overhyped rantings of lunatics.  That's like taking history lessons from David Barton.  It's like saying that the public has the right to get the truth about UFOs since there have been so many abductees reporting their experiences, and, heck, they even have "majestic 12" documents that could not, never, nope, nosiree Bob, be fake?  Come on, listen to Richard Hoagland - he's always on the radio (well, coast to coast am), and he's right - what are the scientists and miltary and politicians keeping from the people?!!  How can we trust the government when they can't even tell us the truth about ET!!!!!11!!

Seriously, how is it the fault of scientists if morons exist who will use anything they can to promote their beliefs?  Why should that be a barrier to trying to educate people?

(previewed my post, and luckily I wasn't drinking or I'd need a new keyboard.  <kirk voice>Richardthughes! </kirk voice>
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Feb. 17 2010,01:06

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,15:32)
                     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a cientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow-Culture-War with, think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have been lurking and reading consistently at AtBC for about 5 years, masochistically visit the tard that is TT, and I am aware of Joy's predilections...but I can go back and read her paragraph a bit differently after her explanation above. Editing to add two hyphens and a comma at the end of the bolded line in her quote changes its meaning a little for me.

I'm guessing what Joy is trying to say is this:

While SHE does not necessarily believe the Pianka accusations emanating from the ID side, she thinks the general public DOES believe the "weaponized Ebola" bullshit by Mims/Dembski. Joy thinks the "very bad PR problem" of science is a failure to expose the bullshit effectively in the public mind, resulting in a growing distrust of science as portrayed by its opponents.

Dembski and his ilk demonize scientists by preying (praying?) on the public's ignorance of science. They build on small collective fears — atomic bomb in the hands of Power — through falsehood and foment hysteria in a completely different area.

(It amazes me how Climategate has increased public distrust to new levels under the threat of what from science?...the inconvenience of getting up off our lazy asses and paying more attention to what we are doing to our environment? Seems God's chosen caretakers would warm up to the idea of minding the Earth...guess not.)

Anyway, I think Joy contends that such manufactured alienation is far enough along, there is no way the public is going to suddenly trust science or scientists. I don't disagree with that contention.

However, having said all that, I am not convinced whether Joy is uncomfortable with the disgusting behavior of Dembski and the rest of denialist crowd or not...


ETA: BTW, I have a real problem with Joy's "Science...as an amoral servant of Power". That's just more demonizing.
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 17 2010,01:50

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,01:06)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,15:32)
                     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a cientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow-Culture-War with, think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have been lurking and reading consistently at AtBC for about 5 years, masochistically visit the tard that is TT, and I am aware of Joy's predilections...but I can go back and read her paragraph a bit differently after her explanation above. Editing to add two hyphens and a comma at the end of the bolded line in her quote changes its meaning a little for me.

I'm guessing what Joy is trying to say is this:

While SHE does not necessarily believe the Pianka accusations emanating from the ID side, she thinks the general public DOES believe the "weaponized Ebola" bullshit by Mims/Dembski. Joy thinks the "very bad PR problem" of science is a failure to expose the bullshit effectively in the public mind, resulting in a growing distrust of science as portrayed by its opponents.

Dembski and his ilk demonize scientists by preying (praying?) on the public's ignorance of science. They build on small collective fears — atomic bomb in the hands of Power — through falsehood and foment hysteria in a completely different area.

(It amazes me how Climategate has increased public distrust to new levels under the threat of what from science?...the inconvenience of getting up off our lazy asses and paying more attention to what we are doing to our environment? Seems God's chosen caretakers would warm up to the idea of minding the Earth...guess not.)

Anyway, I think Joy contends that such manufactured alienation is far enough along, there is no way the public is going to suddenly trust science or scientists. I don't disagree with that contention.

However, having said all that, I am not convinced whether Joy is uncomfortable with the disgusting behavior of Dembski and the rest of denialist crowd or not...


ETA: BTW, I have a real problem with Joy's "Science...as an amoral servant of Power". That's just more demonizing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can see what you are saying - that scientists have not been effective countering the BS that idiots are saying about them (and science in general).  That's a common complaint.  The only cure for that is education, and unfortunately that requires countering the BS that the creotards and other maggots want to foist off on the public.  

I'd be a bit more skeptical about some of the claims - I would seriously doubt that any vast quantity of people know who Pianka is or what was said about him.  I'd wager that it is mostly the morons at UD/TT who keep the lies going among their own little inbred group.  America has an unfortunate history of anti-intellectualism and the belief that the mythical "common man" is somehow better than those who might actually have a little knowledge about something, especially when such knowledge threatens their comfortable safety bubble that their religions makes for them.  Add in a political party that preys on manufactured fears and who oppose public education (preferring private indoctrination), and another political party that seems too scared to actually do anything, with both parties doing their level best to suck as much money out of corporations as they can while squatting on the people who elected them...well, not the best situation in the world, right?

A pox on all their houses!  :angry:
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Feb. 17 2010,02:16

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 17 2010,00:50)
         
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,01:06)
[...snip...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can see what you are saying

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just to be clear, I was trying to say what I think Joy was trying to say. Perhaps I should have qualified a bit more by saying "I don't totally disagree".  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
- that scientists have not been effective countering the BS that idiots are saying about them (and science in general).  That's a common complaint.  The only cure for that is education, and unfortunately that requires countering the BS that the creotards and other maggots want to foist off on the public.  

I'd be a bit more skeptical about some of the claims - I would seriously doubt that any vast quantity of people know who Pianka is or what was said about him.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed. The Pianka smear is relatively unknown in the general public, but is indicative of a common tactic among denialists, big and small, to demonize science.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd wager that it is mostly the morons at UD/TT who keep the lies going among their own little inbred group.  America has an unfortunate history of anti-intellectualism and the belief that the mythical "common man" is somehow better than those who might actually have a little knowledge about something, especially when such knowledge threatens their comfortable safety bubble that their religions makes for them.  Add in a political party that preys on manufactured fears and who oppose public education (preferring private indoctrination), and another political party that seems too scared to actually do anything, with both parties doing their level best to suck as much money out of corporations as they can while squatting on the people who elected them...well, not the best situation in the world, right?

A pox on all their houses!  :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 17 2010,06:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Agreed. The Pianka smear is relatively unknown in the general public, but is indicative of a common tactic among denialists, big and small, to demonize science.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If it is relatively unknown, then it isn't a good example of reasons why "science has a bad PR problem", does it?

The fact is, science does not have a "bad PR problem". Scientists are up among the most trusted people around according to the polls. Certainly, more could be done to improve upon that, but it is another way that our interlocutor is out to lunch.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 17 2010,06:50

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,21:32)
[SNIP]

To which I cited scientific involvement in WMD production.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seriously, how do you produce WMD (or indeed any technological item) without "scientific involvement"?

Simply because some people choose to use their scientific acumen to act, in their eyes*, in the defense of their nation by creating WMD this does not make science the problem. I can pick up a stick and bash people over the head with it, the fault or problem is not with the stick.

You are confusing the tool (in this case science and technology) with the potential consequences of a subset of its uses (creation of WMD). You are making a fallacious argument.

If science has a PR problem because of this (and I agree that to some people it does) then those people are....{drum roll}...wrong. They are making the same appeal to potential consequences that you are. The solution is not to castrate science or whine about the evils you perceive it to have, the solution is to educate people so as to correct the demonstrable errors in their thinking as far as is possible.

There is also more than a whiff of hypocrisy from you here. You are more than content to avail yourself of the products of science that you find no issue with (you are using a computer!) and yet you feel free to hang science and scientists out to dry as a whole because some of the products of science are not to your liking.

Louis

*Personally, I find the arguments that demonstrate it is actually against national interest to be using/creating any WMD are massively compelling. But these arguments, whilst using reason, logic and being influenced by scientific data (for example about nuclear winters etc) etc, are not scientific arguments.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Feb. 17 2010,12:06

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 17 2010,05:41)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Agreed. The Pianka smear is relatively unknown in the general public, but is indicative of a common tactic among denialists, big and small, to demonize science.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If it is relatively unknown, then it isn't a good example of reasons why "science has a bad PR problem", does it?

The fact is, science does not have a "bad PR problem". Scientists are up among the most trusted people around according to the polls. Certainly, more could be done to improve upon that, but it is another way that our interlocutor is out to lunch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, I was expressing what I thought Joy was trying to say. Perhaps it is not a "good example" in itself, but indicative of tactics. Granted, though relatively unknown in general public, I believe the Pianka is well known among specific, albeit small, groups – UDites for example – though I'm not sure how long the incident remains in their unused brains.

I had the thought, perhaps wrong, that one could view a number of "relatively unknown" incidents (Freshwater, McLeroy/TSBE/Comer, Dover, 'Expelled', etc... ) where anti-science, pseudo-religious agents (Dembski, the DI, Meyer, etc... ) use falsehoods to smear science, both locally to the incident and among their own echo-chambers, as planting the seeds for a larger "PR problem for science."

A more wide-spread smear campaign against science comes along, like Climategate, and provides a common ground for such smaller groups to coalesce and find strength in numbers for their misguided beliefs. Slow accretion in relatively unknown areas for sure, but spreading the gap between science and portions of the public nonetheless. Just a thought...

I agree "that our interlocutor is out to lunch", just saying this one particular paragraph I was able to read a little differently.

Yes...I trust scientists to a fault. I wouldn't trust Dembski with my cafeteria card, but I'd trust Louis completely...even around my beer.*


* Though maybe not around me mum.**

** Or Arden's mum. ***

*** Or Arden.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 17 2010,12:30

fnxtr:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy, do you really, really not understand that almost everyone here is fine with the stupid making their own choices, but not with them making those choices for our children, too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I won't bother again expressing my many issues with public education in this country. I will simply say - yet again - that there's always someone, or some group of someones with particular views and issues who seek to have their views and issues be made part of the curriculum in public schools. As a ready means to indoctrination, since most people know that a state-sponsored classroom of captive kids is the most effective means of spreading their memes.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seriously. Clue in already.  What was Epperson v. Arkansas? Kitzmiller et al v. Dover?  Does the name John Freshwater mean anything to you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know your experience, but much of mine was military/governmental. With people who took their oaths to protect and defend seriously, and had a pretty good grasp of the principles at stake. I learned early on that freedom requires constant vigilance because it is a fragile construct in a world full of selfish humans and conflicting interests.

The 'Law of the Land' on teaching religion as science is clear and has been clear for awhile. The SCOTUS has been completely consistent in its rulings, and it only gets to rule when a lower federal court breaks constitutional precedent - most cases never even get that far before the school is reprimanded (state courts more often do the job). It is illegal for a public school to teach religion as science.

The existence of law has never in the entire history of human civilization prevented individuals from behaving badly - law doesn't magically eliminate sin. It just formalizes definitions and codifies violations. The vast majority of school districts in this country don't break the law. The few that do find out quickly just how expensive their no-win position truly is, thanks to vigilant citizens.

That isn't going to change as long as American citizens remain vigilant. You should remain vigilant too.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 17 2010,12:53

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 17 2010,17:30)
fnxtr:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joy, do you really, really not understand that almost everyone here is fine with the stupid making their own choices, but not with them making those choices for our children, too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I won't bother again expressing my many issues with public education in this country. I will simply say - yet again - that there's always someone, or some group of someones with particular views and issues who seek to have their views and issues be made part of the curriculum in public schools. As a ready means to indoctrination, since most people know that a state-sponsored classroom of captive kids is the most effective means of spreading their memes.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So teaching kids science is indoctrination? Gotcha.

To pinch from Tim Minchin's brilliant < Storm >:

When Storm says, in re
Of some un-hippily empirical comment made by me
“All science is just opinion"
She opines over her Cabernet Sauvignon
I resist the temptation to ask
If knowledge is so loose-weave of a morn
When she opts to leave her apartment by the door
Rather than the window on the second floor.


I wonder, Joy, is teaching kids about the theory of gravity "indoctrination"?

Like I said before, you're not a scientific rebel, you're a rebel without a clue. Or a cause. You're simply confused.

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 17 2010,13:58

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 17 2010,12:30)
The SCOTUS ... only gets to rule when a lower federal court breaks constitutional precedent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IANAL, but that is just < plain wrong >, as I learned in my junior high civics class.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The court grants a petition for cert only for "compelling reasons," spelled out in the court's < Rule 10 >. Such reasons include:

   * to resolve a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal Constitution
   * to correct an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
   * to resolve an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's apparent that you like to just make up stuff, or misremember it. I realize that this analysis will just drive you back up on your cross, but it seems to be true nonetheless.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 17 2010,13:59

Tony M Nyphot:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, I was expressing what I thought Joy was trying to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And doing a good job of it too, I might add. Thanks.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had the thought, perhaps wrong, that one could view a number of "relatively unknown" incidents (Freshwater, McLeroy/TSBE/Comer, Dover, 'Expelled', etc... ) where anti-science, pseudo-religious agents (Dembski, the DI, Meyer, etc... ) use falsehoods to smear science, both locally to the incident and among their own echo-chambers, as planting the seeds for a larger "PR problem for science."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's excellent analysis, Tony. So despite lip service to the mob here ["I agree 'that our interlocutor is out to lunch'"], you're probably going to get slammed anyway for telling them something they don't want to know.

For my part, I'd add a little background to the analysis. No matter how short the attention span of Barnum's suckers may be, the seeds are never really gone from the shaped worldview. So while you could maybe count a few dozen people who could opine on the spot about an evil Ebola-espousing scientist, there are many thousands who were exposed to the Mims account. Those many thousands spread it to their friends and family during the time it resided in their consciousness, and those friends and family spread it further. And like a game of 'Telephone', there's no telling how twisted it got before it fell from consciousness. And you probably couldn't count on the fingers of one hand how many in the entire meme-pool ever encountered the later defense or retractions. Nor would it be likely that anyone who did believed it for a second.

So here's a pool of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people for whom the Ebola bruhaha is a component of their increasingly anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-elite worldview. The moment anyone in their circle mentions it, the incident floods right back into their consciousness complete with all the twists and turns the story took before they heard it, and it's fully enveloped in the entire emotional suite attached to it at the time.

Multiply this scenario by every other anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-elite meme that's circulated out there during anyone's lifetime, and pretty soon you're talking about millions. Maybe tens of millions if you count those who merely lean in that direction but still maintain a fairly realistic worldview. It's a force to be reckoned with.

Insert here the moronically awful tactic (on the part of culture warriors on the scientific side) of generalizing their identified 'enemy' to everyone on earth who believes in anything remotely spiritual (billions) and the contest starts looking positively one-sided. Basic human psychology would scream loudly that the result of this tactic is entirely likely to backfire big time.

If we consider that this culture war sideshow is labeled and commonly understood to be "Science vs. Creationism" it was unwise for science to field EAs [Evangelical Atheists, a.k.a. New Atheists] on the front line (yes, I know they're Volunteers, but they shouldn't be running the show). Not only does it tend to corrupt the best arguments science could offer for its position to the interested public, it also risks swelling the ranks of committed culture warriors arrayed against science.

My opinion, based on some lengthy research on the 'other' side of the conflict. Which of course will be dismissed and belittled by all True Blue Swamp Denizens, so I expect nothing different. It just firms up my opinion from not much experience on this side of the conflict that I'm dealing with rank amateurs who have no clue what the fuck they're up against. So busy back-slapping and telling fart jokes [exaggeration] that they don't bother to apply their infinitely [hyperbole] superior intelligence to the war they think they can 'win' just because they're so superior and cool. [ridicule].

For all the concern I've seen expressed here that science might 'lose' this battle in the war, it's always externalized and never examined internally per how poorly science's fielded culture warriors are conducting the war. I've said clearly that I don't think either side can really 'win' this war - there's nothing to win. But that one or both sides could 'lose', most spectacularly. The opposition is well organized, well funded, a whole lot smarter than anyone here gives them credit for, completely committed, and in it for the long haul (centuries if they must). In their minds deception and disinformation in the service of their greater goal is no sin. And they don't believe in random accidents or cosmic coincidence. Thus they are big believers in meticulous planning and lock-step execution.

Which strongly suggests the opposition is the superior force in all ways that count in the matter of orchestrating and executing a well-planned sociopolitical armageddon. Which they also believe with all their hearts is just what God wants them to do, because God planned this armageddon all along - they're just his tools in this generation.

If you [figurative] can't herd the cats well enough to get a grip on what you're [figurative] fighting for, who you're [figurative] fighting against, or even wage a halfway decent campaign, you [science] will indeed 'lose'. Most spectacularly. Sooner rather than later.

[To the peanut gallery: no, I'm not going to parse this sentence by sentence for your juvenile-level amusement. So don't bother.]
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 17 2010,14:12

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 17 2010,13:59)
Tony M Nyphot:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, I was expressing what I thought Joy was trying to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And doing a good job of it too, I might add. Thanks.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had the thought, perhaps wrong, that one could view a number of "relatively unknown" incidents (Freshwater, McLeroy/TSBE/Comer, Dover, 'Expelled', etc... ) where anti-science, pseudo-religious agents (Dembski, the DI, Meyer, etc... ) use falsehoods to smear science, both locally to the incident and among their own echo-chambers, as planting the seeds for a larger "PR problem for science."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's excellent analysis, Tony. So despite lip service to the mob here ["I agree 'that our interlocutor is out to lunch'"], you're probably going to get slammed anyway for telling them something they don't want to know.

For my part, I'd add a little background to the analysis. No matter how short the attention span of Barnum's suckers may be, the seeds are never really gone from the shaped worldview. So while you could maybe count a few dozen people who could opine on the spot about an evil Ebola-espousing scientist, there are many thousands who were exposed to the Mims account. Those many thousands spread it to their friends and family during the time it resided in their consciousness, and those friends and family spread it further. And like a game of 'Telephone', there's no telling how twisted it got before it fell from consciousness. And you probably couldn't count on the fingers of one hand how many in the entire meme-pool ever encountered the later defense or retractions. Nor would it be likely that anyone who did believed it for a second.

So here's a pool of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people for whom the Ebola bruhaha is a component of their increasingly anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-elite worldview. The moment anyone in their circle mentions it, the incident floods right back into their consciousness complete with all the twists and turns the story took before they heard it, and it's fully enveloped in the entire emotional suite attached to it at the time.

Multiply this scenario by every other anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-elite meme that's circulated out there during anyone's lifetime, and pretty soon you're talking about millions. Maybe tens of millions if you count those who merely lean in that direction but still maintain a fairly realistic worldview. It's a force to be reckoned with.

Insert here the moronically awful tactic (on the part of culture warriors on the scientific side) of generalizing their identified 'enemy' to everyone on earth who believes in anything remotely spiritual (billions) and the contest starts looking positively one-sided. Basic human psychology would scream loudly that the result of this tactic is entirely likely to backfire big time.

If we consider that this culture war sideshow is labeled and commonly understood to be "Science vs. Creationism" it was unwise for science to field EAs [Evangelical Atheists, a.k.a. New Atheists] on the front line (yes, I know they're Volunteers, but they shouldn't be running the show). Not only does it tend to corrupt the best arguments science could offer for its position to the interested public, it also risks swelling the ranks of committed culture warriors arrayed against science.

My opinion, based on some lengthy research on the 'other' side of the conflict. Which of course will be dismissed and belittled by all True Blue Swamp Denizens, so I expect nothing different. It just firms up my opinion from not much experience on this side of the conflict that I'm dealing with rank amateurs who have no clue what the fuck they're up against. So busy back-slapping and telling fart jokes [exaggeration] that they don't bother to apply their infinitely [hyperbole] superior intelligence to the war they think they can 'win' just because they're so superior and cool. [ridicule].

For all the concern I've seen expressed here that science might 'lose' this battle in the war, it's always externalized and never examined internally per how poorly science's fielded culture warriors are conducting the war. I've said clearly that I don't think either side can really 'win' this war - there's nothing to win. But that one or both sides could 'lose', most spectacularly. The opposition is well organized, well funded, a whole lot smarter than anyone here gives them credit for, completely committed, and in it for the long haul (centuries if they must). In their minds deception and disinformation in the service of their greater goal is no sin. And they don't believe in random accidents or cosmic coincidence. Thus they are big believers in meticulous planning and lock-step execution.

Which strongly suggests the opposition is the superior force in all ways that count in the matter of orchestrating and executing a well-planned sociopolitical armageddon. Which they also believe with all their hearts is just what God wants them to do, because God planned this armageddon all along - they're just his tools in this generation.

If you [figurative] can't herd the cats well enough to get a grip on what you're [figurative] fighting for, who you're [figurative] fighting against, or even wage a halfway decent campaign, you [science] will indeed 'lose'. Most spectacularly. Sooner rather than later.

[To the peanut gallery: no, I'm not going to parse this sentence by sentence for your juvenile-level amusement. So don't bother.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mullingseque.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 17 2010,15:06

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 17 2010,13:59)
...Which strongly suggests the opposition is the superior force in all ways that count in the matter of orchestrating and executing a well-planned sociopolitical armageddon...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are not winning so far though are they? Which side hides behind moderation or closed comments? Which side has evidence to back up its claims? Which sides win and lose the court cases?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 17 2010,15:09

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 17 2010,13:59)
The opposition is well organized, well funded, a whole lot smarter than anyone here gives them credit for, completely committed, and in it for the long haul (centuries if they must). In their minds deception and disinformation in the service of their greater goal is no sin. And they don't believe in random accidents or cosmic coincidence. Thus they are big believers in meticulous planning and lock-step execution.

Which strongly suggests the opposition is the superior force in all ways that count in the matter of orchestrating and executing a well-planned sociopolitical armageddon. Which they also believe with all their hearts is just what God wants them to do, because God planned this armageddon all along - they're just his tools in this generation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which contrasts, amusingly, with your previous statements implying that I was tilting at windmills by trying to overcome creationist/ID notions in my students.

Make up your mind(s).
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 17 2010,15:48

Consistency is not Joy's strong suit.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 17 2010,16:01

[Joy]

{Haughty sniff of undeserved condescension}

Consistency is the hobgoblin of inferior swamp denizen minds.

[/Joy]

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 17 2010,16:09

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,17:06)
[SNIP]

Yes...I trust scientists to a fault. I wouldn't trust Dembski with my cafeteria card, but I'd trust Louis completely...even around my beer.*


* Though maybe not around me mum.**

** Or Arden's mum. ***

*** Or Arden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be honest, this is completely fair. I'd never stoop so low as to steal another man's beer.

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 17 2010,16:09

YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT YOUSE LOT ARE CULTURE WARRIORS NOT LIKE ME AND LETS BE HONEST YOU STARTED IT BY CALLING MY WEBSITE TARDIC THOUGHTS OR TELIC TARDS AT WHICH POINT SOMEONE I FORGET WHO SUGGESTED INSTANT BANNINATION OF ALL "SWAMPERS" WHO CAME ACROSS BECAUSE THEY WERE MEANIES.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 17 2010,16:12

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 17 2010,17:09)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,17:06)
[SNIP]

Yes...I trust scientists to a fault. I wouldn't trust Dembski with my cafeteria card, but I'd trust Louis completely...even around my beer.*


* Though maybe not around me mum.**

** Or Arden's mum. ***

*** Or Arden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be honest, this is completely fair. I'd never stoop so low as to steal another man's beer.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"You can trust me with your life, but not your money or your wife"?
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 17 2010,16:14

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 17 2010,21:12)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 17 2010,17:09)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,17:06)
[SNIP]

Yes...I trust scientists to a fault. I wouldn't trust Dembski with my cafeteria card, but I'd trust Louis completely...even around my beer.*


* Though maybe not around me mum.**

** Or Arden's mum. ***

*** Or Arden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be honest, this is completely fair. I'd never stoop so low as to steal another man's beer.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"You can trust me with your life, but not your money or your wife"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, I'm safe with money too.

Louis
Posted by: khan on Feb. 17 2010,16:17

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 17 2010,17:12)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 17 2010,17:09)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,17:06)
[SNIP]

Yes...I trust scientists to a fault. I wouldn't trust Dembski with my cafeteria card, but I'd trust Louis completely...even around my beer.*


* Though maybe not around me mum.**

** Or Arden's mum. ***

*** Or Arden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be honest, this is completely fair. I'd never stoop so low as to steal another man's beer.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"You can trust me with your life, but not your money or your wife"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't trust the TARD warriors with my life or money or even my beer.  Nasty vicious lying demented fuckwits.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 17 2010,16:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: There are common sense limits to behavioral excesses. BTW if I see someone turn the other cheek to insults I'll ban the insulting party.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is simply not true. Zachriel nearly always ignores ID guy's incessant insults. ID guy dedicates entire posts to handwaving and name-calling, but he's not banned and his comments are almost never sent to the Memory Hole.

(While this comment is off-topic on Telic Thoughts, it is on-topic here.)

-
Edited to add additional commentary.

Posted by: Louis on Feb. 17 2010,16:33

Quote (khan @ Feb. 17 2010,21:17)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 17 2010,17:12)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 17 2010,17:09)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,17:06)
[SNIP]

Yes...I trust scientists to a fault. I wouldn't trust Dembski with my cafeteria card, but I'd trust Louis completely...even around my beer.*


* Though maybe not around me mum.**

** Or Arden's mum. ***

*** Or Arden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be honest, this is completely fair. I'd never stoop so low as to steal another man's beer.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"You can trust me with your life, but not your money or your wife"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't trust the TARD warriors with my life or money or even my beer.  Nasty vicious lying demented fuckwits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's be honest, some of them can't even be trusted with a quote or a book without doing severe violence to something.

Trusting them with something as serious as beer would be a mistake.

Louis
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Feb. 17 2010,17:00

Joy,

                         
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 17 2010,12:59)
Tony M Nyphot:
                             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, I was expressing what I thought Joy was trying to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And doing a good job of it too, I might add. Thanks.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks. I like to believe I'm able to reconsider and change my view when warranted. In the case of this one particular paragraph of yours, I happened to change my original interpretation after your convoluted explanation. It is likely difficult for others here to do that with anything you say.

Borrowing an analogy from a good friend...

Pretend you have a bucket. When you first start posting on the internet, the bucket is filled with water. The water represents your credibility. Each time you post an inane or dishonest comment, a hole appears in the bottom of your bucket and the water leaks out. Each time you can answer directly and/or back up claims with evidence, a hole is repaired.

Between your excursions both at TT and here, I'd say the bottom has fallen off your bucket for most people. There are still one or two drops of water clinging to the sides of your bucket for me...not sure why. Just a charitable sort, I am.

(Dembski has nothing left but a wire handle, so even when he attempts to borrow from somebody who has a full bucket, he can't retain a single drop.)

                     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had the thought, perhaps wrong, that one could view a number of "relatively unknown" incidents (Freshwater, McLeroy/TSBE/Comer, Dover, 'Expelled', etc... ) where anti-science, pseudo-religious agents (Dembski, the DI, Meyer, etc... ) use falsehoods to smear science, both locally to the incident and among their own echo-chambers, as planting the seeds for a larger "PR problem for science."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's excellent analysis, Tony. So despite lip service to the mob here ["I agree 'that our interlocutor is out to lunch'"], you're probably going to get slammed anyway for telling them something they don't want to know.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, I have thoughts once in awhile...some are good...many are not. If the "mob" wants to slam me, I'm willing to listen. I only request they use LOLcats when doing so. I'm not really one for lip service...that was not, since I do think you are off-kilter for the most part. I had the same reaction as < fnxtr here > and after your reply, had the same question as Louis as to whether teaching gravity is also indoctrination. (Keen bastard, that one is.)

I don't have the desire to belong to any mob, but if I did, AtBC supplies the witty, irreverent, fun banter I enjoy. I also learn more here than anywhere else I frequent on the net. I'd even buy them beers if any were in my neighborhood.

For me, you come across as mostly anti-science, but don't fully commit to siding with its prominent opponents. There are fleeting moments you approach being rational, but some force seems to pull you away.

eta: the 'the' and url fix
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 17 2010,17:24

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,22:00)
[SNIP]

Thanks. I like to believe I'm able to reconsider and change my view when warranted. In the case of this one particular paragraph of yours, I happened to change my original interpretation after your convoluted explanation. It is likely difficult for others here to do that with anything you say.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I dunno. I just think Joy is spectacularly confused. That doesn't mean she isn't occasionally right about something (or indeed wrong about something).

If Joy is trying to "enlighten us" by telling us that in some circumstances, for some reasons and to some people science has a bad press, then she's barking up the wrong tree. We know. The one genuinely controversial topic I can actually think of is the issue of "tactics" when it comes to communication. And even then, the only "answer" I've come up with that bears any scrutiny is "pluralism".

It's not difficult at all to give Joy (or anyone) the benefit of the doubt, It's very hard to credit codswallop as communicative genius however. One does not equate to the other! ;-)

Louis
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Feb. 17 2010,17:57

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 17 2010,16:24)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,22:00)
[SNIP]

Thanks. I like to believe I'm able to reconsider and change my view when warranted. In the case of this one particular paragraph of yours, I happened to change my original interpretation after your convoluted explanation. It is likely difficult for others here to do that with anything you say.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I dunno. I just think Joy is spectacularly confused. That doesn't mean she isn't occasionally right about something (or indeed wrong about something).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe Joy is occasionally right about something and I tried to convey that in my "fleeting moments of rationality" comment at the end. After all, every blind squirrel is nuts...or something like that.

And you are a keen bastard, because "I just think Joy is spectacularly confused" describes succinctly the impression I get from her ramblings.

[BTW, I don't include you among the "others here"...]
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 17 2010,18:02

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 17 2010,16:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: There are common sense limits to behavioral excesses. BTW if I see someone turn the other cheek to insults I'll ban the insulting party.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is simply not true. Zachriel nearly always ignores ID guy's incessant insults. ID guy dedicates entire posts to handwaving and name-calling, but he's not banned and his comments are almost never sent to the Memory Hole.

(While this comment is off-topic on Telic Thoughts, it is on-topic here.)

-
Edited to add additional commentary.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Gack, hack, gack}



Choked on a bit of Tard. We're okay now.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 17 2010,18:40

Stephen Elliott:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They are not winning so far though are they? Which side hides behind moderation or closed comments? Which side has evidence to back up its claims? Which sides win and lose the court cases?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nobody gets to win this 'war'. Every skirmish is just another skit in the production.

Tony:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are still one or two drops of water clinging to the sides of your bucket for me...not sure why. Just a charitable sort, I am.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't bother. I don't need or want your charity.
Posted by: khan on Feb. 17 2010,18:42

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 17 2010,19:40)
Stephen Elliott:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They are not winning so far though are they? Which side hides behind moderation or closed comments? Which side has evidence to back up its claims? Which sides win and lose the court cases?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nobody gets to win this 'war'. Every skirmish is just another skit in the production.

Tony:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are still one or two drops of water clinging to the sides of your bucket for me...not sure why. Just a charitable sort, I am.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't bother. I don't need or want your charity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus fucking shit.
How many times has Joy flounced like a turkey on a trampoline?
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 17 2010,18:57

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 17 2010,23:40)
Stephen Elliott:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They are not winning so far though are they? Which side hides behind moderation or closed comments? Which side has evidence to back up its claims? Which sides win and lose the court cases?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nobody gets to win this 'war'. Every skirmish is just another skit in the production.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite true, it is the very definition of never-ending. New generations will be born and, for the want of a better word, be exposed to TARD. Future generations of non-TARDs will have to de-TARD-ify them. It's not about winning by the way, it's about not losing. I'll be shocked if you know the difference.

Oh and like I said before, outside the USA the "culture war" looks verrrrrrry different. One might even suspect that you Yanks are being lead around by your noses. Mind you, I'd suspect that if I werent absolutely certain I'm being lead around by mine! ;-)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tony:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are still one or two drops of water clinging to the sides of your bucket for me...not sure why. Just a charitable sort, I am.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't bother. I don't need or want your charity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't bite the hand that is kind to you, Joy. You don't just need charity, you need education and above all therapy. The latter's not a professional assessment, I'm unqualified to make such a diagnosis, I just chucked it in because it amused me and ended in a "y".

Taking the piss, it's not just for weekends people!

Anyway, enough mockery, are you ever going to tell me why taching kids the theory of gravity is not also indoctrination in whatever meme the elitist hegemony want inculcated into our freedom loving precious kids?

Oh wait, that was still mockery. Answer it anyway if you can.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 17 2010,18:58

Quote (khan @ Feb. 17 2010,23:42)
[SNIP]

Don't bother. I don't need or want your charity.[/quote]
Jesus fucking shit.
How many times has Joy flounced like a turkey on a trampoline?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She has had elastic stapled to her wattles. It makes everything funnier.

Louis
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 18 2010,10:52

Louis:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not about winning by the way, it's about not losing. I'll be shocked if you know the difference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, duh. That's what I've said repeatedly these last few days.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and like I said before, outside the USA the "culture war" looks verrrrrrry different. One might even suspect that you Yanks are being lead around by your noses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Another duh. Of course it's a nose ring operation, bad sideshow Kabuki. I've said that more than once too.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't bite the hand that is kind to you, Joy. You don't just need charity, you need education and above all therapy. The latter's not a professional assessment, I'm unqualified to make such a diagnosis, I just chucked it in because it amused me and ended in a "y".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! Always good for a chuckle, Louis. I know my communication skills are... um... tortured. Don't mind waterboarding so much, it's the drip, drip, drip stuff that drives me nuts! §;o)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, enough mockery, are you ever going to tell me why taching kids the theory of gravity is not also indoctrination in whatever meme the elitist hegemony want inculcated into our freedom loving precious kids?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess one could consider all formal instruction that doesn't involve hands-on direct experience could be considered "indoctrination." Modern civilization considers it necessary to impart quite a lot of accumulated knowledge from the past experience of humans (because we can). Saves having to start over from scratch every generation.

The question then turns to what kids are being indoctrinated into. Much of the historical/scientific material taught is just basic background about the world they've been born into, nobody really expects 'em to retain much of it. And the kids never disappoint on that level - they retain only what they want to know, and whatever's pertinent to their lives and choices in adulthood. Apparently, finding New York, California or Iraq on a map isn't important enough for half of them to remember. They can always figure it out for themselves if they get transferred to California from New York or join the Army...

The reason special interest groups want to have their views and material incorporated into public school curriculums. That's because they understand that education is indoctrination, and public education is indoctrination sponsored by 'The State'. Which they can then claim sanctions their views and agenda.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 18 2010,10:59

So, science (and particularly evolution) education is part of the Evil Atheist Baby-Eating Darwinist Conspiracy, in the hands of... whom? To what end?
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 18 2010,12:25

I had to google wattles. LOL.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 18 2010,12:28

fnxtr:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, science (and particularly evolution) education is part of the Evil Atheist Baby-Eating Darwinist Conspiracy, in the hands of... whom? To what end?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Definition, from the Dictionary.com Unabridged [Random House]:

indoctrinate verb

1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

2. to teach or inculcate.

3. to imbue with learning.

I don't know how anyone could claim that most of the teaching in public schools - civics, history, geography (back when most of Eastern Europe and Asia was flat red with U.S.S.R. stamped on it), etc. isn't designed to imbue with a specific biased belief or point of view - i.e., American-centrisim. Science instruction escapes this for the most part, but it's still based on whatever the 'consensus view' happens to be when the textbook is written. In science, that changes more often than, say, the inculcated belief that democracy is the most advanced and desirable political system humans ever devised changes.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 18 2010,13:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: The lord thy moderator shall surely try to be fair. But do not tempt him, for surely he wilt not hold him guiltless who temptest him in vain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bilbo has been quite fair. Compare to this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
nickmatzke: Nick Matzke: I think you've accessed a part of IDguys scattered mind…

< Bradford >: This is gratuitous. Knock it off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gratuitous, as opposed to these comments by ID guy from the same thread.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy: IOW Barr has his head up his you know what and he thinks that is a good polace to argue from.

One thing is certain- when describing the intellectuals of evolution- an oxymoron if there ever was one- olegt will not be on the list.

cannot understand that basic and simple fact further demonstrates his agenda of subterfuge.

We have been down this road before and you still can't get it through your thick head.

either you are being purposefully obtuse or you really don't have any idea- completely ignorant.

Now I understand that oleg has reading comprehension issues but that shouldn't reflect on me.

Crackpots cannot wrap their little bitty heads around that and then they blame me.

flunked reading comprehension and as such cannot comprehend what I post.

The continued dishonesty of the anti-ID position is clear enough for all to see.

IOW your subterfuge has been exposed.

You act like a child.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 18 2010,14:22

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 18 2010,08:17)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: The lord thy moderator shall surely try to be fair. But do not tempt him, for surely he wilt not hold him guiltless who temptest him in vain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bilbo has been quite fair. Compare to this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
nickmatzke: Nick Matzke: I think you've accessed a part of IDguys scattered mind…

< Bradford >: This is gratuitous. Knock it off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gratuitous, as opposed to these comments by ID guy from the same thread.  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy: IOW Barr has his head up his you know what and he thinks that is a good polace to argue from.

One thing is certain- when describing the intellectuals of evolution- an oxymoron if there ever was one- olegt will not be on the list.

cannot understand that basic and simple fact further demonstrates his agenda of subterfuge.

We have been down this road before and you still can't get it through your thick head.

either you are being purposefully obtuse or you really don't have any idea- completely ignorant.

Now I understand that oleg has reading comprehension issues but that shouldn't reflect on me.

Crackpots cannot wrap their little bitty heads around that and then they blame me.

flunked reading comprehension and as such cannot comprehend what I post.

The continued dishonesty of the anti-ID position is clear enough for all to see.

IOW your subterfuge has been exposed.

You act like a child.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it is gratuitous. Is it any less gratuitous than baiting Larry Fafarman? Granted, it's more fun, but really...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 18 2010,14:35

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 18 2010,12:28)
In science, that changes more often than, say, the inculcated belief that democracy is the most advanced and desirable political system humans ever devised changes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that's a bad thing because.....

?
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 18 2010,16:03

old man:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And that's a bad thing because.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Bad" versus "good" is a value judgment. In this question it's neither bad nor good - just reality. Though it does ensure that a certain percentage of kids are being taught a wrong model because their textbook is out of date and the teacher doesn't know any better. And you should be aware that for a good portion of the disinterested public, all they know about this or that scientific idea is what they were taught in school. If they bother to recall that much.

IOW, they were "indoctrinated" to believe whatever scientific consensus was when their textbook was written. That's what they regurgitated for the test, and passed the course. They never learn anything more about whatever the 'new' consensus is, don't care and it doesn't matter in their lives.

Given the back and forth here about my original example of such a thing, it would appear that what any individual member of the Great Unwashed Public knows and believes about any given scientific factoid, principle or theory today isn't all that earth-shatteringly IMPORTANT. Of course I don't see it that way, and reality tends to support my observations and conclusions because the Great Unwashed Public doesn't really matter to what science is or isn't believing these days about anything.

Sort of diminishes the position that what students are taught and must therefore believe is all that IMPORTANT in the overall scheme of things, doesn't it?
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 18 2010,16:05

ARGH! Delete the "dont" in "I don't see it that way." Bad editing.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 18 2010,16:45

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 18 2010,16:03)

"Bad" versus "good" is a value judgment. In this question it's neither bad nor good - just reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know how anyone could claim that most of the teaching in public schools - civics, history, geography (back when most of Eastern Europe and Asia was flat red with U.S.S.R. stamped on it), etc. isn't designed to imbue with a specific biased belief or point of view - i.e., American-centrisim. Science instruction escapes this for the most part, but it's still based on whatever the 'consensus view' happens to be when the textbook is written. In science, that changes more often than, say, the inculcated belief that democracy is the most advanced and desirable political system humans ever devised changes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like a bad thing to me. The scientific consensus taught to children is in fact a biased belief or point of view.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this question it's neither bad nor good - just reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, teaching a biased belief to children? It's bad.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Though it does ensure that a certain percentage of kids are being taught a wrong model because their textbook is out of date and the teacher doesn't know any better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To those that are interested it's just the beginning of a journey. And the scientific model has never included "and then there was a miracle". So the model is never really "wrong" is it? Just more and more "right" over time.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And you should be aware that for a good portion of the disinterested public, all they know about this or that scientific idea is what they were taught in school. If they bother to recall that much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so?
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW, they were "indoctrinated" to believe whatever scientific consensus was when their textbook was written.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And so? At least "and then there was a miracle" never made an appearance. They'll remember that much.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They never learn anything more about whatever the 'new' consensus is, don't care and it doesn't matter in their lives.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meh, sounds like religion you are describing to me, but I guess I've just got a biased POV.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given the back and forth here about my original example of such a thing, it would appear that what any individual member of the Great Unwashed Public knows and believes about any given scientific factoid, principle or theory today isn't all that earth-shatteringly IMPORTANT
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 18 2010,18:17

I don't know about indoctrination, but I recall "learning" some things in basic science that I've since had to unlearn. I'm pretty sure that in grade school general science, we were taught that life came in two categories - plant and animal. Protozoans were labeled as a phylum of animals, and bacteria were labeled as plants. Oh, and fungi were described as plants that lacked chlorophyll. (I recall being startled on learning that fungi are closer related to animals than they are to plants.)

Also while in school, the number of chemical elements was 103 (well, either 102, 103, or 105 depending on which book I had at the moment), and now (at latest report that I've seen anyway) there are 117 elements that have been reported as having been detected, with atomic number 118 being the last one added to the list (number 117 is still unreported). (On a side note, an earlier reported detection of number 118 got retracted, and at that point the number of "known" elements went down instead of up.)

Henry
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 18 2010,18:57

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 18 2010,18:17)
I don't know about indoctrination, but I recall "learning" some things in basic science that I've since had to unlearn. I'm pretty sure that in grade school general science, we were taught that life came in two categories - plant and animal. Protozoans were labeled as a phylum of animals, and bacteria were labeled as plants. Oh, and fungi were described as plants that lacked chlorophyll. (I recall being startled on learning that fungi are closer related to animals than they are to plants.)

Also while in school, the number of chemical elements was 103 (well, either 102, 103, or 105 depending on which book I had at the moment), and now (at latest report that I've seen anyway) there are 117 elements that have been reported as having been detected, with atomic number 118 being the last one added to the list (number 117 is still unreported). (On a side note, an earlier reported detection of number 118 got retracted, and at that point the number of "known" elements went down instead of up.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Part of the problem is that a large part of the populace seems to think that scientific facts are immutable. We do try to teach students that science is going to change conclusions as new data emerge, but most of them don't seem to get it. Apparently they would like to believe that scientists, like those who rely on "revealed truth", never change their minds.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 18 2010,21:19

My ninth grade general science class focused on the history of discoveries.

As a kin, one of my favorite books was Microbe Hunters.

Having a bit of history made me appreciate how difficult it is to accumulate knowledge, and how it is possible for discoveries to build on each other.

It's been four decades since I was in a high school science class. I don't know how they are conducted, but I hope they include some history.
Posted by: Joy on Feb. 18 2010,22:00

midwifetoad:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My ninth grade general science class focused on the history of discoveries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hehehehe... Golly. My big sister (a year older) and brother (a year younger) and I blew out the basement windows with our nifty chemistry set when I was in 5th grade. Dad - who had supplied glassware and chemicals and cool experiment instructions - was SO proud!!!
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 20 2010,20:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: Sorry about the tone but you need to understand that Zach and I have a history that includes a week long discussion that ended with Zach admitting (not to me )that he did not really hold the position that he was defending.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no way to respond to your claim without diverting Bilbo's thread. Please feel free to cite the suspect behavior here. If errant, we will certainly apologize.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: As far as I’m concerned life is to short for such games. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your diet of fatuous claims is a likely cause of your indigestion.

-
Warning: Though this is not a snark-free zone, we still filtered the comment to reduce the snark levels to acceptable levels using the DeSnark® desnarkification field generator (remark desnider).





Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 20 2010,21:48

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 20 2010,20:50)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: Sorry about the tone but you need to understand that Zach and I have a history that includes a week long discussion that ended with Zach admitting (not to me )that he did not really hold the position that he was defending.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no way to respond to your claim without diverting Bilbo's thread. Please feel free to cite the suspect behavior here. If errant, we will certainly apologize.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: Or not
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's fine. Then please refrain from making accusations you can't be bothered to support.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Feb. 20 2010,22:34

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 19 2010,09:57)
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 18 2010,18:17)
I don't know about indoctrination, but I recall "learning" some things in basic science that I've since had to unlearn. I'm pretty sure that in grade school general science, we were taught that life came in two categories - plant and animal. Protozoans were labeled as a phylum of animals, and bacteria were labeled as plants. Oh, and fungi were described as plants that lacked chlorophyll. (I recall being startled on learning that fungi are closer related to animals than they are to plants.)

Also while in school, the number of chemical elements was 103 (well, either 102, 103, or 105 depending on which book I had at the moment), and now (at latest report that I've seen anyway) there are 117 elements that have been reported as having been detected, with atomic number 118 being the last one added to the list (number 117 is still unreported). (On a side note, an earlier reported detection of number 118 got retracted, and at that point the number of "known" elements went down instead of up.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Part of the problem is that a large part of the populace seems to think that scientific facts are immutable. We do try to teach students that science is going to change conclusions as new data emerge, but most of them don't seem to get it. Apparently they would like to believe that scientists, like those who rely on "revealed truth", never change their minds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It sounds like High School in Australia is very different. In Physics (I didn't do Biology, I was allergic to essays) we spent as much time, if not more, on history as much as learning the (then) current science.
So the idea that science changes seems natural. Also you could not get the creationist idea that science is always wrong just that a theory stands until more data comes in and a better theory takes it's place.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 20 2010,23:19

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 18 2010,16:17)
I don't know about indoctrination, but I recall "learning" some things in basic science that I've since had to unlearn. I'm pretty sure that in grade school general science, we were taught that life came in two categories - plant and animal. Protozoans were labeled as a phylum of animals, and bacteria were labeled as plants. Oh, and fungi were described as plants that lacked chlorophyll. (I recall being startled on learning that fungi are closer related to animals than they are to plants.)

Also while in school, the number of chemical elements was 103 (well, either 102, 103, or 105 depending on which book I had at the moment), and now (at latest report that I've seen anyway) there are 117 elements that have been reported as having been detected, with atomic number 118 being the last one added to the list (number 117 is still unreported). (On a side note, an earlier reported detection of number 118 got retracted, and at that point the number of "known" elements went down instead of up.)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See? Science keeps changing it's answer!!!1!!

I've been asking people all day what time it is, and everyone gives me a different answer.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 21 2010,00:34

Yeah, science is just fickle that way, huh? :O
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 21 2010,14:39

Zachriel,

I don't understand how you can continue to argue with "ID Guy".

Whether his first name is Jim or Joe, he is clearly the author of the (un)Intelligent Reasoning blog.

Occasionally, I suggest a first name for people to call me by.  The only time I recall using "Dave" was with Joe/Jim.  He tried to be cute and use it as something that would bother me.  It only confirmed my suspicions.

I gave up posting on his blog a long time ago when it was clear he couldn't keep his own story straight.  I am not surprised he would want to change his identity when he started to post on Telic Thoughts in earnest (get rid of past baggage).

Zachriel, you have indicated in the past you are mostly talking to the listening audience.  However, there comes a time when even the listening audience will think it is foolish to continue to respond to him.

Please excuse my venting.  I made the mistake of taking a peek at TT.

It's obviously up to you what you do with your time.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 21 2010,16:01

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 21 2010,14:39)
Zachriel, you have indicated in the past you are mostly talking to the listening audience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The key result is that Intelligent Design Advocates don't call ID guy out. Either they think his silly nonsense fairly represents Intelligent Design, or they don't think it important to correct silly nonsense about Intelligent Design on a blog dedicated to Intelligent Design. This is not anomalous behavior. The Intelligent Design Community simply has no means to judge the validity of claims.

(ID guy's juvenile taunts are irrelevant except insofar as they dilute the readable content.)

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 21 2010,14:39)
However, there comes a time when even the listening audience will think it is foolish to continue to respond to him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The struggle against ignorance is to the end of time. But it is said that if you die in tard, you will be reborn in Tardhalla.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 21 2010,16:05

Hi Zachriel,
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 21 2010,16:01)
The struggle against ignorance is to the end of time. But it is said that if you die in tard, you will be reborn in Tardhalla.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:D lol

As long as you have a good attitude about it.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 21 2010,17:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't understand how you can continue to argue with "ID Guy".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 23 2010,07:02

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 21 2010,14:39)
Zachriel,

I don't understand how you can continue to argue with "ID Guy".

Whether his first name is Jim or Joe, he is clearly the author of the (un)Intelligent Reasoning blog.

Occasionally, I suggest a first name for people to call me by.  The only time I recall using "Dave" was with Joe/Jim.  He tried to be cute and use it as something that would bother me.  It only confirmed my suspicions.

I gave up posting on his blog a long time ago when it was clear he couldn't keep his own story straight.  I am not surprised he would want to change his identity when he started to post on Telic Thoughts in earnest (get rid of past baggage).

Zachriel, you have indicated in the past you are mostly talking to the listening audience.  However, there comes a time when even the listening audience will think it is foolish to continue to respond to him.

Please excuse my venting.  I made the mistake of taking a peek at TT.

It's obviously up to you what you do with your time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excuse me Dave,

What story was it that I couldn't keep straight?

Please be specific- you don't want people to think that you are a big fat liar- or perhaps you don't care about that...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 23 2010,07:26

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:02)

What story was it that I couldn't keep straight?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The trouble with lying is that it's difficult to keep your story straight after a while. IOW it's better to shut up instead of spouting lies. As you don't seem to be in any danger of shutting up, perhaps you should just stop lying?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please be specific-
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a joke coming from you.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you don't want people to think that you are a big fat liar- or perhaps you don't care about that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given that you already have a reputation as a pretend internet hard man who can only repeat the same formulaic phrases over and over again instead of an actual reasoned argument it's nice that you are concerned over the reputation of others. Still, I'd suggest you concern yourself more with your reputation then worry about other peoples.

Joe, why are you back here? Have you finally noticed that nobody at UD or TT is actually interested in talking to you, apart from your critics.

Have you never noticed how any of the ID supporters at both those sites never interact with you? Have you never noticed that nobody every agrees with you? Have you never noticed that you might as well be in a parallel world for all the different your comments make? Have you never noticed that you've been repeating the same inane comments over and over for literally years now to no effect whatsoever except to expose the vacuity of your "position"?

Still, keep up the good work. If you did not exist, we'd have to invent you as an example of the mindless drones that follow Dembski et al about, uncritically accepting everything they have to say, then thinking that reading a few Behe/Dembski books equips them for arguing with people who've spent large parts of their life learning and actively working in the biological sciences. I doubt you'd pass even the simplest entrance examination to any biology course.

And about that debate. You ready to have it yet? Or will you use your "put up the money" excuse yet again?

Yet another internet coward.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 23 2010,07:32

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,07:26)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:02)

What story was it that I couldn't keep straight?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The trouble with lying is that it's difficult to keep your story straight after a while. IOW it's better to shut up instead of spouting lies. As you don't seem to be in any danger of shutting up, perhaps you should just stop lying?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please be specific-
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a joke coming from you.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you don't want people to think that you are a big fat liar- or perhaps you don't care about that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given that you already have a reputation as a pretend internet hard man who can only repeat the same formulaic phrases over and over again instead of an actual reasoned argument it's nice that you are concerned over the reputation of others. Still, I'd suggest you concern yourself more with your reputation then worry about other peoples.

Joe, why are you back here? Have you finally noticed that nobody at UD or TT is actually interested in talking to you, apart from your critics.

Have you never noticed how any of the ID supporters at both those sites never interact with you? Have you never noticed that nobody every agrees with you? Have you never noticed that you might as well be in a parallel world for all the different your comments make? Have you never noticed that you've been repeating the same inane comments over and over for literally years now to no effect whatsoever except to expose the vacuity of your "position"?

Still, keep up the good work. If you did not exist, we'd have to invent you as an example of the mindless drones that follow Dembski et al about, uncritically accepting everything they have to say, then thinking that reading a few Behe/Dembski books equips them for arguing with people who've spent large parts of their life learning and actively working in the biological sciences. I doubt you'd pass even the simplest entrance examination to any biology course.

And about that debate. You ready to have it yet? Or will you use your "put up the money" excuse yet again?

Yet another internet coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still have nothing to say oldmanwithhisheaduphisass.

Yes I will debate you.

Are you ready to ante up and meet me in a public forum?

Or are you going to continue to be a frothing coward?

As for biology courses- been there, done that.

I know I know more about the subject than you will ever know.

YOU are the person who just believes people because you cannot think for yourself.

You are so pathetic all you can do is sit in front of your computer and stroke yourself.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 23 2010,07:35

< Joe G >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if CO2 were as powerful of a greenhouse gas as some people say then why aren't we putting CO2 between the panes of double-paned windows?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ROFL @ Dumbass.

The properties of CO2 are available if you care to look

< http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_1000.html >

However, I doubt that you feel the need to investigate the ideas your wittle brain has any further then simply spouting your crap on the internet.

How's the peroxide drinking going Joe?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The plan is to get back strictly on H2O2 3 times a day before flu season hits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You should try homeopathy. That also "works when done correctly".
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 23 2010,07:37

Hi Joe!  

Did you arrive to tell us that you are indeed ID guy?  If so, did you remember to bring the < $20k >?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 23 2010,07:38

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,07:26)
Given that you already have a reputation as a pretend internet hard man who can only repeat the same formulaic phrases over and over again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pfft. You can't show that nature operating freely can generate formulaic phrases.  Because only intelligence can do that!



Hey, Joe?  When are you kicking off your campaign for the local school board?
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 23 2010,07:39

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,07:35)
< Joe G >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if CO2 were as powerful of a greenhouse gas as some people say then why aren't we putting CO2 between the panes of double-paned windows?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ROFL @ Dumbass.

The properties of CO2 are available if you care to look

< http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_1000.html >

However, I doubt that you feel the need to investigate the ideas your wittle brain has any further then simply spouting your crap on the internet.

How's the peroxide drinking going Joe?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The plan is to get back strictly on H2O2 3 times a day before flu season hits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You should try homeopathy. That also "works when done correctly".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


H2O2 therapy is going great.

I heven't been sick even though my daughter and wife have been.

But anyway assface- how about that debate or are you too much of an intellectual coward?

What a piece of shit baby you are.
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 23 2010,07:40

I have a forum which I don't use the public part of very much. I am an experienced debate moderator too. Would you be ammenable to laying out the terms and doing it there?

It's at < http://www.dailywingnut.com/ml >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 23 2010,07:43

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:32)


Yes I will debate you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, without the $20,000? How very generous.

What will be the topic we're debating?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you ready to ante up and meet me in a public forum?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me put this in captial letters so you understand.

THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or are you going to continue to be a frothing coward?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Says the internet hardman who only does hit and runs here and hangs about in "public forums" where dissent is censored.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for biology courses- been there, done that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And boy, does it show. Did you get kicked out of the class on day 1 for standing up and objecting "Show us the evolution of biological complexity from simpler precursors"?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know I know more about the subject than you will ever know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here are some simple questions then
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
29) What types of character states are used in cladistics to form a phylogeny? Why just these
types of character states and not others?
30) What is the topology of a phylogeny? How can the same tree be depicted in different
ways?
31) What is the idea of maximum parsimony? How is this idea used in phylogeny
construction?
32) Even cladistics isn’t perfect – what are the difficulties that remain in phylogeny
construction. In what ways do they create difficulties?
33) How can phylogenies be used to map the evolution of character states and test evolutionary
hypotheses?
34) What are developmental modularity and individualization? How does these concepts relate
to the evolution of different body plans?
35) What are heterochrony and heterotopy? How do these ideas relate to the evolution of
different body plans? Be sure to be familiar with the ideas of allometry,
paedomorphosis, and peramorphosis, and how they relate to one another.
36) What are biogeographic

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What to have a crack of those? Or will you be "too busy" or have "some other excuse". If you are the biology master you claim to be those questions should be trivial for you to answer.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
YOU are the person who just believes people because you cannot think for yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Says the person who repeats the same things endlessly.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are so pathetic all you can do is sit in front of your computer and stroke yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems to me you post much more then I do at TT and UD etc. Seems to me IOW all you do is bluster.

About those simple questions. Answer those and I'll consider debating you.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 23 2010,07:43

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,07:40)
I have a forum which I don't use the public part of very much. I am an experienced debate moderator too. Would you be ammenable to laying out the terms and doing it there?

It's at < http://www.dailywingnut.com/ml >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If oldmanwithadickuphisass wants to debate me it will be in person, in front of referees and an audience.

Money will be put up and the winner takes all.
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 23 2010,07:45

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,05:43)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,07:40)
I have a forum which I don't use the public part of very much. I am an experienced debate moderator too. Would you be ammenable to laying out the terms and doing it there?

It's at < http://www.dailywingnut.com/ml >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If oldmanwithadickuphisass wants to debate me it will be in person, in front of referees and an audience.

Money will be put up and the winner takes all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol. OK captain America. :)

What is the topic? (apologies, I don't follow this thread.)
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 23 2010,07:47

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,07:43)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:32)


Yes I will debate you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, without the $20,000? How very generous.

What will be the topic we're debating?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you ready to ante up and meet me in a public forum?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me put this in captial letters so you understand.

THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or are you going to continue to be a frothing coward?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Says the internet hardman who only does hit and runs here and hangs about in "public forums" where dissent is censored.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for biology courses- been there, done that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And boy, does it show. Did you get kicked out of the class on day 1 for standing up and objecting "Show us the evolution of biological complexity from simpler precursors"?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know I know more about the subject than you will ever know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here are some simple questions then
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
29) What types of character states are used in cladistics to form a phylogeny? Why just these
types of character states and not others?
30) What is the topology of a phylogeny? How can the same tree be depicted in different
ways?
31) What is the idea of maximum parsimony? How is this idea used in phylogeny
construction?
32) Even cladistics isn’t perfect – what are the difficulties that remain in phylogeny
construction. In what ways do they create difficulties?
33) How can phylogenies be used to map the evolution of character states and test evolutionary
hypotheses?
34) What are developmental modularity and individualization? How does these concepts relate
to the evolution of different body plans?
35) What are heterochrony and heterotopy? How do these ideas relate to the evolution of
different body plans? Be sure to be familiar with the ideas of allometry,
paedomorphosis, and peramorphosis, and how they relate to one another.
36) What are biogeographic

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What to have a crack of those? Or will you be "too busy" or have "some other excuse". If you are the biology master you claim to be those questions should be trivial for you to answer.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
YOU are the person who just believes people because you cannot think for yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Says the person who repeats the same things endlessly.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are so pathetic all you can do is sit in front of your computer and stroke yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems to me you post much more then I do at TT and UD etc. Seems to me IOW all you do is bluster.

About those simple questions. Answer those and I'll consider debating you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oldmanwithadickuphisass,

Answer the following or admit you don't have anything to debate-


What gene, genes or DNA sequence(s) were modified to give rise to vision systems from a population that never had a vision system?

Can you provide a testable hypothesis for your position of cumulative selection of genetic accidents?

The point being is that you have absolutely nothing to debate.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 23 2010,07:48

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,07:45)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,05:43)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,07:40)
I have a forum which I don't use the public part of very much. I am an experienced debate moderator too. Would you be ammenable to laying out the terms and doing it there?

It's at < http://www.dailywingnut.com/ml >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If oldmanwithadickuphisass wants to debate me it will be in person, in front of referees and an audience.

Money will be put up and the winner takes all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol. OK captain America. :)

What is the topic? (apologies, I don't follow this thread.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The topic will be his position of cumulative selection on genetic accidents vs Intelligent Design- which makes a better case pertaining to the evidence, data and observations.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 23 2010,07:48

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:39)

H2O2 therapy is going great.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.communicationagents.com/chris....ina.htm >
Have your thought about the benefits of injecting it?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But health experts say injecting hydrogen peroxide directly into the bloodstream can cause convulsions, acute anemia and deadly gas emboli. A 1991 article in the "Journal of Emergency Nursing" blamed the death of a 39-year-old cancer patient on such "cancer quackery."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I heven't been sick even though my daughter and wife have been.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sounds scientific to me. A control group. So, when can we expect to see your paper of the benefits of peroxide therapy?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But anyway assface- how about that debate or are you too much of an intellectual coward?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The subject of the debate is what, exactly? Last time I asked you this you said the debate was:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your position against ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you'll find that will be a very short debate. What position will *you* be arguing in this "debate" Joe?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What a piece of shit baby you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must be nice to be on a PUBLIC FORUM where you can let out your true self eh? Where you can say whatever you like with no fear of bannation.

One wonders why you don't hang around here more.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 23 2010,07:50

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:48)
The topic will be his position of cumulative selection on genetic accidents vs Intelligent Design- which makes a better case pertaining to the evidence, data and observations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a bit general.

Can't you make it a bit more specific? Or don't you know enough biology to make it beyond the discovery institutes talking points?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 23 2010,07:51

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:48)
The topic will be his position of cumulative selection on genetic accidents vs Intelligent Design- which makes a better case pertaining to the evidence, data and observations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) What specific "evidence" are you referring to here?
2) What specific "data" are you referring to here?
3) What specific "observations" are you referring to here?
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 23 2010,07:52

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,07:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:39)

H2O2 therapy is going great.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.communicationagents.com/chris....ina.htm >
Have your thought about the benefits of injecting it?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But health experts say injecting hydrogen peroxide directly into the bloodstream can cause convulsions, acute anemia and deadly gas emboli. A 1991 article in the "Journal of Emergency Nursing" blamed the death of a 39-year-old cancer patient on such "cancer quackery."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I heven't been sick even though my daughter and wife have been.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sounds scientific to me. A control group. So, when can we expect to see your paper of the benefits of peroxide therapy?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But anyway assface- how about that debate or are you too much of an intellectual coward?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The subject of the debate is what, exactly? Last time I asked you this you said the debate was:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your position against ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you'll find that will be a very short debate. What position will *you* be arguing in this "debate" Joe?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What a piece of shit baby you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Must be nice to be on a PUBLIC FORUM where you can let out your true self eh? Where you can say whatever you like with no fear of bannation.

One wonders why you don't hang around here more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't hang around here more because it is filled with retarded assholes like you.

And yes it will be a very short debate because you couldn't defend your position if your life depended on it.
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 23 2010,07:52

Oh, I see. Hey JoeG,

1. ID doesn't win debates. Or courtcases or entry into the job market or whatever This is a bad idea. Are you a college kid?

Number two, OMITSDDI has had a little bit of experience I bet.

Just sayin, That's a lot of money for a kid to lose.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 23 2010,07:53

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2010,07:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:48)
The topic will be his position of cumulative selection on genetic accidents vs Intelligent Design- which makes a better case pertaining to the evidence, data and observations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) What specific "evidence" are you referring to here?
2) What specific "data" are you referring to here?
3) What specific "observations" are you referring to here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Assface- YOU are supposed to provide the evidence, data and observations that support your position.

Man are you stupid...
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 23 2010,07:54

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,07:52)
Oh, I see. Hey JoeG,

1. ID doesn't win debates. Or courtcases or entry into the job market or whatever This is a bad idea. Are you a college kid?

Number two, OMITSDDI has had a little bit of experience I bet.

Just sayin, That's a lot of money for a kid to lose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID always wins the debates.

And I won't be losing.

Evotards can't support their claims- they can only make them.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 23 2010,07:55

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:43)
If oldmanwithadickuphisass wants to debate me it will be in person, in front of referees and an audience.

Money will be put up and the winner takes all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, here we are.

As predicted, any excuse to avoid the possibility of debate.

You are aware of Mr Brown and his Hydroplayte debate "challenge" right?
< http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ422.html#wp2206547 >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once a lead evolutionist agrees to participate, we will search for and select an editor associated with a large, neutral publisher. I am confident that many publishers will be interested. Those invited may conclude that one or both sides have not demonstrated the ability to produce a credible, unemotional, and thorough case, understandable to most readers. If so, sales of the final, book-length debate would suffer. Sales, after all, are a publisher’s main concern. Editors and publishers may also conclude that one side is unprepared to address all relevant disciplines in the creation-evolution issue: life sciences, astronomical sciences, earth sciences, physical sciences, and their many subdisciplines. If so, the editor and publisher might ask one side to add qualified people to its side or withdraw.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's funny how the people who claim to want nothing else other then to debate the issues openly do anything possible to put so many barriers in the way of that debate actually happening.

That's funny, eh Joe? I mean, if I were you and I was so sure I was in the right why would I say "I know I'm right but here's a set of unreasonable demands you have to meet before I'll provide the evidence as to why I'm right".

If you honestly believed in your position Joe we'd have that debate right here and now.

But you don't really believe. Some small part of your brain that remains sane knows this, and so the unreasonable demands are used as a smokescreen.

Coward. IOW all you've got is name calling and unreasonable demands.

Typical creationist coward.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 23 2010,08:02

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:52)
I don't hang around here more because it is filled with retarded assholes like you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, that's the reason. What does it say about you that you would waste any time at all with such a retarded asshole? I guess you must be even more of one then I am to make it worth your while.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yes it will be a very short debate because you couldn't defend your position if your life depended on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The debate has already happened. Your side lost. We can have a side-show debate here, but if you insist on a public forum and money up front, well, I think it'll be obvious to all what your real plan is - to avoid a debate at all costs while continuing to claim that all you want is to debate.

What a sorry sad sack you are Joe.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 23 2010,08:05

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:53)
Assface- YOU are supposed to provide the evidence, data and observations that support your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you are supposed to produce the evidence, data and observations that support yours.

Or have you never actually had a debate before?

Or is the intent for me to produce some data point and then for you to knock holes in it?

Bwhahaha.

About those simple biology questions Joe. Answer those and perhaps we'll talk about a debate. Until you do, it's all bluster.

Want me to repeat them for you, or are you able to click back a page all on your own?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 23 2010,08:09

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:54)
ID always wins the debates.

And I won't be losing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, you really need to run for school board. Seriously, that is where the action is. Instead of debating us tards, you can be having an direct effect on the youth of America.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 23 2010,08:50

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,12:54)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 23 2010,07:52)
Oh, I see. Hey JoeG,

1. ID doesn't win debates. Or courtcases or entry into the job market or whatever This is a bad idea. Are you a college kid?

Number two, OMITSDDI has had a little bit of experience I bet.

Just sayin, That's a lot of money for a kid to lose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID always wins the debates.

And I won't be losing.

Evotards can't support their claims- they can only make them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooooooohhhhh.

{shudder of comedic pleasure}

Internet Tough Guy is Tough!

Tell me Internet Tough Guy, do the bigger boys down at your local sauna make you talk like that to them before, well, they use you like a toast rack?

I love you clueless muppets, you provide so much amusement. Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well.

Louis
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 23 2010,09:02

Watch out guys, he'll threaten you with a "meeting".

Don't do it Joe, you'll throw your hip out again!
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 23 2010,09:07

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,08:50)
I love you clueless muppets, you provide so much amusement. Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks mate! I haz new sig line!
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 23 2010,09:07

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2010,09:02)
Watch out guys, he'll threaten you with a "meeting".

Don't do it Joe, you'll throw your hip out again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe has already < promised > to visit me.  Tickets will go on sale as soon as he confirms the date.  :D
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 23 2010,09:11

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 23 2010,09:07)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2010,09:02)
Watch out guys, he'll threaten you with a "meeting".

Don't do it Joe, you'll throw your hip out again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe has already < promised > to visit me.  Tickets will go on sale as soon as he confirms the date.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow - Joe G internet bully is a one-trick pony.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 23 2010,09:28

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 23 2010,14:07)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,08:50)
I love you clueless muppets, you provide so much amusement. Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks mate! I haz new sig line!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Glad to be of service.

The Internet Tough Guy amuses me. He's one step away from saying "all right, everyone outside in the carpark now" and then crying "coward" when people hundreds (if not thousands) of miles away laugh at him for being utterly sans wit. Big Joe ID Droopy Parts* really needs to find a nice charity organisation to buy him a clue.

This happy camper is eminently mockable. It seems, what with a likely Vmartin/Jad sighting in Daevans, old friends return. Mock them. Then ignore them as the ineffectual and pointless buffoons they are, sayeth I.

Louis

*For anyone possessed of functioning metaphorical genitalia is too capable to act like him. He's acting out his intellectual impotence on line. Tragic really. Maybe, when the Tough Guy act gets old, and he moves out of mummy's basement, he can read real books with normal sized type and no colouring section. Perhaps even books that aren't either laminated or chew-proof.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 23 2010,09:34

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 23 2010,06:09)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:54)
ID always wins the debates.

And I won't be losing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ROTFLMSWAO

"The Black Knight Always Triumphs! I'm Invincible! Have at you!!"

HA HA HA HA.

Somebody missed the whole Dover thing, apparently. Oh, wait, that's right, Judge Jones was an Atheist Baby-Eating Darwinist Mole.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 23 2010,09:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
a. The Creation Position:

Everything in the universe, including the stars, the solar system, the earth, life, and man, came into existence suddenly and recently, in essentially the complexity we see today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Religious ideas and beliefs, while possibly correct, will not be allowed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Feb. 23 2010,10:17

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2010,10:11)
 
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 23 2010,09:07)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2010,09:02)
Watch out guys, he'll threaten you with a "meeting".

Don't do it Joe, you'll throw your hip out again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe has already < promised > to visit me.  Tickets will go on sale as soon as he confirms the date.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow - Joe G internet bully is a one-trick phony.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 23 2010,13:40

And to think, I was going to try to warn you about what Joe G means when he wants to "debate".

At the time I was banned on Uncommon Descent (2006) I was having what I thought was a reasonable discussion with "Joseph".  He was complaining about a double standard in the ID/Evolution debate.  I was truly looking for a serious one-on-one debate with someone claiming to represent the ID side.

From my < first comment > on his blog...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the biggest double-standard that exists envolves defining the terms of the debate (what is "science", what is "Intelligent Design", what is "Evolution")

For the record, I am more the happy to debate this topic on a level playing field.

Deal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



His response...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deal. I will start a thread that aks "What is evolution?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Without going into the gory detail (you can read it for yourself), Joe's idea of a debate was for him to define all the terms and demand answers to his questions without answering his opponent's.

The series ended with Joe saying...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...the ONLY position I am willing to debate against is the materialistic anti-ID position which is "sheer-dumb-luck", ie the blind watchmaker.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< link >


If anyone ends up starting a debate with Joe, I suggest they take advantage of my previous efforts and include the following in their conditions...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can go around and around on this. Here are your "level playing field" choices...

1. We make our own definitions.

2. We choose definitions from our respective sides (I choose Dawkins' definition of Evolution).

3. We choose definitions for the other side (I choose Pandas).

You can rant and rave all you want, but this is what happens when you truly take away a double standard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



With me, Joe rejected these conditions.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 23 2010,20:51

Maybe Joe should try gargling with H2SO4.  It's got twice as much oxygen as H2O2.
Just a helpful suggestion.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 23 2010,21:17

I guess Tough Guy/Joe had to leave to pose for his poster.


Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 23 2010,23:51

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 24 2010,04:34)
Somebody missed the whole Dover thing, apparently. Oh, wait, that's right, Judge Jones was an Atheist Baby-Eating Darwinist Mole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, Joe knows all about Dover. He coulda changed the result if only he'd turned up, doncha know. He had < this > to say about it over at UD:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To this day I kick myself for not going to the “Kitzmiller” fiasco…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, I can just picture how it would have been - Day one, around 90 minutes in:
Judge J Jones: "Officer, please have this man removed and charged with contempt of court"
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 24 2010,02:46

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 23 2010,20:51)
Maybe Joe should try gargling with H2SO4.  It's got twice as much oxygen as H2O2.
Just a helpful suggestion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the ‘sound’ of his ’voice’ here it appears like he already did.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 24 2010,08:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I heven't been sick even though my daughter and wife have been.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's hell when children and spouses make bad lifestyle choices.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 24 2010,09:27

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 23 2010,08:09)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:54)
ID always wins the debates.

And I won't be losing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, you really need to run for school board. Seriously, that is where the action is. Instead of debating us tards, you can be having an direct effect on the youth of America.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have already implemented "Intelligent Design Awareness Day" for the local schools.

This year was the second IDAD.

All is going well.

I even had parents and teachers attend this year's IDAD- some asked about religion- as in when was I going to talk about it.

I told them I don't because it is irrelevant.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 24 2010,09:28

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 23 2010,13:40)
And to think, I was going to try to warn you about what Joe G means when he wants to "debate".

At the time I was banned on Uncommon Descent (2006) I was having what I thought was a reasonable discussion with "Joseph".  He was complaining about a double standard in the ID/Evolution debate.  I was truly looking for a serious one-on-one debate with someone claiming to represent the ID side.

From my < first comment > on his blog...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the biggest double-standard that exists envolves defining the terms of the debate (what is "science", what is "Intelligent Design", what is "Evolution")

For the record, I am more the happy to debate this topic on a level playing field.

Deal?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



His response...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deal. I will start a thread that aks "What is evolution?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Without going into the gory detail (you can read it for yourself), Joe's idea of a debate was for him to define all the terms and demand answers to his questions without answering his opponent's.

The series ended with Joe saying...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...the ONLY position I am willing to debate against is the materialistic anti-ID position which is "sheer-dumb-luck", ie the blind watchmaker.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< link >


If anyone ends up starting a debate with Joe, I suggest they take advantage of my previous efforts and include the following in their conditions...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can go around and around on this. Here are your "level playing field" choices...

1. We make our own definitions.

2. We choose definitions from our respective sides (I choose Dawkins' definition of Evolution).

3. We choose definitions for the other side (I choose Pandas).

You can rant and rave all you want, but this is what happens when you truly take away a double standard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



With me, Joe rejected these conditions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave,

You make things up to suit your needs.

You must be very proud of yourself.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 24 2010,09:29

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 24 2010,08:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I heven't been sick even though my daughter and wife have been.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's hell when children and spouses make bad lifestyle choices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes it is.

I can only tell them what is right- I cannot force them.

People need to learn on their own it appears...
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 24 2010,10:08

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:27)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 23 2010,08:09)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:54)
ID always wins the debates.

And I won't be losing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, you really need to run for school board. Seriously, that is where the action is. Instead of debating us tards, you can be having an direct effect on the youth of America.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have already implemented "Intelligent Design Awareness Day" for the local schools.

This year was the second IDAD.

All is going well.

I even had parents and teachers attend this year's IDAD- some asked about religion- as in when was I going to talk about it.

I told them I don't because it is irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you said it was held outside of school time and had no impact on curriculum.  All I can say is so what?  Having a talk in a church basement somewhere is small time stuff.  You really need to get the curriculum changed. With you on the school board, the Darwinists are sure to lose the ensuing court case.  Wouldn't that be glorious?  Bill Buckingham can eat your dust.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 24 2010,10:52

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 24 2010,10:08)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:27)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 23 2010,08:09)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 23 2010,07:54)
ID always wins the debates.

And I won't be losing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, you really need to run for school board. Seriously, that is where the action is. Instead of debating us tards, you can be having an direct effect on the youth of America.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have already implemented "Intelligent Design Awareness Day" for the local schools.

This year was the second IDAD.

All is going well.

I even had parents and teachers attend this year's IDAD- some asked about religion- as in when was I going to talk about it.

I told them I don't because it is irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you said it was held outside of school time and had no impact on curriculum.  All I can say is so what?  Having a talk in a church basement somewhere is small time stuff.  You really need to get the curriculum changed. With you on the school board, the Darwinists are sure to lose the ensuing court case.  Wouldn't that be glorious?  Bill Buckingham can eat your dust.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IDAD takes place at the middle school and it serves the purpose just fine.

And with the way it went this year I am confident that at least one teacher will be introducing the subject during his science class.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 24 2010,11:15

Last December Bradford banned someone named "Jupiter" for no other reason than he thought he MIGHT be a sock.

Bradford didn't even have a suggestion as to who it was or if the person was previously banned.

I took the time yesterday to review the circumstances surrounding Joe G alias ID Guy.  What I found was that the last time Joe G commented on Telic Thoughts as "Joe G" he ignored Krause's warnings to stay on topic and continued his usual nonsense.

Krause isn't known for his patience.  I strongly suspect "Joe G" was banned and was never heard on TT again.  It was at this time "ID Guy" appeared (for the first time) and continued with the exact same nonsense.

Several people immediately noted the obvious connection and clearly identified it.  However, since they were ID critics their observations were ignored.

There have been several instances where ID critics have been immediately banned when exposed as a sock regardless of whether or not their comments had been appropriate.

Between noon yesterday and early this morning neither "ID Guy" nor "Joe G" made any comments on TT or AtBC.  This morning they both suddenly have a lot to say on the respective blogs.

It is clear by now to the key players that "ID Guy" is a sock for "Joe G".  This includes TT's Bradford.

I am curious what Bradford will do about the situation.  I suspect he still periodically checks in here to reinforce his excuses for discriminating against ID critics.  If someone wishes to quote or link this on TT, feel free to do so.  However, I suggest you wait for a while to give Bradford time to think about his response.

I have no curiosity as to what Joe G (aka ID Guy) will do.  Anyone arguing against the existence of Free Will could use him as a case on point.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 24 2010,11:34

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 24 2010,11:15)
Last December Bradford banned someone named "Jupiter" for no other reason than he thought he MIGHT be a sock.

Bradford didn't even have a suggestion as to who it was or if the person was previously banned.

I took the time yesterday to review the circumstances surrounding Joe G alias ID Guy.  What I found was that the last time Joe G commented on Telic Thoughts as "Joe G" he ignored Krause's warnings to stay on topic and continued his usual nonsense.

Krause isn't known for his patience.  I strongly suspect "Joe G" was banned and was never heard on TT again.  It was at this time "ID Guy" appeared (for the first time) and continued with the exact same nonsense.

Several people immediately noted the obvious connection and clearly identified it.  However, since they were ID critics their observations were ignored.

There have been several instances where ID critics have been immediately banned when exposed as a sock regardless of whether or not their comments had been appropriate.

Between noon yesterday and early this morning neither "ID Guy" nor "Joe G" made any comments on TT or AtBC.  This morning they both suddenly have a lot to say on the respective blogs.

It is clear by now to the key players that "ID Guy" is a sock for "Joe G".  This includes TT's Bradford.

I am curious what Bradford will do about the situation.  I suspect he still periodically checks in here to reinforce his excuses for discriminating against ID critics.  If someone wishes to quote or link this on TT, feel free to do so.  However, I suggest you wait for a while to give Bradford time to think about his response.

I have no curiosity as to what Joe G (aka ID Guy) will do.  Anyone arguing against the existence of Free Will could use him as a case on point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone needs to get a life- Dave...

So far you have proven to be a liar.

So please continue...
Posted by: Tom Ames on Feb. 24 2010,11:59

Does anyone remember DNAUnion from the ARN days?

I'm starting to miss that guy...
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 24 2010,12:26

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,09:59)
Does anyone remember DNAUnion from the ARN days?

I'm starting to miss that guy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah yes.

Who was PLA?
Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 24 2010,12:32

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,11:59)
Does anyone remember DNAUnion from the ARN days?

I'm starting to miss that guy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's not an IDer these days, as I understand.
Posted by: Tom Ames on Feb. 24 2010,13:34

I may just have been naive, but I don't think I would have imagined that the quality of ID spokesturds would have gotten WORSE than they were at ARN. I suppose I expected that, if anything, they'd become more polished and cryptic, along the direction ISCID was pretending to go. And I kind of assumed that ARN was scraping the bottom of the barrel as it was.

And yet here we are, ten+ years later, and the only argument in favor of ID their proponents can muster is to call us assholes.

(Ten years from now--in Sarah Palin's second term, perhaps--will we be thinking: "that Joe G. guy actually seems kind of reasonable, in retrospect" compared to what the IDists will be saying then?)

[Rumors at the time were that PLA was either Wells or Nelson. I think he was too smart to be Wells, though.]
Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 24 2010,14:09

What cracks me up is ID Guy says he'll meet with anyone to prove he isn't Joe. Yet here sits poor Oleg at Johns Hopkins with a spare 20 grand, all lonely, waiting to give it to him should he show up and actually do it.
Posted by: Art on Feb. 24 2010,14:52

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,11:59)
Does anyone remember DNAUnion from the ARN days?

I'm starting to miss that guy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.meetup.com/SoutheastAlabamaFreethought/members/8628491/ >
Posted by: Art on Feb. 24 2010,14:53

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,12:26)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,09:59)
Does anyone remember DNAUnion from the ARN days?

I'm starting to miss that guy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah yes.

Who was PLA?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paul Nelson.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 24 2010,14:57

Olegt,

$20k to meet someone that is almost certainly an utter wanker?

Hell, I'll turn up at Johns Hopkins for plane fare and accomodation.

I'll even pretend to be Joe and threaten you with....ohhhh I don't know, something to do with bottoms....then we can laugh, give all the ID/Internet Tough Guy bullshit a miss and go get drunk. In fact, let's all go, Olegt's $20k should get a good few of us together in Baltimore for a right good shindig.

Louis
Posted by: Tom Ames on Feb. 24 2010,15:44

Quote (Art @ Feb. 24 2010,12:52)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,11:59)
Does anyone remember DNAUnion from the ARN days?

I'm starting to miss that guy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.meetup.com/SoutheastAlabamaFreethought/members/8628491/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, but that's just scary.

Please don't tell me when the Smartest-bouncer-in-the-world and his sidekick switch over to our side. I'd rather remember them as I left them.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 26 2010,12:44

Kudos to Bilbo. At least he is trying to be even handed.

"ID Guy" ignored Bilbo's warning just like he ignored Krause' warning when he was "Joe G".

Bilbo banned him from the thread.

And I don't believe Bilbo ever banned an ID critic just for being a sock like Bradford does.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 27 2010,13:52

Over at TT, Sal provided links to Glenn Beck's < Glen Beck's CPAC speech >.

I forced myself to watch to this.  While I can find Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc entertaining, Glenn Beck is disturbing to me.  All of these people are sputtering nonsense but Glenn Beck seems serious about his intent.

It is the emotion, not the veracity, of his words which creates his dangerous mob of followers.

If you can't stomach to watch the whole thing, I suggest watching the last part (6 of 6).

His take-away message and biggest applause line is "...it will be that way if we CHOOSE to believe that; I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE THAT." (7:25 mark).

It is obvious Glenn Beck has no problem believing what he wants to believe even if he has to twist or ignore facts to do it.

Most of this last part of his speech deals with Beck's fabricated history behind the Statue of Liberty.  He started by telling his followers to "look this up" (highly doubtful they did or will).  I did because I wasn't that familiar with the origin of "Give me your tired, your poor..."  It turns out the poet who created this was an American influenced by the Russian mistreatment of Jews.  Neither the French nor the Europeans had anything to do with it.  The plaque was added as an afterthought in 1903 (the statue was dedicated in 1886).  What Beck chose to believe isn’t at all consistent with actual history.

I know this won't come as a surprise to most of you here.

Thank you for allowing me to vent my frustrations.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 27 2010,14:11

I see ID Guy (aka Joe G) is ignoring Bradford's warning. < link >

I wonder if Bradford will ban him from the thread like Bilbo did?

Or maybe ban ID Guy altogether because he is a sock circumventing his previous ban by Kause?

Or maybe not.  ???
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 27 2010,15:36

I doubt Bradford will do anything.  The village loves its idiot.
Posted by: didymos on Feb. 27 2010,19:31

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 27 2010,13:36)
I doubt Bradford will do anything.  The village loves its idiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 01 2010,06:58

Problem solved!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: I could be putting people to work and feeding the world- all the while mitigating that sea-level rise- a whopping 0.8 feet per 100 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 01 2010,11:37

Hi Oleg,

On the other thread you were arguing Joe G was being entertaining on Telic Thoughts.

I'm forced to agree with you.

Next he will start arguing about frustrated magnets with you.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 01 2010,12:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With respect to the larger culture Einstein's view of God and dice is a colorful reference to a non-scientific concept to make a philosophical scientific point even if it was subsequently shown erroneous.
< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!




I've got to quit looking at TT.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 01 2010,19:08

Bilbo opens a new thread < Inferring Design in an Infinite Universe > and poses his interesting question:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's suppose that we have a self-conscious toaster oven. And let's suppose it figures out that it's coming into existence without design is extremely improbable. Let's also suppose that it believes that the universe is infinite. If it knew that there were designers of toaster ovens, then it could reasonably infer that it had probably been designed. But it does not know that there are toaster oven designers. Could it reasonably infer that it had probably been designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 01 2010,20:01

Curse you Oleg,

Not only did you compel me to look a TT.

Now I am tempted to comment on Bilbo's thread.

There might actually be some independent thinking occurring there.

However, I think I will try to resist.  I am sure you can handle it.

Be gentle.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 01 2010,20:21

Don't worry, TP, I have no intention of getting into Bilbo's thread.  It's perfect already.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 01 2010,21:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's suppose that we have a self-conscious toaster oven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So does this mean that evolution theory is now toast?

Henry
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 02 2010,04:48

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 01 2010,17:08)
Bilbo opens a new thread < Inferring Design in an Infinite Universe > and poses his interesting question:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's suppose that we have a self-conscious toaster oven. And let's suppose it figures out that it's coming into existence without design is extremely improbable. Let's also suppose that it believes that the universe is infinite. If it knew that there were designers of toaster ovens, then it could reasonably infer that it had probably been designed. But it does not know that there are toaster oven designers. Could it reasonably infer that it had probably been designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This reminds of the atheist toaster that taunted Kryten in Red Dwarf about the non-existence of Silicon Heaven.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 02 2010,07:59

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 27 2010,15:36)
I doubt Bradford will do anything.  The village loves its idiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly why they let you post there- they love you, you idiot.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 02 2010,08:45

How's your < little vacation > going, Joe?  Missing me already?  :D
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 02 2010,08:47

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 02 2010,08:45)
How's your < little vacation > going, Joe?  Missing me already?  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How's your missing brain doing?

Do you miss it already?

Or are you proud to be a brainless asshole?
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 02 2010,08:50

Wow, and it's only been half a day!  It's going to be a long week, Joe.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 02 2010,08:59

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 02 2010,08:50)
Wow, and it's only been half a day!  It's going to be a long week, Joe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know what you are talking about.

Are you talking about your liesa nd goal-post moving?

Yeah, I saw that.

You are an asshole without peer.

You are about as dishoest as Zachriel and blipey- probably even more dishonest.

You asked for it:

< oleg the asshole said >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
astronomers learned how stars and planets form out of hydrogen clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So when < ID guy responded with >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

IOW the nebula that are alleged to form planets are not hydrogen clouds.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What did oleg the asshole do?

Moved the goalposts of course!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since you are such a specialist on planetary nebulae
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No assface you said "hydrogen cloud".

ID guy responded to that piece of ignorance.

You have no decency at all.

You are just a pencil-neck geek and apparently proud of it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 02 2010,09:21

That's right Joe, you stick up for ID guy. You two should have a beer. You'll only need one beer.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 02 2010,10:01

Joe,

You're wrong.  A planetary nebula is the last stage of a dying star and not the first stage of a solar system.  Solar systems, including their stars and planets, form out of molecular clouds.  Planetary nebulae help disperse heavy elements into molecular clouds.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 02 2010,10:04

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 02 2010,10:01)
Joe,

You're wrong.  A planetary nebula is the last stage of a dying star and not the first stage of a solar system.  Solar systems, including their stars and planets, form out of molecular clouds.  Planetary nebulae help disperse heavy elements into molecular clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess one of those 100 astronomy papers Joe claims to have read contains an error then...
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 02 2010,10:07

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,06:59)
You are an asshole without peer.

You are about as dishoest as Zachriel and blipey- probably even more dishonest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, if he's about as bad as those two, wouldn't that make him an asshole with at least two peers?  Or are we making a distinction between assholishness and dishonesty?  If so, what is the distinction?  What are the criteria for being an asshole?  I'm not kidding either: I genuinely want to know what qualifies someone for "asshole" status in your book.
Posted by: KCdgw on Mar. 02 2010,10:07

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 02 2010,10:01)
Joe,

You're wrong.  A planetary nebula is the last stage of a dying star and not the first stage of a solar system.  Solar systems, including their stars and planets, form out of molecular clouds.  Planetary nebulae help disperse heavy elements into molecular clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pwnage!
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 02 2010,10:38

Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,15:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,06:59)
You are an asshole without peer.

You are about as dishoest as Zachriel and blipey- probably even more dishonest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, if he's about as bad as those two, wouldn't that make him an asshole with at least two peers?  Or are we making a distinction between assholishness and dishonesty?  If so, what is the distinction?  What are the criteria for being an asshole?  I'm not kidding either: I genuinely want to know what qualifies someone for "asshole" status in your book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about being an arsehole without pier? Is pier ownership important for arsehole status? Are the two related like pirates and global warming?

Since JoeG's technique of {cough} "argument" is to put his hands over his ears and shout "ASSHOLE" a lot whilst ignoring the sum of scientific data accumulated over a few centuries and generally acting the muppet, should he perhaps take a long walk off a short pier? Or perhaps, which is doubtlessly more to his tastes, insert a pier up his arse?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Louis
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 02 2010,12:15

Wouldn't somebody without pier tend to miss the boat?

Henry
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 02 2010,14:32

An obstinate child that only a mother could love? Getting high on foul language? Having the time of his life here. High quality service, satisfaction guaranteed.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 02 2010,14:47

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 02 2010,17:15)
Wouldn't somebody without pier tend to miss the boat?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An accurate summary of Joe's state.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 02 2010,14:47

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 02 2010,19:32)
An obstinate child that only a mother could love? Getting high on foul language? Having the time of his life here. High quality service, satisfaction guaranteed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AtBC: We do swearing and LOLcats.

Louis
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Mar. 02 2010,14:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2010,09:21)
That's right Joe, you stick up for ID guy. You two should have a beer. You'll only need one beer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID guy is without peer.  Unless you count Joe G, which doesn't count, since there is just one peer.

Clear?
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 02 2010,19:25

I become a peer after about 3 beer(s?).
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 03 2010,02:36

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2010,14:47)
   
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 02 2010,19:32)
An obstinate child that only a mother could love? Getting high on foul language? Having the time of his life here. High quality service, satisfaction guaranteed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AtBC: We do swearing and LOLcats.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. >
Posted by: CeilingCat on Mar. 03 2010,05:10

Joe, why are you wearing a Captain Asshole uniform?
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 03 2010,06:49

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 02 2010,10:01)
Joe,

You're wrong.  A planetary nebula is the last stage of a dying star and not the first stage of a solar system.  Solar systems, including their stars and planets, form out of molecular clouds.  Planetary nebulae help disperse heavy elements into molecular clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey asshole YOU were the one who brought up planetary nebula during a discussion about stars and planets forming.

Holy shit oleg the asshole can't even follow his own drivel!
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 03 2010,06:57

O, really, Joe?  Let's have a look at < your comment > that ended up in the memory hole:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
olegt,

Man are you ever dishonest and unstable.

You said something about planets and stars forming from a hydrogen cloud.

That is obviously a bogus claim- I called you on it and you supported my claim.

Now you want to turn that around to try to make it that I was the one who messed up.

YOU never claimed anything about planetary nebula- YOU said hydrogen cloud.

You move the goal-post like a little chicken-shit and then say that I lied.

You are a dishonest goal-post mover with no shame.

Bradford- I would like to complain about oleg's low-life behaviour.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was you, not me, who brought up planetary nebulae.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 03 2010,07:01

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57)
O, really, Joe?  Let's have a look at < your comment > that ended up in the memory hole:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
olegt,

Man are you ever dishonest and unstable.

You said something about planets and stars forming from a hydrogen cloud.

That is obviously a bogus claim- I called you on it and you supported my claim.

Now you want to turn that around to try to make it that I was the one who messed up.

YOU never claimed anything about planetary nebula- YOU said hydrogen cloud.

You move the goal-post like a little chicken-shit and then say that I lied.

You are a dishonest goal-post mover with no shame.

Bradford- I would like to complain about oleg's low-life behaviour.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was you, not me, who brought up planetary nebulae.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fuck you asshole.

YOU said something about planetary nebula in my response to you about hydrogen clouds.

Obviously you are too dishonest to even own up to that even though the link I provided earlier demonstrates exactly that.

Here it is again faggot:

< ID guy and oleg >:

The first words out of asshole's mouth were :



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since you are such a specialist on planetary nebulae
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU brought up planetray nebula first you lying fuck.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 03 2010,07:17

Joe, you started babbling about nebulae < here >, in a comment preceding mine.  

And < here you are >, insisting that I should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford,

One more word and then I will shut up- promise-

olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.


I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.

OK bye-bye. Thank you and I will take a break…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 03 2010,07:27

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,07:17)
Joe, you started babbling about nebulae < here >, in a comment preceding mine.  

And < here you are >, insisting that I should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford,

One more word and then I will shut up- promise-

olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.


I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.

OK bye-bye. Thank you and I will take a break…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are a dishonest little faggot.

The evidence shows that olegt brought up planetray nebulae in direct response to my calling him on his hydrogen cloud ignorance.

olegt had said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
astronomers learned how stars and planets form out of hydrogen clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The response was:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

IOW the nebula that are alleged to form planets are not hydrogen clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



then asshole said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since you are such a specialist on planetary nebulae
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That wqas the first anyone said anything about planetary nebulae and it was during a discussion about planets and stars forming.

IOW it is obvious that olegt thought that planetary nebulae are what forms planets and stars.

Start < here >

It's all there you lying asshole.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 03 2010,07:29

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,07:17)
Joe, you started babbling about nebulae < here >, in a comment preceding mine.  

And < here you are >, insisting that I should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford,

One more word and then I will shut up- promise-

olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.


I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.

OK bye-bye. Thank you and I will take a break…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also I didn't see where anyone insisted you should have said planetry nebulae.

IOW you are just dishonest all the way to the bone.

YOU brought up planetary nebulae first.

The evidence shows that.

Now you want to liew your way out of it.

Sweet...
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 03 2010,07:32

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,07:17)
Joe, you started babbling about nebulae < here >, in a comment preceding mine.  

And < here you are >, insisting that I should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford,

One more word and then I will shut up- promise-

olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.


I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.

OK bye-bye. Thank you and I will take a break…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


asshole,

I didn't say anything.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

IOW the nebula that are alleged to form planets are not hydrogen clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nebula is not a reference to planetary nebula.

It is a reference to the nebula hypothesis- You know the hypothesis that pertains to solar system formation.

Geez a first grader could understand that.

But a dishonest fuck like oleg needs to twist it.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 03 2010,07:33

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2010,10:38)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,15:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,06:59)
You are an asshole without peer.

You are about as dishoest as Zachriel and blipey- probably even more dishonest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, if he's about as bad as those two, wouldn't that make him an asshole with at least two peers?  Or are we making a distinction between assholishness and dishonesty?  If so, what is the distinction?  What are the criteria for being an asshole?  I'm not kidding either: I genuinely want to know what qualifies someone for "asshole" status in your book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about being an arsehole without pier? Is pier ownership important for arsehole status? Are the two related like pirates and global warming?

Since JoeG's technique of {cough} "argument" is to put his hands over his ears and shout "ASSHOLE" a lot whilst ignoring the sum of scientific data accumulated over a few centuries and generally acting the muppet, should he perhaps take a long walk off a short pier? Or perhaps, which is doubtlessly more to his tastes, insert a pier up his arse?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis,

There isn't any evidence that supports your position.

Here is an example:

How can you test the premsie that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 03 2010,07:33

Joe, two questions.

1.  Are you conceding in this sentence that you are indeed ID guy?    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The evidence shows that olegt brought up planetray nebulae in direct response to my calling him on his hydrogen cloud ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



2.  Can you further expand on this?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nebula is not a reference to planetary nebula.

It is a reference to the nebula hypothesis- You know the hypothesis that pertains to solar system formation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Solar systems are not said to form out of nebulae.  What kind of nebula were you talking about?  
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 03 2010,07:44

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,07:33)
Joe, two questions.

1.  Are you conceding in this sentence that you are indeed ID guy?    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The evidence shows that olegt brought up planetray nebulae in direct response to my calling him on his hydrogen cloud ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



2.  Can you further expand on this?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nebula is not a reference to planetary nebula.

It is a reference to the nebula hypothesis- You know the hypothesis that pertains to solar system formation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Solar systems are not said to form out of nebulae.  What kind of nebula were you talking about?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are admitting that you are a liar?

That is all you have to do.

And now you are saying the nebula hypothesis is not a nebula hypothesis.

Nice.

< nebula hypothesis >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But thanks for continuing to prove that you are a dishoest asshole.

I appreciate it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 03 2010,07:51

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:33)
How can you test the premsie that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Joe,
How can you test the premise that the bacterial flagellum was designed?
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 03 2010,07:54

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 03 2010,07:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:33)
How can you test the premsie that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Joe,
How can you test the premise that the bacterial flagellum was designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that how you support your position- by questioning mine?

What a fucking loser you are.

Now you know why people don't come here to support thewir position- not one of you faggots can support yours.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 03 2010,07:54

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,07:33)
Joe, two questions.

1.  Are you conceding in this sentence that you are indeed ID guy?    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The evidence shows that olegt brought up planetray nebulae in direct response to my calling him on his hydrogen cloud ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



2.  Can you further expand on this?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nebula is not a reference to planetary nebula.

It is a reference to the nebula hypothesis- You know the hypothesis that pertains to solar system formation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Solar systems are not said to form out of nebulae.  What kind of nebula were you talking about?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I concede that I don't have an edit button to fix my posts once I post them.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 03 2010,07:58

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:54)

Is that how you support your position- by questioning mine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll put that down as a "I don't know" then.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now you know why people don't come here to support thewir position- not one of you faggots can support yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is not a scientific journal.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 03 2010,07:59

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,12:33)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2010,10:38)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,15:07)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,06:59)
You are an asshole without peer.

You are about as dishoest as Zachriel and blipey- probably even more dishonest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, if he's about as bad as those two, wouldn't that make him an asshole with at least two peers?  Or are we making a distinction between assholishness and dishonesty?  If so, what is the distinction?  What are the criteria for being an asshole?  I'm not kidding either: I genuinely want to know what qualifies someone for "asshole" status in your book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about being an arsehole without pier? Is pier ownership important for arsehole status? Are the two related like pirates and global warming?

Since JoeG's technique of {cough} "argument" is to put his hands over his ears and shout "ASSHOLE" a lot whilst ignoring the sum of scientific data accumulated over a few centuries and generally acting the muppet, should he perhaps take a long walk off a short pier? Or perhaps, which is doubtlessly more to his tastes, insert a pier up his arse?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis,

There isn't any evidence that supports your position.

Here is an example:

How can you test the premsie that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no evidence to support "my" position, eh? What is "my" position, Joe? I'd bet dollars to dogshit you cannot articulate it. Your ignorance =/= evidence.

Re: bacterial flagella, what would you accept as evidence, Joe? I'll wager good money that if I mention the Type Three Secretory System you'll have a reason to discount it. I also note that you refer to evolutionary biology as a series of "genetic accidents" which, to be honest is a whacking great strawman. How can you test  the idea that the BF evolved by natural means, simple, look for homologous structures/molecules in other organisms/that organism etc etc etc. I the things real scientists have been doing for generations. Very successfuly I might add.

Nice try shifting the burden of proof though Joe. You still can't describe what an IDC experiment looks like eh? Gosh, that has to burn doesn't it Yappy Dog?

Louis
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 03 2010,07:59

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:54)
I concede that I don't have an edit button to fix my posts once I post them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try using the "preview post" button and reading your post back before you hit the "Add reply" button.

I realize this may extend the time it takes for you to create each post by a factor of 10 or so, but I'm sure it would be worth it.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 03 2010,08:11

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 03 2010,12:59)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:54)
I concede that I don't have an edit button to fix my posts once I post them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try using the "preview post" button and reading your post back before you hit the "Add reply" button.

I realize this may extend the time it takes for you to create each post by a factor of 10 or so, but I'm sure it would be worth it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not. I see very little hope that the signal to yappy wankery noise ratio of Joe's posts will improve.

Louis
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 03 2010,08:48

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:44)
Nebula is not a reference to planetary nebula.

It is a reference to the nebula hypothesis- You know the hypothesis that pertains to solar system formation.

< nebula hypothesis >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe, it helps to read the material you link to.  Sometimes it does not support the point you are trying to make.  This is one of those cases.

The Wikipedia article < Nebular hypothesis > states:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System. It was first proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg.[1] Originally applied only to our own Solar System, this method of planetary system formation is now thought to be at work throughout the universe.[2] The widely accepted modern variant of the nebular hypothesis is Solar Nebular Disk Model (SNDM) or simply Solar Nebular Model.[3]

According to SNDM, stars form in massive and dense clouds of molecular hydrogen—giant molecular clouds (GMC).  They are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces to smaller denser clumps within, which then proceed to collapse and form stars. Star formation is a complex process, which always produces a gaseous protoplanetary disk around the young star. This may give birth to planets in certain circumstances, which are not well known. Thus the formation of planetary systems is thought to be a natural result of star formation. A sun-like star usually takes around 100 million years to form.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This summary is in exact accord with what I said in my < original comment > that you have tried so hard to shoot down.  The nebular hypothesis (not nebula hypothesis) says that the solar system formed out of a molecular cloud consisting for the most part (3/4) of hydrogen.  Since you disputed that, you must have had something else in mind.  

This comment shows that you are confusing different types of nebulae:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

IOW the nebula that are alleged to form planets are not hydrogen clouds.

As for stars, well their formation from hydrogen clouds isn't correct either.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A < supernova remnant > is a nebula, but it's not a < protoplanetary nebula >.  And a < planetary nebula > is something else entirely.  Note that I never said that solar systems formed out of planetary nebulae, you did, and you < insisted > that you knew what a planetary nebula is.  

Well, the lesson for you is don't blather about things you don't understand.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 03 2010,09:16

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,08:48)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:44)
Nebula is not a reference to planetary nebula.

It is a reference to the nebula hypothesis- You know the hypothesis that pertains to solar system formation.

< nebula hypothesis >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe, it helps to read the material you link to.  Sometimes it does not support the point you are trying to make.  This is one of those cases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 03 2010,10:24

Of course GI Joe is going to turn it around every time you ask for evidence, or even, dare I say it, information.

"I know you are but what am I" is all this anally-fixated 12-year-old has for an argument.  

Pointless even asking, really.  Never gonna happen.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 03 2010,10:47

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,05:33)
Joe, two questions.

1.  Are you conceding in this sentence that you are indeed ID guy?      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The evidence shows that olegt brought up planetray nebulae in direct response to my calling him on his hydrogen cloud ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, well! I believe he did. He was so caught- like the time his mom walked into his room while he jerked off with his Ken doll.


Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 05 2010,21:28

The cause of excessive handwaving on Telic Thoughts has been determined.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: < Bruuuuuph. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 07 2010,18:22

I really should quit looking at TT.

Defense attorneys would love their circular logic claim.

Your honor, the DA is using circular logic.  Yea sure, my client was shown to be in the area during the time of the burglary and his finger prints match those at the scene but the DA is assuming my client is guilty to prove he is guilty.

The DNA "fingerprints" match species which are geologically and chronologically connected and don't when they are not.

???
Posted by: dogdidit on Mar. 07 2010,19:26

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 05 2010,21:28)
The cause of excessive handwaving on Telic Thoughts has been determined.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: < Bruuuuuph. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, no sound effects?? Telic Tards' production values are clearly not up to Dembskian standards.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 08 2010,00:33

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,08:48)
Well, the lesson for you is don't blather about things you don't understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That pretty much shuts down the interwebs!
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 08 2010,14:07

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 08 2010,00:33)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,08:48)
Well, the lesson for you is don't blather about things you don't understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That pretty much shuts down the interwebs!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least for Joe G!
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 10 2010,12:27

TARD!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: An acronym which spells out a slur aimed at perhaps the most defenseless segment of human society; persons with mental disbilities. For you to perpetuate this slur just to score points in the culture war is just unconscionable.

You are truly a disgusting, disgusting human being.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chunkdz pretends that the acronym is directed at those with mental disabilities.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 10 2010,12:52

Bradford has turned every thread into a rant about how the fix for global warming is going to cost him money.

Chunkdz has turned every thread into a rant about how disgusting everyone is for supporting rape and torture.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 10 2010,13:00

Given Chunkdz fantastic track record for insightfull yet touchingly human posts both here and there I for one only wish that his horse was a little higher and that he never get of it.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 10 2010,13:28

oops. said that already.
Posted by: Cubist on Mar. 10 2010,13:32

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 10 2010,12:27)
TARD!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: An acronym which spells out a slur aimed at perhaps the most defenseless segment of human society; persons with mental disbilities. For you to perpetuate this slur just to score points in the culture war is just unconscionable.

You are truly a disgusting, disgusting human being.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chunkdz pretends that the acronym is directed at those with mental disabilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he's right -- "TARD" is a slur against people with mental disabilities.
It's just not the same (set of) disabilities he's referring to...
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 10 2010,13:52

Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 10 2010,13:32)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 10 2010,12:27)
TARD!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: An acronym which spells out a slur aimed at perhaps the most defenseless segment of human society; persons with mental disbilities. For you to perpetuate this slur just to score points in the culture war is just unconscionable.

You are truly a disgusting, disgusting human being.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chunkdz pretends that the acronym is directed at those with mental disabilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he's right -- "TARD" is a slur against people with mental disabilities.
It's just not the same (set of) disabilities he's referring to...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn - beaten to it!

Of course, that does imply that there is mentality there to begin with, and I'm not sure that assumption is justified for all of them.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 10 2010,14:31

This is the guy who demands civility.  

< Chunkdz at the Panda's Thumb. >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
William Dembski

This just in from a colleague:

I encourage you to take a look at the Panda’s Thumb and follow the entire thread devoted to the optimality of the genetic code. It is simply priceless. Someone styling himself Chunkdz dominates the discussion and by virtue of a very considerable gift for profane abuse, succeeds in doing what I never thought possible, and that is reducing the entire PT crowd to sputtering, dim-witted incoherence. You must link to it.

Here is the link.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: tsig on Mar. 10 2010,14:49

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:54)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 03 2010,07:51)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:33)
How can you test the premsie that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Joe,
How can you test the premise that the bacterial flagellum was designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that how you support your position- by questioning mine?

What a fucking loser you are.

Now you know why people don't come here to support thewir position- not one of you faggots can support yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


faggots

The denial is deep with  this one.
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 10 2010,16:54

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 10 2010,14:31)
This is the guy who demands civility.  

< Chunkdz at the Panda's Thumb. >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
William Dembski

This just in from a colleague:

I encourage you to take a look at the Panda’s Thumb and follow the entire thread devoted to the optimality of the genetic code. It is simply priceless. Someone styling himself Chunkdz dominates the discussion and by virtue of a very considerable gift for profane abuse, succeeds in doing what I never thought possible, and that is reducing the entire PT crowd to sputtering, dim-witted incoherence. You must link to it.

Here is the link.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Dembski is looking for a staring role in Chunkys next fantasy epic.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 10 2010,19:54

Bradford's < recipe > for a successful America:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we retain that freedom and a sense that it is the people and not the government or the intelligentsia that matters, we have all the reason in the world to be optimistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,08:20

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 03 2010,08:48)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,07:44)
Nebula is not a reference to planetary nebula.

It is a reference to the nebula hypothesis- You know the hypothesis that pertains to solar system formation.

< nebula hypothesis >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe, it helps to read the material you link to.  Sometimes it does not support the point you are trying to make.  This is one of those cases.

The Wikipedia article < Nebular hypothesis > states:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System. It was first proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg.[1] Originally applied only to our own Solar System, this method of planetary system formation is now thought to be at work throughout the universe.[2] The widely accepted modern variant of the nebular hypothesis is Solar Nebular Disk Model (SNDM) or simply Solar Nebular Model.[3]

According to SNDM, stars form in massive and dense clouds of molecular hydrogen—giant molecular clouds (GMC).  They are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces to smaller denser clumps within, which then proceed to collapse and form stars. Star formation is a complex process, which always produces a gaseous protoplanetary disk around the young star. This may give birth to planets in certain circumstances, which are not well known. Thus the formation of planetary systems is thought to be a natural result of star formation. A sun-like star usually takes around 100 million years to form.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This summary is in exact accord with what I said in my < original comment > that you have tried so hard to shoot down.  The nebular hypothesis (not nebula hypothesis) says that the solar system formed out of a molecular cloud consisting for the most part (3/4) of hydrogen.  Since you disputed that, you must have had something else in mind.  

This comment shows that you are confusing different types of nebulae:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

IOW the nebula that are alleged to form planets are not hydrogen clouds.

As for stars, well their formation from hydrogen clouds isn't correct either.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A < supernova remnant > is a nebula, but it's not a < protoplanetary nebula >.  And a < planetary nebula > is something else entirely.  Note that I never said that solar systems formed out of planetary nebulae, you did, and you < insisted > that you knew what a planetary nebula is.  

Well, the lesson for you is don't blather about things you don't understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oleg,

Being 75% hydrogen means it isn't all hydrogen.

Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

Also I cannot find where ID guy said that solar systems formed out of planetray nebulae.

Perhaps you can link to that or admit that you are lying- again.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 11 2010,08:27

Joe,

< Here you are > insisting that I should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford,

One more word and then I will shut up- promise-

olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.


I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.

OK bye-bye. Thank you and I will take a break…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hope this helps.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 11 2010,08:32

Joe Gallien:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also I cannot find where ID guy said...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*rolls eyes*
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,08:35

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:27)
Joe,

< Here you are > insisting that I should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford,

One more word and then I will shut up- promise-

olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.


I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.

OK bye-bye. Thank you and I will take a break…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hope this helps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oleg,

It wasn't me and what you posted doesn't say what you claim it says.

IOW there isn't anything in what you posted that says solar systems are formed from planetary nebula.

Planetray nebulas are different than hydrogen clouds.

Also there isn't anything in that which says you should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.

Your twisted and demented nature is putting words where they never were.

IOW assface once again you prove to be a dishonestt little butt-plug.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,08:36

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:32)
Joe Gallien:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also I cannot find where ID guy said...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*rolls eyes*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alan Fox- dickhead at large- chimes in with another fart...
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 11 2010,08:39

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:35)
Also there isn't anything in that which says you should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course there is, Joe.  Let me help you one more time.  Let's zoom in on this sentence:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you read and comprehend that sentence?  Would you like to explain what else you might have meant when you wrote it?
Posted by: keiths on Mar. 11 2010,08:44

Joe,

I've noticed that you and ID guy share exactly the same character flaws, intellectual deficits and verbal tics. How do you account for this extraordinary coincidence?

My explanatory filter is throbbing.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,08:47

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:35)
Also there isn't anything in that which says you should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course there is, Joe.  Let me help you one more time.  Let's zoom in on this sentence:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you read and comprehend that sentence?  Would you like to explain what else you might have meant when you wrote it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oleg,

You are twisting what was posted into something that was never said.

There isn't anything in what you just posted that says solar systems form from planetary nebula.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,08:48

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 11 2010,08:44)
Joe,

I've noticed that you and ID guy share exactly the same character flaws, intellectual deficits and verbal tics. How do you account for this extraordinary coincidence?

My explanatory filter is throbbing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KeithS,

You have your head so far up your ass that you will "see" whatever the fuck you want.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 11 2010,08:50

Joe,

OK, let's parse it one bit at a time.  ID guy insisted that I should have said "planetary nebula" instead of "hydrogen cloud," did he not?
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,08:52

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:50)
Joe,

OK, let's parse it one bit at a time.  ID guy insisted that I should have said "planetary nebula" instead of "hydrogen cloud," did he not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I didn't read that at all in any comments.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 11 2010,08:52

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 11 2010,08:44)
Joe,

I've noticed that you and ID guy share exactly the same character flaws, intellectual deficits and verbal tics. How do you account for this extraordinary coincidence?

My explanatory filter is throbbing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This whole JoeG - ID Guy think reminds me of the following dialog from the (I think) underrated film "Mystery Men"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Shoveller: If we had a billionaire like Lance Hunt as our benefactor...
Mr. Furious: That's because Lance Hunt *IS* Captain Amazing
The Shoveller: Don't start that *again*. Lance Hunt wears glasses. Captain Amazing *doesn't* wear glasses.
Mr. Furious: He takes them off when he transforms.
The Shoveller: That doesn't make any sense, he wouldn't be able to see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Mar. 11 2010,08:53

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:47)
You are twisting what was posted into something that was never said.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn, there is not room in my signature for this, unless I drop another jewel!
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,08:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
olegt never said anything about a "planetary nebula" until well after the fray started.

Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.

I know what a planetary nebula is.

I know that a planetary nebula is different than a hydrogen cloud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not one word about insisting you shopuld have used planetary nebula over hydrogen cloud.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 11 2010,08:54

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:52)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:50)
Joe,

OK, let's parse it one bit at a time.  ID guy insisted that I should have said "planetary nebula" instead of "hydrogen cloud," did he not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I didn't read that at all in any comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about this one:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How else do you interpret that sentence?
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,08:56

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:52)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:50)
Joe,

OK, let's parse it one bit at a time.  ID guy insisted that I should have said "planetary nebula" instead of "hydrogen cloud," did he not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I didn't read that at all in any comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about this one:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How else do you interpret that sentence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't say it insists you should have used planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.

It just says if you had he wouldn't have said anything about it.

And that could be for a variety of reasons.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,09:00

One reason could be:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Planetary nebulae > play a crucial role in the chemical evolution of the galaxy, returning material to the interstellar medium that has been enriched in heavy elements and other products of nucleosynthesis (such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and calcium). In more distant galaxies, planetary nebulae may be the only objects that can be resolved to yield useful information about chemical abundances.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Mar. 11 2010,09:10

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:56)
 
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:54)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:52)
   
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:50)
Joe,

OK, let's parse it one bit at a time.  ID guy insisted that I should have said "planetary nebula" instead of "hydrogen cloud," did he not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I didn't read that at all in any comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about this one:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How else do you interpret that sentence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't say it insists you should have used planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.

It just says if you had he wouldn't have said anything about it.

And that could be for a variety of reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G, stop making excuses for ID Guy.  He's not worth the effort.

The only reason to mention that a different terms should be used is if the other one is incorrect.  Here is the original comment by IDguy:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is just pure ignorance oleg.

No one thinks that planets form out of hydrogen clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Correcting" an "ignorant" comment, whilst being astonishingly ignorant.  It's Dunning-Kruger all over again.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,09:15

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 11 2010,09:10)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:56)
 
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:54)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:52)
   
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:50)
Joe,

OK, let's parse it one bit at a time.  ID guy insisted that I should have said "planetary nebula" instead of "hydrogen cloud," did he not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I didn't read that at all in any comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about this one:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How else do you interpret that sentence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't say it insists you should have used planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.

It just says if you had he wouldn't have said anything about it.

And that could be for a variety of reasons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe G, stop making excuses for ID Guy.  He's not worth the effort.

The only reason to mention that a different terms should be used is if the other one is incorrect.  Here is the original comment by IDguy:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is just pure ignorance oleg.

No one thinks that planets form out of hydrogen clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Correcting" an "ignorant" comment, whilst being astonishingly ignorant.  It's Dunning-Kruger all over again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great another clueless asshole chimes in.

Hydrogen cloud was incorrect.

And a planetary nebula adds the fuel to the system.

The fuel required to make solar systems.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 11 2010,09:31

This is getting downright funny.

About the only people left who don't know "ID Guy" is "Joe G" are those who have never heard of them.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,09:35

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 11 2010,09:31)
This is getting downright funny.

About the only people left who don't know "ID Guy" is "Joe G" are those who have never heard of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great another asshole chimes in.

You do realize that what you morons think you know is irrelevant?

So yes seeing your panties in a knot is funny...
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,09:46

So we have olegt caught lying and then he lies to try to cover up his original lie.

It is the evotard way...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,09:56

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:46)
So we have olegt caught lying and then he lies to try to cover up his original lie.

It is the evotard way...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only you thinks that. Ever wondered if it's just you and not everybody else?

That would be a good first step to recognising your problem.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,09:57

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:56)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:46)
So we have olegt caught lying and then he lies to try to cover up his original lie.

It is the evotard way...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only you thinks that. Ever wondered if it's just you and not everybody else?

That would be a good first step to recognising your problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think it- I proved it.

That you are too dishonest or ignorant to understand taht reflects on you, not me.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 11 2010,10:07

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:15)
Hydrogen cloud was incorrect.

And a planetary nebula adds the fuel to the system.

The fuel required to make solar systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe, the right term is a molecular cloud.  Molecular clouds are 75% hydrogen, the rest is mostly helium, the other elements constitute about 2-3%.  In my comment at TT I had no intention of going into a detailed discussion of the chemical composition of molecular clouds because I was only mentioning them in passing.  So I wrote "hydrogen cloud."  

That's standard practice.  If you read Wikipedia's article on the Nebular Hypothesis, which you so know and love, they do the same in the introductory paragraph:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to SNDM stars form in massive and dense clouds of molecular hydrogen—giant molecular clouds (GMC). They are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces to smaller denser clumps within, which then proceed to collapse and form stars.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Planetary nebulae do seed heavier elements into molecular clouds, but that in no way disproves the claim that solar systems from out of molecular clouds.  

So fuck off.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:11

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:57)
I don't think it- I proved it.

That you are too dishonest or ignorant to understand taht reflects on you, not me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then shame me and construct a post with what you said and what Olegt said and prove your claim, with links.

Or just continue to make an empty claim of victory despite all evidence to the contrary. Which is more or less how ID proponents operate generally, so carry on Joe!
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Planetary nebulae do seed heavier elements to molecular clouds, but that in no way disproves the claim that solar systems from out of molecular clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You said HYDROGEN CLOUD you lying asshole.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:14

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:57)
I don't think it- I proved it.

That you are too dishonest or ignorant to understand taht reflects on you, not me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then shame me and construct a post with what you said and what Olegt said and prove your claim, with links.

Or just continue to make an empty claim of victory despite all evidence to the contrary. Which is more or less how ID proponents operate generally, so carry on Joe!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shame you?

You are an ignorant anonymous fuck- there isn't any shame in you.

You are proud to be an anonymous asshole.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:18

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Planetary nebulae do seed heavier elements to molecular clouds, but that in no way disproves the claim that solar systems from out of molecular clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You said HYDROGEN CLOUD you lying asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is HYDROGEN Joe? What "class" of thing does it fall into?

Clue: Starts with "M"
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:19

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:14)


Shame you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By proving your case with evidence. A new thing for you, I understand. But it's worth doing.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are an ignorant anonymous fuck- there isn't any shame in you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know what I am, but what are you?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You are proud to be an anonymous asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you are no doubt just as proud of the quality of debate you are capable of bringing to the table.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:21

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:18)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:13)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Planetary nebulae do seed heavier elements to molecular clouds, but that in no way disproves the claim that solar systems from out of molecular clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You said HYDROGEN CLOUD you lying asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is HYDROGEN Joe? What "class" of thing does it fall into?

Clue: Starts with "M"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hydrogen is an element- an atom.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 11 2010,10:25

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:21)
Hydrogen is an element- an atom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The clouds contain molecular hydrogen, Joe.  You know, H2.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:29

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:21)
Hydrogen is an element- an atom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The clouds contain molecular hydrogen, Joe.  You know, H2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.

What a limpdick russian bastard.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:32

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)

Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you've just been proven wrong. How does that taste?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Everybody but you thinks you are wrong. Everybody but you is laughing at you.

And this is the best way you can think of spending your time?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What a limpdick russian bastard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 11 2010,10:34

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:39)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:35)
Also there isn't anything in that which says you should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course there is, Joe.  Let me help you one more time.  Let's zoom in on this sentence:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you read and comprehend that sentence?  Would you like to explain what else you might have meant when you wrote it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



At this point I'm now on the edge of my seat waiting in anticipation for an explanation of what else "Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it." could possibly have meant other than, 'writing planetary nebula(e) would have been correct while writing hydrogen cloud was wrong.' Oh...the agony of anticipation!
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:34

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:32)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)

Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you've just been proven wrong. How does that taste?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Everybody but you thinks you are wrong. Everybody but you is laughing at you.

And this is the best way you can think of spending your time?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What a limpdick russian bastard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How was I proven wrong?

And yes retards always laugh at that they cannot understand.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:35

Quote (Robin @ Mar. 11 2010,10:34)
[quote=olegt,Mar. 11 2010,08:39][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:35)
Also there isn't anything in that which says you should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course there is, Joe.  Let me help you one more time.  Let's zoom in on this sentence:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you read and comprehend that sentence?  Would you like to explain what else you might have meant when you wrote it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



At this point I'm now on the edge of my seat waiting in anticipation for an explanation of what else "Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it." could possibly have meant other than, 'writing planetary nebula(e) would have been correct while writing hydrogen cloud was wrong.' Oh...the agony of anticipation!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee robin I have already explained it.

Do I have to spoon feed you too?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 11 2010,10:36

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:25)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:21)
Hydrogen is an element- an atom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The clouds contain molecular hydrogen, Joe.  You know, H2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.

What a limpdick russian bastard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I give your post 19 Culture war points ( 4 for insults, 6 for outing a foreigner, 3 for speculation on parental marital status at birth and bonus 5 for using peepee and bumbum together) and 0 'adds to dialogue points'.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)
 
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:25)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:21)
Hydrogen is an element- an atom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The clouds contain molecular hydrogen, Joe.  You know, H2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.

What a limpdick russian bastard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I give your post 19 Culture war points ( 4 for insults, 6 for outing a foreigner, 3 for speculation on parental marital status at birth and bonus 5 for using peepee and bumbum together) and 0 'adds to dialogue points'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richtard,

Are you the designated stick-poker?

As for dialog points you always score a '0'
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 11 2010,10:39

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:36)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)
 
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:25)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:21)
Hydrogen is an element- an atom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The clouds contain molecular hydrogen, Joe.  You know, H2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.

What a limpdick russian bastard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I give your post 19 Culture war points ( 4 for insults, 6 for outing a foreigner, 3 for speculation on parental marital status at birth and bonus 5 for using peepee and bumbum together) and 0 'adds to dialogue points'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richtard,

Are you the designated stick-poker?

As for dialog points you always score a '0'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't need to fish for you, Joe. You jump in the boat and gut yourself.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 11 2010,10:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:39)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:36)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)
   
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:25)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:21)
Hydrogen is an element- an atom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The clouds contain molecular hydrogen, Joe.  You know, H2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.

What a limpdick russian bastard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I give your post 19 Culture war points ( 4 for insults, 6 for outing a foreigner, 3 for speculation on parental marital status at birth and bonus 5 for using peepee and bumbum together) and 0 'adds to dialogue points'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richtard,

Are you the designated stick-poker?

As for dialog points you always score a '0'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't need to fish for you, Joe. You jump in the boat and gut yourself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richtard,

What you say is meaningless because you are clueless.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,10:41

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:40)
What you say is meaningless because you are clueless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you or are you not going to be giving a demonstration of the EF in action?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 11 2010,10:43

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,05:41)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:40)
What you say is meaningless because you are clueless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you or are you not going to be giving a demonstration of the EF in action?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My guess is "not"  ;)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 11 2010,10:44

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:41)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:40)
What you say is meaningless because you are clueless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you or are you not going to be giving a demonstration of the EF in action?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah! Breakthrough - MEANING is measured in CLUES.

We can now through some more M's and C's into a garbage acronym.
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 11 2010,10:57

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:13)
.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Planetary nebulae do seed heavier elements to molecular clouds, but that in no way disproves the claim that solar systems from out of molecular clouds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You said HYDROGEN CLOUD you lying asshole
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Umm Joe/IDGuy...I hate to burst your superior intellect and 100-physics-paper-reading bubble, but "hydrogen cloud isl legitimate casual conversation shorthand in astronomy for "Molecular Cloud" which in turn is routinely used to describe the conditions of a nebular hypothesis:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._System >

"The formation and evolution of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.55 to 4.56 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud."

Molecular Cloud:
"A molecular cloud, sometimes called a stellar nursery if star formation is occurring within, is a type of interstellar cloud whose density and size permits the formation of molecules, most commonly molecular hydrogen (H2)."

Last time I checked, Telic Thoughts didn't rank as any kind of actual scientific peer reviewed forum, so who cares what term Oleg used since they all present the same basic concept well enough for laymen and amateur astronomers.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 11 2010,10:58

But Robin, Joe is a professional astronomer!  He knows his planetary nebulae and he has read more than a hundred papers on the formation of planetary systems!
Posted by: raguel on Mar. 11 2010,11:26

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:21)
Hydrogen is an element- an atom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The clouds contain molecular hydrogen, Joe.  You know, H2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.

What a limpdick russian bastard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW_jvLbAqMg >
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 11 2010,11:48

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:35)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 11 2010,10:34)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:39)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:35)
Also there isn't anything in that which says you should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course there is, Joe.  Let me help you one more time.  Let's zoom in on this sentence:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you read and comprehend that sentence?  Would you like to explain what else you might have meant when you wrote it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



At this point I'm now on the edge of my seat waiting in anticipation for an explanation of what else "Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it." could possibly have meant other than, 'writing planetary nebula(e) would have been correct while writing hydrogen cloud was wrong.' Oh...the agony of anticipation!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee robin I have already explained it.

Do I have to spoon feed you too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clearly yes, since you seem to be the only person who thinks you've explained anything. I don't see any other way of interpreting that sentence, but please...feel free to enlighten me and any one else hereon that's asked.
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 11 2010,11:53

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:58)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Robin, Joe is a professional astronomer!  He knows his planetary nebulae and he has read more than a hundred papers on the formation of planetary systems!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Silly me. I thought he was a professional astologer. ;)
Posted by: theloneliest monk on Mar. 11 2010,12:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:44)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:41)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:40)
What you say is meaningless because you are clueless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you or are you not going to be giving a demonstration of the EF in action?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah! Breakthrough - MEANING is measured in CLUES.

We can now through some more M's and C's into a garbage acronym.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe showing how to use the explantory filter to solve a case:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8EnRNQxK2s >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2010,12:59

Quote (theloneliest monk @ Mar. 11 2010,12:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2010,10:44)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:41)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:40)
What you say is meaningless because you are clueless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you or are you not going to be giving a demonstration of the EF in action?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah! Breakthrough - MEANING is measured in CLUES.

We can now through some more M's and C's into a garbage acronym.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe showing how to use the explantory filter to solve a case:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8EnRNQxK2s >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome!
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 11 2010,16:54

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:34)
And yes retards always laugh at that they cannot understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You kiss Chunkdz with that mouth?
Posted by: ppb on Mar. 11 2010,17:50

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,11:58)
But Robin, Joe is a professional astronomer!  He knows his planetary nebulae and he has read more than a hundred papers on the formation of planetary systems!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given JoeG's fixation on the word asshole I'd say his specialty is Uranus.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 11 2010,18:00

Quote (theloneliest monk @ Mar. 11 2010,10:15)
Joe showing how to use the explantory filter to solve a case:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8EnRNQxK2s >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, finally a practical application.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 11 2010,22:40

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 11 2010,07:31)
This is getting downright funny.

About the only people left who don't know "ID Guy" is "Joe G" are those who have never heard of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that narrows it down to just.. uh, several billion individuals, doesn't it. :-)
Posted by: Cubist on Mar. 11 2010,23:22

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 10 2010,13:52)
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 10 2010,13:32)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 10 2010,12:27)
TARD!

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: An acronym which spells out a slur aimed at perhaps the most defenseless segment of human society; persons with mental disbilities. For you to perpetuate this slur just to score points in the culture war is just unconscionable.

You are truly a disgusting, disgusting human being.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chunkdz pretends that the acronym is directed at those with mental disabilities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he's right -- "TARD" is a slur against people with mental disabilities.
It's just not the same (set of) disabilities he's referring to...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damn - beaten to it!

Of course, that does imply that there is mentality there to begin with, and I'm not sure that assumption is justified for all of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Assumes organ not in evidence", eh?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 12 2010,08:30

Joe G:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID is based on the psoitive with support from the negative- as in:

We have observed agencies doing X. We have never observed blind, undirected processes doing X.

Everytime we have seen X and knew the cause it has always been via agency involvement. Not once has X arose via blind, undirected processes.

Therefore when we observe X and don't know the cause it is safe to iunfer agency involvement.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh? What's X?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID is based on the psoitive with support from the negative- as in:

We have observed agencies doing LEMONADE. We have never observed blind, undirected processes doing LEMONADE.

Everytime we have seen LEMONADE and knew the cause it has always been via agency involvement. Not once has LEMONADE arose via blind, undirected processes.

Therefore when we observe LEMONADE and don't know the cause it is safe to iunfer agency involvement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm, he might be onto something here! Lemonade is indeed created by intelligent beings.
< Link. >
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Mar. 12 2010,10:55

< Bradford is a tard >.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel:
The simplest solution is just to make people pay for cleaning up their own mess. A market-driven solution. Pay for carbon dumping, or avoid the problem by not dumping.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BradTard:
People is everyone. If you consume a product you are equally responsible and will shoulder the costs of more expensive technology. "Carbon dumping" is not a sin although you can feel the ire directed at "big carb."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a sin...if it feels good, do it - right, BradTard?  Hey everyone, look!  BradTard, the super-capitalist, has discovered that manufacturers will pass costs on to the consumer!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BradTard's parting shot:  A child molester would probably be viewed with more favor by this crowd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That definitely felt good, didn't it BardTard?  And < six hours later >?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BradTard:
AnaxagorasRules just noted a mindset that is characteristic of those ruling America today as well as their supporting caste. If you deviate from standard norms in your thinking you must be one of those (insert the most far out or extreme group you think palatable for the exchange) and we all know what those types are like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Project much, BardTard?
Posted by: Aardvark on Mar. 19 2010,09:38

I've apparently been banned from TT for asking Bilbo to provide an evidence-based example for his position that either Copernicus, Kepler or Newton achieved anything of scientific merit as a meaningful causal result of their respective teleological/theological viewpoints.

He linked to this < waffle > & expected me to swallow it.

I replied with:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No good, I'm afraid. From your link:

 "…Kepler pursued science as a mission from God. In his words, he was merely “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

I could claim the same re my belief in Ceiling Cat. Would any scientific discoveries I made therefore persuade you to switch allegiance?

I was think something more along the lines of:

Kepler read in the Bible about the firmament, so he built a hot air balloon (potential anachronism?) and flew up to 18000 feet where he encountered said firmament and determined that it was made of fibreglass, with LEDS for the 'stars'.

Or:

Copernicus was also a proud owner of one of the (now extinct) feathered bats of biblical fame.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He also might have been unhappy with me holding him to the same standard of evidence demanded by Bradford to explain the evolutionary origins of the cell.

What a bunch of cowards.
Posted by: Raevmo on Mar. 19 2010,09:48

But this kind of semi-racist crap from Slimy Sal goes unchallenged:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HusseinCare does not equal compassion for the sick and afflicted. Certain Catholics don't realize they just made a pact with the devil.

My parents are Catholic (dad was a catholic until the day he passed away). They rejected socialism. Catholic institutions should not be speaking on behalf of all Catholics. They should not be encouraging socialism in the name of justice. They should be encouraging justice in the name of justice, and not empower the likes of President Hussein who deep in his heart likely has more regard for anything but Jesus Christ.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Aardvark on Mar. 21 2010,16:33

Bilbo tries to act < innocent. >

Premo 'tard Daniel Smith doesn't realise he's arguing with a < ghost. >

Ultratard eric wins the debate in series of epic < tardologies. >

'tards 'til the day they die...and I won't shed a tear...
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 27 2010,12:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: What is the specification of a dead person?

ID guy: We have to see if there is one by determing the cause of death. If there are bullet holes, that would be a specification and it would imply agency involvement.

< Zachriel >: Okay. What was the specification of Lincoln when he died?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This could be interesting.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 27 2010,15:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What was the specification of Lincoln when he died?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One side of a penny?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 27 2010,16:23

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 27 2010,12:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: What is the specification of a dead person?

ID guy: We have to see if there is one by determing the cause of death. If there are bullet holes, that would be a specification and it would imply agency involvement.

< Zachriel >: Okay. What was the specification of Lincoln when he died?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This could be interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably not.

But it is almost certain to be entertaining...
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 27 2010,16:53

Heads.
Posted by: Zachriel on April 01 2010,20:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Nor do we have to have knowledge of molecular genetics to know about inheritance or show that certain traits are heritable.

< ID guy >: You can't show something is heritable without that knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So much for Mendelian Inheritance.

It's hard to believe, but ID guy doesn't even know about the birds and the bees. Yes, ID guy, when birds reproduce they make little baby birds, not bees. When sunflowers reproduce, they make more sunflowers.
Posted by: Badger3k on April 01 2010,22:57

Quote (Zachriel @ April 01 2010,20:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Nor do we have to have knowledge of molecular genetics to know about inheritance or show that certain traits are heritable.

< ID guy >: You can't show something is heritable without that knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So much for Mendelian Inheritance.

It's hard to believe, but ID guy doesn't even know about the birds and the bees. Yes, ID guy, when birds reproduce they make little baby birds, not bees. When sunflowers reproduce, they make more sunflowers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask "ID Guy" if hail is water...
Posted by: bfish on April 02 2010,00:15

Quote (Zachriel @ April 01 2010,18:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Nor do we have to have knowledge of molecular genetics to know about inheritance or show that certain traits are heritable.

< ID guy >: You can't show something is heritable without that knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So much for Mendelian Inheritance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm. How about we ask a guy who won the Nobel Prize for his genetics research.

Here is the first paragraph of Ed Lewis' 1995 Nobel Prize < acceptance speech. > He is discussing the work that set the stage for his own, work that was performed prior to 1933, a full 20 years before Watson and Crick published their paper describing the structure of DNA.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genetics is a discipline that has successfully used abstractions to attack many of the most important problems of biology, including the study of evolution and how animals and plants develop. The power of genetics to benefit mankind was first recognized by the award of the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1933 to T. H. Morgan. In the 23 years that had intervened between the time Morgan introduced Drosophila as a new organism for the study of genetics and the award of the Prize, he and his students, especially, A. H. Sturtevant, C. B. Bridges and H. J. Muller, had vastly extended the laws of Mendel as the result of a host of discoveries, to mention only a few: that the genes (Mendel’s factors) are arranged in a linear order and can be placed on genetic maps, that they mutate in forward and reverse directions, that they can exist in many forms, or alleles, and that their functioning can depend upon their position. Purely on the basis of breeding experiments, these early workers were able to deduce the existence of inversions and duplications, for example, before it became possible to demonstrate them cytologically. The list of their achievements is a long one and one that has been put into historical perspective by Sturtevant in A History of Genetics (1).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IOW, Joe ID Guy, well before molecular genetics existed, extremely smart people had figured out far more than just that some traits are inherited.

By the way, happy centennial for all you fly researchers out there.
Posted by: Dr.GH on April 02 2010,02:12

Quote (bfish @ April 01 2010,22:15)
Here is the first paragraph of Ed Lewis' 1995 Nobel Prize < acceptance speech. > He is discussing the work that set the stage for his own, work that was performed prior to 1933, a full 20 years before Watson and Crick published their paper describing the structure of DNA.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genetics is a discipline that has successfully used abstractions to attack many of the most important problems of biology, including the study of evolution and how animals and plants develop. The power of genetics to benefit mankind was first recognized by the award of the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1933 to T. H. Morgan. In the 23 years that had intervened between the time Morgan introduced Drosophila as a new organism for the study of genetics and the award of the Prize, he and his students, especially, A. H. Sturtevant, C. B. Bridges and H. J. Muller, had vastly extended the laws of Mendel as the result of a host of discoveries, to mention only a few: that the genes (Mendel’s factors) are arranged in a linear order and can be placed on genetic maps, that they mutate in forward and reverse directions, that they can exist in many forms, or alleles, and that their functioning can depend upon their position. Purely on the basis of breeding experiments, these early workers were able to deduce the existence of inversions and duplications, for example, before it became possible to demonstrate them cytologically. The list of their achievements is a long one and one that has been put into historical perspective by Sturtevant in A History of Genetics (1).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had never read that before. I found that very inspiring.

Thank you.
Posted by: FrankH on April 03 2010,13:46

Quote (Zachriel @ April 01 2010,20:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel: Nor do we have to have knowledge of molecular genetics to know about inheritance or show that certain traits are heritable.

< ID guy >: You can't show something is heritable without that knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So much for Mendelian Inheritance.

It's hard to believe, but ID guy doesn't even know about the birds and the bees. Yes, ID guy, when birds reproduce they make little baby birds, not bees. When sunflowers reproduce, they make more sunflowers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Instructions:  Take 4" needle.  Jab (you are going through bone) firmly in the upper left corner of right eye socket or upper right corner of left eye socket until you push passed bone.  Mix vigorously}

Oh yeah Mr. Evilutionist?  That's what ID says all along.  Kinds only give birth to kinds!  It is Evilution that says dogs give birth to cats or liberals give birth to human babies!

{Warning:  Once contents inside brain case are stirred, the process is irreversible}

Crap.
Posted by: Zachriel on April 05 2010,18:25

Chunkdz has a well-documented history of < trolling >. The latest case:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: One of the following utterly incorrect statements was generated by a random sentence generator I found on the web.

The other utterly incorrect statement was generated by Zachriel.

Which one is which?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A) "Fascism is a right wing philosophy."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
B) "Abiogenesis is a testable hypothesis".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, chunkdz's purpose is to divert Thought Provoker's topic. There's no way to respond without contributing to that diversion. So, like with most trolls, it's best left unfed.
Posted by: Zachriel on April 09 2010,09:31

It's been < two Earth years > since first posting the story of William and his new Victorian home. Yet, no one has bothered to try to calculate the CSI of a few simple examples.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >: The question on the table is whether Dembski's specified complexity is a valid, objective measure. After many attempts, no one has ever taken the time to work through a few examples.

< Dembski >: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today, William got an incredible deal on an old Victorian house. Highly satisfied with his business acumen, William settled in for a blissful night of sleep in his new home.

SLAM!

William woke with a start. He listened intently. But he didn't hear anything, so he settled back to sleep.

Cree..eak

William listened even more closely this time until, after a bit, the creaking noise died away. For some reason, he recalled the seller's maniacal laughter just after William signed the papers to buy the house.

SLAM!

William was trembling and his teeth were rattling. He thought about getting out of bed to investigate. Instead, he pulled the covers over his head.

Cree..eak

Hmm, William thought. Being a famous design theoretician, I can use the patented (not really) Dembski Inference to determine if the pattern is being caused by a ghost, er, some unspecified intelligent cause.

SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak
SLAM!
Cree..eak

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For our first calculation. Let's assume the pattern is 01010101010101 …

Using Dembski's Inference, what can we infer about the pattern without risking a venture about the house? Assume the pattern is regular for now. Be sure to show your math (e.g. Chance Hypothesis).

And remember! No peeking from beneath the covers!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, after all that time, William's home needs some repairs. There is a leak that drips into a pan and keeps William up at night. As he listens, he notices that the pattern is not regular, but sporadic. He wonders if it is sending a message of some kind. Being scared of the dark, and still spooked by being unable to determine the CSI of the Cree..eaks and SLAM!s, he pulls the covers up over his head, and < listens intently >.

Will William be able to calculate the CSI of the drips? Or will the sound of his chattering teeth overwhelm the ghostly message, er, communication from an unspecified Intelligent Designer?
Posted by: Henry J on April 09 2010,12:36

Maybe he should call the Ghostbusters?
Posted by: Aardvark on April 18 2010,15:01

Slaying not harmful if the Bible defines it that way, or something, according to < DL: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess you want to define slaying as "harmful" by definition, but apparently the Bible doesn't go by that definition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on April 21 2010,06:20

dim-wit < Guts > believes that children should be murdered for their parents sins



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if Grandpa ignored the warning, the kid deserves to die. Perfectly patient, perfectly just, perfectly merciful. Praise the Lord.

Yes, especially if the kid keeps acting like the kids before him did.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a nice person.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on April 21 2010,12:43

< Bradford is lonely >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do human females have a protein factor whose expression or lack thereof affects their mating drives?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: fnxtr on April 21 2010,20:28

Quote (Gunthernacus @ April 21 2010,10:43)
< Bradford is lonely >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do human females have a protein factor whose expression or lack thereof affects their mating drives?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


bwa ha ha ha!
Posted by: keiths on April 24 2010,10:36

A goofy < comment > from MikeGene:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whether or not free will is supernatural is not important to me and I agree with you about that conclusion. But I do know that free will is not an illusion anymore more than my thoughts are illusions. I know from a lifetime of experience that I have the ability to choose against my biological urges and against my environmental pressures and conditioning. In fact, my life and identity are defined by those choices and nature and nurture together are insufficient to explain my life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on April 24 2010,11:45

Quote (keiths @ April 24 2010,10:36)
A goofy < comment > from MikeGene:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whether or not free will is supernatural is not important to me and I agree with you about that conclusion. But I do know that free will is not an illusion anymore more than my thoughts are illusions. I know from a lifetime of experience that I have the ability to choose against my biological urges and against my environmental pressures and conditioning. In fact, my life and identity are defined by those choices and nature and nurture together are insufficient to explain my life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Mike, Godmeme made you do it.
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 02 2010,12:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zachriel Says:
May 2nd, 2010 at 10:37 am

zykander: The SETI project are looking for anomalous radio sources.

The SETI radio hypothesis is based on the theory that evolution of biology and technology might occur on other planets suitable for carbon-based life, much as it did on Earth. Narrow-band signals are a solution based in the physics of transmission energy and communications, something humans are known to use. Radio signals pass easily through interstellar space. The test will set a bound on the frequency of such an occurrence by sampling the local galactic sector. Other tests are determining the number of planets, and the number of planets with suitable environments. Future tests may be able to detect the presence of life (such as free oxygen in the atmosphere).

Presumably, non-technological life is much more common than technological life. If someone were to have sampled Earth at various points in its history, there is only a very small likelihood, about 0.0000025%, of having detected narrow-band radio signals. SETI would not detect the world of Thales, Confucius or Descartes.


Comment by Zachriel — May 2, 2010 @ 10:37 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Zachriel talks to an empty chair.
Posted by: olegt on May 09 2010,21:30

Daniel Smith (< remember him >?) < tells it like it is >.  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My thoughts are that ID is wasting time by concentrating on the whole "detecting design" gimmick. It's basically a ruse to get God back in science. We all know that. (In spite of the odd "non-believing IDer" and the so-called "Big Tent".)

So I say – drop the ruse – admit that you're coming from the "I believe God did all this" perspective and start doing real science from that perspective.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's see what ID fans say to that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 10 2010,08:54

Using my patented "typo's per word and curses per paragraph" stress analysis algorithm, Joe is flustered and not enjoying the current exchange.
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 10 2010,13:27

Quote (olegt @ May 09 2010,16:30)
Daniel Smith (< remember him >?) < tells it like it is >.  
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My thoughts are that ID is wasting time by concentrating on the whole "detecting design" gimmick. It's basically a ruse to get God back in science. We all know that. (In spite of the odd "non-believing IDer" and the so-called "Big Tent".)

So I say – drop the ruse – admit that you're coming from the "I believe God did all this" perspective and start doing real science from that perspective.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's see what ID fans say to that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing will be my guess, unless he repeats it a few times, in which case he may find difficulty posting comments.  I am pleased Dan now sees the  ID movement for what it is. If I could post at TT I would suggest he is ready to move on to the Biologos blog. I think he deserves credit for his honesty and for admitting to his earlier motives.
Posted by: Quack on May 10 2010,16:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
admit that you're coming from the "I believe God did all this" perspective and start doing real science from that perspective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As always, I may be wrong, seeing things that are not there - but doing real science from what perspective?
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 12 2010,07:42

Quack,May 10 2010,11:45

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...from what perspective?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess from the perspective that everything was ultimately created by the god of your choice. Catholics, TEs and so on don't seem to have a problem with religious belief and observed reality.
Posted by: Quack on May 12 2010,08:40

I have a problem with "I believe God did all this" - isn't that just what Dembski and Behe says, the 'designer did it', wholesale, including bacterial flagellum, cytochrome C and the blood clotting chain? What's left to do science about - emergence, random mutations, natural selection, chaos, chance, autocatalysis?

I admit I don't know anything about TE, but if it encompasses the belief that God manipulate molecules - either by magic or by growing pseudopods,  what's left for science?

OTOH; I find it all right if people adopt a belief in a divine spirit pervading the universe; the universe is awesome!
Posted by: dogdidit on May 13 2010,11:36

Richardthughes < sighting > at TT.

Congratulations RtH on resisting the urge to shout
"OWN GOOOOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!!!

edited to remove superfluous O's
Posted by: Henry J on May 13 2010,16:24

So how many "O"'s were there before the editing to remove superfluous ones? :D
Posted by: Badger3k on May 13 2010,20:36

Quote (Quack @ May 12 2010,08:40)
I have a problem with "I believe God did all this" - isn't that just what Dembski and Behe says, the 'designer did it', wholesale, including bacterial flagellum, cytochrome C and the blood clotting chain? What's left to do science about - emergence, random mutations, natural selection, chaos, chance, autocatalysis?

I admit I don't know anything about TE, but if it encompasses the belief that God manipulate molecules - either by magic or by growing pseudopods,  what's left for science?

OTOH; I find it all right if people adopt a belief in a divine spirit pervading the universe; the universe is awesome!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All it is is setting the boundaries of where the magic starts at different places.  TE puts it further back than where the IDiots put it.  And both of them usually put it further back than your basic literal (YE) creationist - although there are those in the ID camp, as we all know.
Posted by: Quack on May 14 2010,03:04

Shouldn't it rather be where the magic ends?

The way I look at it, isn't it about where or when the creator was done with his job and left the world free to develop on its own although restrained by the rules he'd laid down?
Posted by: Alan Fox on May 14 2010,14:52

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 10 2010,03:54)
Using my patented "typo's per word and curses per paragraph" stress analysis algorithm, Joe is flustered and not enjoying the current exchange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might find some material for stick-poking < here >, Rich.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 14 2010,15:13

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 14 2010,14:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 10 2010,03:54)
Using my patented "typo's per word and curses per paragraph" stress analysis algorithm, Joe is flustered and not enjoying the current exchange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might find some material for stick-poking < here >, Rich.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cheers Alan.
Posted by: fnxtr on May 14 2010,19:01

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 14 2010,12:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 10 2010,03:54)
Using my patented "typo's per word and curses per paragraph" stress analysis algorithm, Joe is flustered and not enjoying the current exchange.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might find some material for stick-poking < here >, Rich.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also the eye of today is not the designed eye. Meaning “bad design” could have crept in over the generations.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What with, you know, genetic entropy after Teh Fall, and everything.
Posted by: KCdgw on May 16 2010,09:39

Joe/ID Guy, the gift that just keeps on giving:

< olegt: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr Jones is a professional biologist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think so, Joe. Jones has a B. Sc. in biology and was studying to become a biology teacher in 2009. Link.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Joe: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He says he is a biologist…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Alan Fox on May 17 2010,15:55

Banned at TT, but who cares! I got guts, chunkdz and JoeG all at < Design Matrix >
Posted by: Zachriel on May 17 2010,16:43

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 17 2010,15:55)
Banned at TT, but who cares! I got guts, chunkdz and JoeG all at < Design Matrix >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When were you banned?
Posted by: keiths on May 17 2010,17:08

Quote (Zachriel @ May 17 2010,14:43)
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 17 2010,15:55)
Banned at TT, but who cares! I got guts, chunkdz and JoeG all at < Design Matrix >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When were you banned?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He was < zykander >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 18 2010,12:34

Tardic Tards is turning out to be moar_fun that I thought it would.
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 18 2010,15:32

< http://telicthoughts.com/blast-f....-258106 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Even the most educated scientist could never hope to detect design using science...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Alan Fox on May 18 2010,16:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 18 2010,07:34)
Tardic Tards is turning out to be moar_fun that I thought it would.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's how it starts. You think you can stop anytime you want...
Posted by: JohnW on May 18 2010,16:57

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 18 2010,10:34)
Tardic Tards is turning out to be moar_fun that I thought it would.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.  Joe and chunkdz.  They're really going for the George Rekers Heterosexual Blog Of The Year Award.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 18 2010,17:12

The big tent that is ID stinks of ID guy's shit. It's vastly amusing that he's hardly ever called out over his stupid statements. Sure, occasionally chastised for overt rudeness, but the content? No. And that's the joke. ID does not exist as a science or proto-science even, so it's impossible to say anything about it with any certainty. And impossible for anybody to claim somebody else is wrong about some aspect of it. Any claim accepted in the big ol tent of ID. No bouncers at the tent flap checking for obvious loons like ID guy. Why bother? At some level they are all loons anyway.

So Joe gets to ask his dumbass questions, make his dumbass statements and no ID supporter calls him on it. As they cannot. They just try and ignore him, hope he goes away.

You could not design a more appropriate spokesperson for Intelligent Design then Braveheart Joe.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You should focus on the current state of your position for it is the utter failure of your position to make any progress that has allowed ID to stay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, Joe. You are right. ID has stayed around. It never really went anywhere as it's just creationism. Thanks for admitting that.

And I thought TT was a blog about Intelligent Design? How about you focus on that Joe? If Richard's position has not made any progress (for twas he the Man-Child was speaking to) ever then all ID needs to do is take that first, single step and it's already overtaken "Darwinism". Job's a good un.

Go for it Joe. Tease out an original thought in support of ID and write it down.

Not on your blog however. No fucker reads that anymore.

Did you think people were reading your blog posts for your wit and wisdom? I guess you've seen how badly wrong you can be. Still drinking that peroxide?

ROFL. IOW TT is the perfect home for Joe. Shit all over the walls anyway, so what's a little more?
Posted by: Zachriel on May 18 2010,19:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are some oddities in the perspective with which we see the world. The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be, but we have done various things over intellectual history to slowly correct some of our misapprehensions. — < Douglas Adams >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< ID guy >: We don't live at the bottom of a deep gravity well.

< don provan >: Wow. Just in case anyone was harboring illusions of you being credible…

< ID guy >: Except it isn't deep by any measure and only people living in Antarctica live near the bottom of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bravo!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on May 18 2010,19:29

Quote (Zachriel @ May 18 2010,19:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are some oddities in the perspective with which we see the world. The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be, but we have done various things over intellectual history to slowly correct some of our misapprehensions. — < Douglas Adams >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< ID guy >: We don't live at the bottom of a deep gravity well.

< don provan >: Wow. Just in case anyone was harboring illusions of you being credible…

< ID guy >: Except it isn't deep by any measure and only people living in Antarctica live near the bottom of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bravo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! I thought you were kidding, but he really did say that. Maybe someone should ask him why it takes so much energy to get things into space.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 18 2010,20:10

Quote (afarensis @ May 18 2010,19:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: {snipped} We don't live at the bottom of a deep gravity well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! I thought you were kidding, but he really did say that. Maybe someone should ask him why it takes so much energy to get things into space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couldn't tell if ID guy was equivocating on "bottom" or "deep," but with the mention of Antarctica, we're happy to report that we have met our quota in the Tard Mines for this cycle.

As for "deep", escape velocity at the Earth's surface is 11.2 km/s. That may not be particularly fast by Jovian standards, but is quite fast from the human perspective. Historically, people have been fairly well stuck to the Earth's surface — which was Adams' point.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on May 18 2010,22:32

Quote (Zachriel @ May 18 2010,20:10)
Quote (afarensis @ May 18 2010,19:29)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: {snipped} We don't live at the bottom of a deep gravity well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! I thought you were kidding, but he really did say that. Maybe someone should ask him why it takes so much energy to get things into space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couldn't tell if ID guy was equivocating on "bottom" or "deep," but with the mention of Antarctica, we're happy to report that we have met our quota in the Tard Mines for this cycle.

As for "deep", escape velocity at the Earth's surface is 11.2 km/s. That may not be particularly fast by Jovian standards, but is quite fast from the human perspective. Historically, people have been fairly well stuck to the Earth's surface — which was Adams' point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well sure, the sun's gravity well is deeper, the moon's not so much. It certainly seemed like he was a trifle confused about just what a gravity well, and the cause thereof, is.
Posted by: fnxtr on May 19 2010,01:05

Quote (afarensis @ May 18 2010,17:29)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 18 2010,19:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are some oddities in the perspective with which we see the world. The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be, but we have done various things over intellectual history to slowly correct some of our misapprehensions. — < Douglas Adams >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< ID guy >: We don't live at the bottom of a deep gravity well.

< don provan >: Wow. Just in case anyone was harboring illusions of you being credible…

< ID guy >: Except it isn't deep by any measure and only people living in Antarctica live near the bottom of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bravo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! I thought you were kidding, but he really did say that. Maybe someone should ask him why it takes so much energy to get things into space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


!?!

We should be launching spacecraft from the top of the well, then? The North Pole?

The bog mindles.

Definitely Dwight.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 19 2010,06:26

Quote (Zachriel @ May 18 2010,20:10)
Historically, people have been fairly well stuck to the Earth's surface — which was Adams' point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Human attempts to overcome the gravity well.

< >

< >

< >

< >
Posted by: J-Dog on May 19 2010,08:06

Don't forget Joe G's Gravity Well Beatin' Machine...


Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on May 19 2010,09:55

Quote (afarensis @ May 18 2010,19:29)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 18 2010,19:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Zachriel >:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are some oddities in the perspective with which we see the world. The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be, but we have done various things over intellectual history to slowly correct some of our misapprehensions. — < Douglas Adams >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< ID guy >: We don't live at the bottom of a deep gravity well.

< don provan >: Wow. Just in case anyone was harboring illusions of you being credible…

< ID guy >: Except it isn't deep by any measure and only people living in Antarctica live near the bottom of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bravo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! I thought you were kidding, but he really did say that. Maybe someone should ask him why it takes so much energy to get things into space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The explanation is so easy, even a caveman can do it!

Obviously, the Northern hemisphere is further away from the bottom of the gravity well, so that is why the rockets blast off from there instead of Antarctica.

:O
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on May 19 2010,09:56

Quote (Zachriel @ May 18 2010,20:10)
Quote (afarensis @ May 18 2010,19:29)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: {snipped} We don't live at the bottom of a deep gravity well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! I thought you were kidding, but he really did say that. Maybe someone should ask him why it takes so much energy to get things into space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couldn't tell if ID guy was equivocating on "bottom" or "deep," but with the mention of Antarctica, we're happy to report that we have met our quota in the Tard Mines for this cycle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is the Hope Diamond of The Argument Regarding Design.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on May 19 2010,10:02

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 18 2010,15:32)
< http://telicthoughts.com/blast-f....-258106 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Even the most educated scientist could never hope to detect design using science...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love the reactions.  

The IDiots are people who, when they see a turd on the sidewalk, polish it.
Posted by: SomaRover on May 20 2010,11:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeG: Except it isn't deep by any measure and only people living in Antarctica live near the bottom of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeG could be right.

The Earth bulges at the equator due to its rotation, so the poles are slightly deeper in the gravity well. But the largest circumference is just south of the equator[1], which would put the south pole a wee bit deeper in the well. (I am not entirely confident of this assessment; corrections welcome.)

Once again JoeG sets himself up to be the greatest Poe to have ever lived. All hail JoeG. When will he reveal himself?

[1] "Earth's size and shape" < http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/earth_worldbook.html >
Posted by: Zachriel on May 20 2010,11:58

Quote (SomaRover @ May 20 2010,11:15)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeG: Except it isn't deep by any measure and only people living in Antarctica live near the bottom of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeG could be right.

The Earth bulges at the equator due to its rotation, so the poles are slightly deeper in the gravity well. But the largest circumference is just south of the equator[1], which would put the south pole a wee bit deeper in the well. (I am not entirely confident of this assessment; corrections welcome.)

Once again JoeG sets himself up to be the greatest Poe to have ever lived. All hail JoeG. When will he reveal himself?

[1] "Earth's size and shape" < http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/earth_worldbook.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Antarctic is a continental landmass. The Arctic Ocean floor has a shorter radius at < ~6352.8 km >. Here's a few gravity < maps >, for fun.


None of this seems relevant to ID guy's reading of Douglas Adams' text.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are some oddities in the perspective with which we see the world. The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be, but we have done various things over intellectual history to slowly correct some of our misapprehensions. — Douglas Adams
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




-
edited to make sense

Posted by: KCdgw on May 20 2010,12:26

[quote=Zachriel,May 20 2010,11:58][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
None of this seems relevant to ID guy's reading of Douglas Adams' text.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's because the IDders -- who need their prose pre-digested and pre-understood for them--cannot comprehend Adam's implicit meaning (added for emphasis):




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that we live[for all practical purposes] at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be, but we have done various things over intellectual history to slowly correct some of our misapprehensions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: SomaRover on May 20 2010,13:22

Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2010,11:58)
None of this seems relevant to ID guy's reading of Douglas Adams' text.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No need to clarify; I wasn't being serious. I was just amused by the idea of him being accidentally right for the wrong reasons. The Inspector Gadget cartoons were based on this premise.
Posted by: Zachriel on May 20 2010,13:37

Quote (SomaRover @ May 20 2010,13:22)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2010,11:58)
None of this seems relevant to ID guy's reading of Douglas Adams' text.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No need to clarify; I wasn't being serious. I was just amused by the idea of him being accidentally right for the wrong reasons. The Inspector Gadget cartoons were based on this premise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You raised a good point! I had already considered it, but ID guy never made the argument clearly.

But it did give a good excuse to link to the latest < gravity contour maps >.
Posted by: SomaRover on May 21 2010,00:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeG: And seeing the bottom of the gravity well that the earth produces is closest to Antarctica then what I said is correct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is like the < Time Cube guy >. In person I suspect Joe has a similar disposition.
Posted by: dogdidit on May 21 2010,08:34

Quote (Zachriel @ May 19 2010,06:26)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 18 2010,20:10)
Historically, people have been fairly well stuck to the Earth's surface — which was Adams' point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Human attempts to overcome the gravity well.

< >

< >

< >

< >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shuttle only takes humans to orbital velocity, not escape velocity. Apollo took humans to a smaller nearby gravity well, but did not quite achieve Earth's escape velocity (according to teh Google, from whence all knowledge cometh).
Posted by: dogdidit on May 21 2010,08:48

Quote (SomaRover @ May 20 2010,11:15)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeG: Except it isn't deep by any measure and only people living in Antarctica live near the bottom of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeG could be right.

The Earth bulges at the equator due to its rotation, so the poles are slightly deeper in the gravity well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's why the Ariane rockets are moved to French Guiana for launch: the equatorial regions are higher up in the gravity well. *snigger* Talk about being accidentally right...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once again JoeG sets himself up to be the greatest Poe to have ever lived. All hail JoeG. When will he reveal himself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< He already did. >

Edit: okay, so I don't really understand what a "Poe" is. But Joe's exchange with olegt, wherein he inadvertantly reveals his not-so-hidden identity as "ID guy", was priceless. So I'll leave the linky.
Posted by: ppb on May 21 2010,10:47

Quote (dogdidit @ May 21 2010,09:48)
That's why the Ariane rockets are moved to French Guiana for launch: the equatorial regions are higher up in the gravity well. *snigger* Talk about being accidentally right...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Equatorial launches are also an easier path to geosynchronous orbit where most communications satellites end up.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 21 2010,12:10

Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,10:47)
Quote (dogdidit @ May 21 2010,09:48)
That's why the Ariane rockets are moved to French Guiana for launch: the equatorial regions are higher up in the gravity well. *snigger* Talk about being accidentally right...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Equatorial launches are also an easier path to geosynchronous orbit where most communications satellites end up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think the gravity difference is significant, but if you launch near the equator, in the direction of the earth's rotation, you get a free 1000 mph added to your velocity.

Not as big a freebie as a space elevator, but the same principle.
Posted by: Reed on May 21 2010,12:22

Quote (dogdidit @ May 21 2010,06:48)
   
Quote (SomaRover @ May 20 2010,11:15)
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeG: Except it isn't deep by any measure and only people living in Antarctica live near the bottom of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeG could be right.

The Earth bulges at the equator due to its rotation, so the poles are slightly deeper in the gravity well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's why the Ariane rockets are moved to French Guiana for launch: the equatorial regions are higher up in the gravity well. *snigger* Talk about being accidentally right...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More the rotation than the bulge. Altitude doesn't get you much, but ~1000 mph for free is nothing to sneeze at. So Joe is still wrong :)
 
Quote (ppb @ ,)
Equatorial launches are also an easier path to geosynchronous orbit where most communications satellites end up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can reach any orbit from an equatorial launch site for near minimal propellant cost (except retrograde but very few significantly retrograde orbits are used), where higher latitudes require a very expensive plane change if you want a lower inclination than your latitude. ISS is in a 51 degree orbit so that the Russian can reach it from Baikonur. Before the Russians were brought on, Space Station Freedom was planned for a 28 degree orbit to maximize payload from Florida.

Anyway, a good excuse to link this
< >
Posted by: dogdidit on May 21 2010,13:26

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,12:10)
   
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,10:47)
     
Quote (dogdidit @ May 21 2010,09:48)
That's why the Ariane rockets are moved to French Guiana for launch: the equatorial regions are higher up in the gravity well. *snigger* Talk about being accidentally right...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Equatorial launches are also an easier path to geosynchronous orbit where most communications satellites end up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think the gravity difference is significant, but if you launch near the equator, in the direction of the earth's rotation, you get a free 1000 mph added to your velocity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correct. That's why (almost) all space launches are west-to-east. Several thousand mph of delta-V for free, as long as you don't mind having an equatorial orbit.

(And the Russians, notably, DO mind. Their TV satellites are in high-ellipticity polar orbits, not down on the equator at geo. Line-of-sight issues.)

Edit again: didn't see Reeds post. Great graphic!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 24 2010,11:00

It's good to know homophobia is accepted at TT. Salvador Cordova demonstrates:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To determine if Gayness is a dysfunction, I suppose one would need the Designer Himself to tell us.

Beyond that, I suppose it is a speculation that homosexuality is a maladaptation that is generally harmful like diabetes and mental illness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second, even if true, it only shows the distorted view evolution has of reality where sickness is viewed as "good".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Homosexuals should be accepted in society just like the sick and afflicted should be accepted in society. But that is different than forcing people to view homosexuality as "good" or forcing people to view sickness as "good". The first step in healing is acknowledging there is sickness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal is finding out how the world works. He says
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People like Katz should feel free to say that something is bad!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he has that right! And other people have the right to not want to work with the guy because of the things he says! What's fair for one is fair for the other. < Link >.

I guess in Sal's world, your words have no consequences.

And yet Richard's comment is sent to the Memory < hole >. So they condone Sal, but remove comments that point out the obvious consequence of Sal's words.

So, in effect,  TT supports Sal's homophobia! Spread the word....
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 24 2010,11:12

Apparently at Telic Tards you have to keep on eye on the thread and one eye on the memory hole.

Thank you, thought police!
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 24 2010,11:56

Woo! I'm banned on that thread now.

Kevin Miller, where is MY film?

Sal writes:

< http://telicthoughts.com/maybe-b....-258441 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador T. Cordova Says:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:47 pm Here is a photo of door of a professor at GMU. Notice he has no inhibition openly ridiculing Christian beliefs and creationist beliefs. Where is the sensitivity toward the beliefs of others?

< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/362 >

Ironically this professor pleads for toleration of Gay Lesbian and Transgenders. Talk about hipocrisy!


Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 24, 2010 @ 12:47 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know, Sal, I know! Those gays have been picking on Christians for AGES!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on May 24 2010,12:35

Understatement of the year from Slimy Sal:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't hate academia, but it's becoming a place hostile to creationists, ID proponents and Christians. This isn't a good thing. Even assuming creationisms, ID, and Christianity are wrong, denyning dimplomas, intimidating students is the wrong way to conduct an educational enterprise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, lump Christians in there too with creationists and ID proponents. If that's the only way you can make your example work, how come even at Christian universities ID proponents are ridiculed? And it's quite right that creationism and ID are ridiculed in academic environments. THEY ARE NOT ACADEMIC SUBJECTS!

Sal goes on to show his true colors:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Schools should be a place where people can feel free to be accepted, even if they hold wrong beliefs. They can be graded on their knowledge of subject matter, but demanding creedal ascent to other peoples notions of right and wrong? That's wrong for secular schools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only wrong for secular schools? Hmm...

< Link >
Posted by: fnxtr on May 24 2010,13:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 24 2010,09:56)
Woo! I'm banned on that thread now.

Kevin Miller, where is MY film?

Sal writes:

< http://telicthoughts.com/maybe-b....-258441 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador T. Cordova Says:
May 24th, 2010 at 12:47 pm Here is a photo of door of a professor at GMU. Notice he has no inhibition openly ridiculing Christian beliefs and creationist beliefs. Where is the sensitivity toward the beliefs of others?

< http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/362 >

Ironically this professor pleads for toleration of Gay Lesbian and Transgenders. Talk about hipocrisy!


Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 24, 2010 @ 12:47 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know, Sal, I know! Those gays have been picking on Christians for AGES!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Boo fucking hoo, Sal.

Don't want ridicule? Stop being ridiculous.  

IDiot.
Posted by: keiths on May 30 2010,23:28

Tardmeister Bradford gets some < well-deserved recognition > from Jeffrey Shallit:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford, one of the more dense commentators there [at TT], quotes a famous passage of Leibniz...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 31 2010,07:13

Sal, 35 to 40% of Christians polled don't have a problem with evolutionary science, and thus likely no issue with the door you (badly) photographed.

I rather < enjoyed > the New York Times article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I certainly got a laugh out of the Doonesbury strip. About the Doonesbury strip... it doesn't mention "Christians" in any generic sense, so if you feel targeted, it must be on some other basis.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 03 2010,10:24

That "ID Guy" sure links to Joe G's blog a lot...
Posted by: KCdgw on June 03 2010,13:33

Pwnage.

< ID Guy/Joe: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
KC- did you go to work or are you reading the book looking for "simultaneous mutations"?
I looked and can't find it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ID Guy should check out page 109 (my emphasis):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to go straight from regular hemoglobin to C-Harlem, the right mutations would have to show up simultaneously in positions 6 and 73 of the beta chain of hemoglobin. Why is that so hard? Switching those two amino acids at the same time would be very difficult for teh same reason that developing resistance to cocktail drugs is difficult for malaria– teh odds aghainst getting two needed steps at once are the multiple of th eodds for each step haeppening on its own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: KCdgw on June 03 2010,13:33

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 03 2010,10:24)
That "ID Guy" sure links to Joe G's blog a lot...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BFF's.
Posted by: KCdgw on June 03 2010,16:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Be respectful.
Richard has just been diagnosed with terminal scientism.

Dr. Chunk has the cure.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ewww.....
Posted by: midwifetoad on June 03 2010,17:57

Behe's argument has at least more straw man. The assumption that structures that exist must exist, and their improbability is proof of design. Joe won  Powerball; therefore, the game was rigged.
Posted by: keiths on June 03 2010,18:42

< Too funny >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe, I can see your cards. You just wat to flail against evolutionary theory without offering anything in return.

Well, except for this:

< http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009....ed.html >

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 10:17 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And BTW if you think that is my blog then you are lying.

There is much more positive evidence for ID there than what you linked to.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 10:44 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, "ID guy" – you're not Joe G, then.  

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 11:14 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are correct. It ain't my blog.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 11:35 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Richtard,

It's by design.

And if you would like to meet the both of us- Joe G and Jim H- I think something can be arranged.  

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 11:36 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure – what are the visiting hours at your institution?

Funny how you both use exactly the same phrases and writing style..

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich,

I am sorry to hear that you don't have any really close friends that you can collaborate with.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not 'share the same body' close..

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We don't share the same body- I am 5'10" and Joe is at least 6'. I am sure I outweigh him too.

And we don't even live in the same city.

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I shave my head and Joe is still holding out hope, I guess.

I have green eyes and Joe's are brown.

You will see all of this when we meet…

Comment by ID guy — June 3, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How did you two meet, ID Guy?

Comment by Richardthughes — June 3, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if "Jim H." is a Muslim like Joe.
Posted by: Texas Teach on June 03 2010,21:33

Be careful Richard.  Joe and ID Guy might invite you to join their Fight Club.
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 04 2010,06:21

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 03 2010,16:33)
Be careful Richard.  Joe and ID Guy might invite you to join their Fight Club.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am sure a frisbee was involved, and a few other things I won't get into.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, Rich, stay safe; frisbees can be dangerous in the wrong hands!
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 06 2010,23:33

I'm helping Bradford tesitfy now.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 07 2010,12:04

I think I just had my first comment deleted, from an "open thread". I was told the memory hole was malfunctioning...
Posted by: J-Dog on June 07 2010,12:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2010,12:04)
I think I just had my first comment deleted, from an "open thread". I was told the memory hole was malfunctioning...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think they meant to say their "brain stem was malfunctioning".  I am sure that you'll get that correction shortly.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 07 2010,14:22

Bradford is using bad words and may expell! me. Get Kevin Miller ready.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 07 2010,14:39

Think I'm banned?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Bradford, are you deleting my posts?

again - using Becks 'mode of inquiry' against him is deliciously ironic. He does it all the time. Turnabout is fair play.


<blockquote>I see nothing but trollish comments.</blockquote>

Oh, so NOW you know teh mind of the designer.

<blockquote>You're playing to an audience.
</blockquote>

This a Blog, Bradford. It has an audience. Grow up - or move to a double top secret listserv.

I've got a thread for you if you can ever handle open dialogue. Apparently 'the swamp' has freedoms you don't permit.

been fun talking with the rest of you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Didn't go through.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 07 2010,14:59

And now he's banned me, he's continuing to argue with me. I bet I wont be able to answer his clever prose!
Posted by: J-Dog on June 07 2010,16:02

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2010,14:59)
And now he's banned me, he's continuing to argue with me. I bet I wont be able to answer his clever prose!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and by "clever" you mean "Wright-worthy"?
Posted by: RDK on June 07 2010,18:25

Quote (dogdidit @ May 21 2010,08:48)
Edit: okay, so I don't really understand what a "Poe" is. But Joe's exchange with olegt, wherein he inadvertantly reveals his not-so-hidden identity as "ID guy", was priceless. So I'll leave the linky.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law >

< http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law >

Joe the Hoe Poe.  Has a nice ring to it!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 07 2010,19:46

I forget exactly why, but I came up with the graphic below on 2005/05/07... just exported it from CorelDraw this evening.


Posted by: JAM on June 07 2010,21:45

I tried to post this abstract, but it was removed by moderation:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cell. 1985 Dec;43(3 Pt 2):811-9.
High frequency germline acquisition of ecotropic MuLV proviruses in SWR/J-RF/J hybrid mice.
Jenkins NA, Copeland NG.
RF/J mice carry three endogenous ecotropic murine leukemia proviruses designated Emv-1, Emv-16, and Emv-17. Two of these proviruses, Emv-16 and Emv-17, are tightly linked and segregate with the high viremia phenotype in backcrossed mice. During the derivation of an SWR/J strain congenic for Emv-16 and Emv-17, we found that many of the progeny derived from female virus carriers acquired new germline ecotropic proviruses. Additional genetic crosses suggested that these proviruses are acquired early in development by virus infection and that this strain combination is particularly susceptible to these events. The frequency of proviral acquisition was only about 10-fold lower than the frequency of P element acquisition in dysgenic crosses of Drosophila melanogaster. Since virus integration in these hybrids occurs at many different sites, these types of hybrids may ultimately be useful for generating virally induced mutations that are amenable to study at the molecular level.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No science allowed! What cowards.
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 08 2010,01:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2010,09:59)
And now he's banned me, he's continuing to argue with me. I bet I wont be able to answer his clever prose!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what did this experience teach you, young Jedi? Did you find out anything new about ID, front loading or communication?
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 08 2010,08:08

Quote (Alan Fox @ June 08 2010,01:41)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2010,09:59)
And now he's banned me, he's continuing to argue with me. I bet I wont be able to answer his clever prose!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what did this experience teach you, young Jedi? Did you find out anything new about ID, front loading or communication?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't diss Glenn Beck using his own words infront of his wingnut fanbase. I think that was the lesson.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 09 2010,17:38

chunkdz unfortunately links to the Annual Review of Biophysics he appears to be < mocking >. Here's how he sums it up:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Problem 4) Cellular replication
Solution: Montmorillonite clay. It catalyzes the formation of fatty acid vesicles. Using fatty acids from meteorites, the vesicles can capture self replicating RNA molecules and give them a safe place to grow. Then they can grow, capture amino acids and fatty acids from the environment, and if they grow in a solution of highly charged molecules the bubble will become a long skinny bubble, and if agitated it will break into two or more bubbles. Replication.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, there are still a few unanswered questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What the article actually says about montmorillonite clay:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In an intriguing example of prebiotic convergence, a variety of minerals including montmorillonite, the clay that catalyzes polymerization of nucleotides into RNA, also catalyze the formation of fatty acid vesicles (26, 27). Clay particles bearing adsorbed RNA oligomers can become encapsulated within fatty acid vesicles that they have helped to assemble.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


chunkdz goes on:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once in sufficient concentrations after a few freezing cycles and subsequent grinding, chunks of montmorillonite clay were scooped into fatty bubbles where they began to polymerize in the relative safety of their protective bubble of fat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, funny thing is that even what you've said right there is totally plausible even when not compared to what we know about how the "intelligent designer did his something somewhere sometime".

When you can write a blog post that long about ID and what it is and what it's discovered then perhaps you can crow then. Ever stop and think about how come the only thing you ever seem to talk about is "Darwinism" over there? Or how OOL researchers are getting it all wrong? Not about what ID is getting right....

So it looks like ID guy is your star scientist.....

< Expanding Roles for Diverse Physical Phenomena During the Origin of Life >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on June 09 2010,20:50

Quote (Alan Fox @ June 08 2010,01:41)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2010,09:59)
And now he's banned me, he's continuing to argue with me. I bet I wont be able to answer his clever prose!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what did this experience teach you, young Jedi? Did you find out anything new about ID, front loading or excommunication?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 10 2010,00:13

Pwnage:

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-cur....-259486 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nick Matzke Says:

June 10th, 2010 at 12:00 am Gee, there's just no way nature could produce fresh water of pH 6.5, drying and re-wetting pools, hot vents, hot polyphosphate-producing rocks, clay, and various small organic molecules in close proximity to each other. I mean, snow/ice near a volcanic feature with daily and seasonal variations in temperature and snow melting rates is just ludicrous. It's much more likely a divine miracle was required.

Comment by Nick Matzke — June 10, 2010 @ 12:00 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on June 10 2010,06:49

Since Bilbo has been working on the fix to the edit feature, all our comments are disappearing into the ozone.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Nick Matzke >: Gee, there's just no way nature could produce fresh water ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's preposterous to imagine that zillions of water molecules in the ocean would just separate from the salts and other contaminates and collect in purified form in, what?, little basins, for the convenience of the experimenters. The chance of such an occurrence (92^zillions) is far beyond the universal probability bound. Certainly, a complex, intelligently designed mechanism must have been involved.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Greece is empirical evidence for dysfunctional effects of bloated public sectors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The reality of the evidence is that Greek government spending has been in line with other industrialized nations. The problem has been that their tax base has been too small because a large part of the domestic economy is off the books, the previous government hid the ballooning deficit from the public with the help of U.S. investment bankers crippling accountability, and the economic downturn, of course.  

< >
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 10 2010,12:33

Chunkdz projects:

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-cur....-259505 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...But since you don't seem very interested in learning what a leading researcher has to say about abiogenesis, and because you seem more interested in preaching your message of anti-creationist bigotry, perhaps your missive would be better received among your vulgar PT peers. Feel free to take your bigotted vendetta with you when you leave.

Perhaps you could treat your followers to another blog post about the dangers of Kirk Cameron? That seems more your speed. Or better yet, won't your foul mouthed minions be impressed when you blog about disgraced creationist Ted Haggard! I hear he's opening a new church in Colorado. That should start a real frenzy of poo-flinging!


Comment by chunkdz — June 10, 2010 @ 1:04 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: fnxtr on June 10 2010,12:39

Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2010,04:49)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zach,

any idea why it's Canada with a *?

Thanks,
Posted by: Zachriel on June 10 2010,13:40

Quote (fnxtr @ June 10 2010,12:39)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2010,04:49)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zach,

any idea why it's Canada with a *?

Thanks,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


* Means incomplete data.

Meant to link the report.

< http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/10/pdf/oecd_spending.pdf >

-
Hattip to < Matthew Yglesias >.

Posted by: midwifetoad on June 10 2010,13:45

Thought it might indicate steroid use.
Posted by: J-Dog on June 10 2010,13:56

Quote (fnxtr @ June 10 2010,12:39)
Zach,

any idea why it's Canada with a *?

Thanks,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


* I think it means "Too busy crying that another year goes by and they can't win at hockey, a game they invented." Go Blackhawks!

** Alternatively, "Too busy crying that another year goes by, and they still have Denyse O'leary as a citizen, dragging down their national writing and IQ scores".
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 10 2010,14:40

chunkdz < seyz >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course these are plausible. That's the point. I've long characterized origin of life research as a race between the 'bottom up' approach and the 'top down' approach, and that both approaches are equally valid for establishing conceptual proofs. This post is just a brief update on the race from the 'bottom up' perspective.

But since you don't seem very interested in learning what a leading researcher has to say about abiogenesis, and because you seem more interested in preaching your message of anti-creationist bigotry, perhaps your missive would be better received among your vulgar PT peers. Feel free to take your bigotted vendetta with you when you leave.

Perhaps you could treat your followers to another blog post about the dangers of Kirk Cameron? That seems more your speed. Or better yet, won't your foul mouthed minions be impressed when you blog about disgraced creationist Ted Haggard! I hear he's opening a new church in Colorado. That should start a real frenzy of poo-flinging!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But he said it in response to Matzke. And how careful he is with words!

Can it be the same chunkdz who also typed these very < words? >?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyhow if you are upset about it, then you should have said so rather than tossing insults and hypocritically posturing in feigned outrage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who's hypocritically posturing in feigned outrage now chunkdz? Note that almost everybody else on the thread went "yeah, that's impossible, a just so story" and you failed to correct their misunderstanding of your intent.

Yet you put on your fancy typing gloves to answer one particular critic in detail.

Bet you planned that for weeks huh chunkdz?

Poor bastard...
Posted by: fnxtr on June 10 2010,16:23

Quote (J-Dog @ June 10 2010,11:56)
     
Quote (fnxtr @ June 10 2010,12:39)
Zach,

any idea why it's Canada with a *?

Thanks,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


* I think it means "Too busy crying that another year goes by and they can't win at hockey, a game they invented." Go Blackhawks!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quite right (shrug). Too bad for us.... how many Canadians on the Chicago team, btw?

Whatever. See you at the next Winter Olympics, J-Dog. ;-)



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

** Alternatively, "Too busy crying that another year goes by, and they still have Denyse O'leary as a citizen, dragging down their national writing and IQ scores".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We've had this conversation before.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 11 2010,06:33

Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2010,06:49)
Since Bilbo has been working on the fix to the edit feature, all our comments are disappearing into the ozone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still disappearing ...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 12 2010,05:54

Denial Smith talks about atheists but I think he's really talking about himself:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is a common missive amongst the atheist clan. They talk as if, given enough time and data, all their beliefs will be vindicated. It's as if, to them, science can only go a certain way. It's funny, in a way, because their hopes and dreams rely on one of the most notoriously unreliable forms of knowledge we know of. The reality is that science could, given enough time and data, completely crush all their hopes and dreams with results that contradict all of their beliefs.

Oh well. I think Jesus mentioned something about houses built on shifting sand…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link. > Yes, indeed. That most unreliable of ways of knowing that might tomorrow find out that the Sun does in fact orbit the earth and the computer Denial is typing on is in fact pen and parchment.
I'll think I'll wait and see how Daniel's "Science from an ID viewpoint" pans out....
Posted by: Zachriel on June 13 2010,08:57

Quote (Zachriel @ June 11 2010,06:33)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2010,06:49)
Since Bilbo has been working on the fix to the edit feature, all our comments are disappearing into the ozone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still disappearing ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone with posting privileges, please ask why Zachriel has been subjected to a silent bannination.
Posted by: Rob R. on June 13 2010,12:41

Quote (Zachriel @ June 13 2010,08:57)
Quote (Zachriel @ June 11 2010,06:33)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2010,06:49)
Since Bilbo has been working on the fix to the edit feature, all our comments are disappearing into the ozone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still disappearing ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone with posting privileges, please ask why Zachriel has been subjected to a silent bannination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I tried posting your question in the edit/preview and open threads.  Neither comment showed up.  I imagine Guts is doing some of the changes he talked about.
Posted by: Quack on June 13 2010,14:20

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 12 2010,05:54)
Denial Smith talks about atheists but I think he's really talking about himself:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Déjŕ vu? >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 15 2010,11:23

Mr Cordova speaks his mind. Such as it is.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Larry's looking kinda senile these days. I've read some of his blog, he seems to have reading comprehension issues. Wells pretty much slammed Moran to the floor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Tard. >

Hey, Sal, when are you publishing your first paper on introns?
Posted by: Robin on June 15 2010,13:03

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 12 2010,05:54)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Denial Smith:

The reality is that science could, given enough time and data, completely crush all their hopes and dreams with results that contradict all of their beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL..."The reality is..." Now that's irony.

Um...hate to burst your bubble Mr. Smith, but the reality is that actual scientists (as opposed to the pseudos at the Dishonesty Institute) don't really have any hopes and dreams when it comes to reality; they merely accept what the data tells them about reality and present an explanation that people can use to make predictions about reality which then lead to the ability to make tools to help live in the reality we have.

I would love to know what "hopes and dreams" Mr. Smith has in mind that he thinks are the horses scientists have bet everything on.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 17 2010,08:13

Zachriel's latest comments on Telic Thoughts.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: You should be ashamed for this comment. The critics can come here as you have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< eric >: The Disappearing Defender

If all else fails and the problem can't be made to disappear, then one can disappear from the conversation without dealing with the problem, typically without even acknowledging that any serious problem exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Odd. Neither comment appeared. Indeed, it looks as if Zachriel has been "disappeared from the conversation."
Posted by: Zachriel on June 17 2010,08:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< eric >: A Handy Reference to Typical Failed Dodges for the Origin of the Cell's Multi-Molecular Machines
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hard to tell, but eric's magnum opus appears to claim that replication and reproduction are fundamentally different processes, and natural selection works uniformly in the former case to reduce complexity. Apparently, he thinks replication is an "individual sport," even though it may perhaps involve a network of interacting molecules; and that if the replicator templates a helpful peptide that this means it can't be replicated. Or something. Can't ask any questions.
Posted by: olegt on June 17 2010,11:00

Sal < reminisces fondly >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm really not complaing about Matheson. Personally I hope Matheson turns into anoterh Abbie Smith. He'll be a rich source of future quotations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on June 17 2010,11:16

Quote (olegt @ June 17 2010,11:00)
Sal < reminisces fondly >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm really not complaing about Matheson. Personally I hope Matheson turns into anoterh Abbie Smith. He'll be a rich source of future quotations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We have to tip our hats to Sal and Joe -  when anyone becomes interested in ID these two will quickly paint the right picture.
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 17 2010,11:23

Quote (olegt @ June 17 2010,11:00)
Sal < reminisces fondly >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm really not complaing about Matheson. Personally I hope Matheson turns into anoterh Abbie Smith. He'll be a rich source of future quotations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, Abbie.  One of the highlights of 2009 for me was when she made Casey Luskin say "tits."


Posted by: Richardthughes on June 19 2010,00:11

< http://telicthoughts.com/in-defe....-259783 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy Says:

June 18th, 2010 at 10:04 am ully:
If my style reminds you of someone, well I am sure it's just a coincidence, just like the resemblance between ID guy's style and substance and that of Joe G is just a coincidence.


No, it's not a coincidence.

As I have said already it is by design…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: MichaelJ on June 19 2010,22:01

Quote (olegt @ June 18 2010,02:00)
Sal < reminisces fondly >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm really not complaing about Matheson. Personally I hope Matheson turns into anoterh Abbie Smith. He'll be a rich source of future quotations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes quotes such as

"You Sal Cordova. You cottage cheese dripping pussy"
Posted by: Zachriel on June 20 2010,07:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 19 2010,00:11)
< http://telicthoughts.com/in-defe....-259783 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy Says:

June 18th, 2010 at 10:04 am ully:
If my style reminds you of someone, well I am sure it's just a coincidence, just like the resemblance between ID guy's style and substance and that of Joe G is just a coincidence.


No, it's not a coincidence.

As I have said already it is by design…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A love letter to Joe G:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ully >: Nobody even comes close to Joe G's greatness. Except perhaps for some great prophets in the distant past. So no – I humbly accept my place at the feet of Joe G.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A lover's spat with ID guy:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ully >: Except you are too stupid and ignorant to address these issues. I have no idea why the owners of various blogs such as these allow you to comment, except perhaps for entertainment value, but it certainly reflects poorly on them for allowing you to be the de facto spokesperson for ID in many threads. None of your buddies like Bradford ever contradict you because they seem to feel you're a useful idiot. But every rational person with the slightest interest in this fringe debate (OK, that doesn't sound very rational I have to admit) knows by now that you are a pathological liar and sad loser who has nothing better to do than spew insults from behind your PC in your little backwater. But hey, please go on, since you do a great job proving ID is a sham for uneducated knuckleheads who want to get Jesus back in the classroom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on June 20 2010,07:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< eric >: As a simple illustration, if you saw rocks arranged to form a message in English, would you have any serious doubt about the fact that this required intelligent agency? Would you say, "That is only supporting evidence that we don't understand something."?

< don provan >: I would specifically say that I don't understand something about the English speaker that put these rocks here.

< eric not_at_home >: The key observation is that you inferred that there was an English speaker, even though none was seen. You infer it because you recognize that the rocks can be reasonably eliminated as the source of the message. What you didn't do was endlessly appeal to a lack of knowledge about rocks. This shows that there can be situations where we infer intelligent agency based on the observed effects and the recognized limitations of natural processes. In other words, it is a legitimate type of reasoning. The rest is details — when can one do this? under what conditions is it warranted? etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At first it seemed that "eric not_at_home" was an anti-eric commenter — the lights are on but no one's at home eric — but it appears to be eric "eric". In any case, eric not_at_home thinks that when we look at a sign written in English, whether made of rocks or neon-tubing, that the knowledge of English-speaking humans who can move rocks and fashion neon-tubing are a mere detail to "design detection."
Posted by: Zachriel on June 21 2010,09:13

Quote (Zachriel @ June 20 2010,07:48)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< eric >: As a simple illustration, if you saw rocks arranged to form a message in English, would you have any serious doubt about the fact that this required intelligent agency? Would you say, "That is only supporting evidence that we don't understand something."?

< don provan >: I would specifically say that I don't understand something about the English speaker that put these rocks here.

< eric not_at_home >: The key observation is that you inferred that there was an English speaker, even though none was seen. You infer it because you recognize that the rocks can be reasonably eliminated as the source of the message. What you didn't do was endlessly appeal to a lack of knowledge about rocks. This shows that there can be situations where we infer intelligent agency based on the observed effects and the recognized limitations of natural processes. In other words, it is a legitimate type of reasoning. The rest is details — when can one do this? under what conditions is it warranted? etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At first it seemed that "eric not_at_home" was an anti-eric commenter — the lights are on but no one's at home eric — but it appears to be eric "eric". In any case, eric not_at_home thinks that when we look at a sign written in English, whether made of rocks or neon-tubing, that the knowledge of English-speaking humans who can move rocks and fashion neon-tubing are a mere detail to "design detection."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don follows up.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< don provan >: We ruled out rocks because rocks don't speak English.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on June 23 2010,06:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< eric >: Haven't counted noses, but it turns out that some of the very earliest modern advocates for "biology requires ID=yes" took the position that the intelligence was not God. So that quadrant is most definitely populated.

This was so even before Thaxton, et al, wrote The Mystery of Life's Origin in 1984.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thaxton is a Christian Creationist.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< eric >: Richard Dawkins has mused — on camera no less — about the possibility that life was designed, even while insisting that God does not exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very, very poor example. You're placing Dawkins in a category that he "mused" about, that is, examined and rejected. So the only two names you provided don't belong in the quadrant.

-
Posted to Telic Thoughts, but comment never appeared.

Posted by: Zachriel on June 23 2010,12:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Berlinski's, er Wisdom >: And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either.

That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< don provan >: The unstated premise of Berlinski's note is that Christians are moral and atheists are not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Provan, the unstated premise of your intentional misrepresentation is that you are in love with Richard Dawkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don provan asks chunkdz to explain what is wrong with his summary of the idea behind "God is watching you". Of course, chunkdz doesn't explain anything.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: What an awful disgrace you are. You should really feel shame about the way you conduct yourself here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Texas Teach on June 23 2010,13:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Provan, the unstated premise of your intentional misrepresentation is that you are in love with Richard Dawkins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cue chunkdz's homoerotic fanfic about Provan and Dawkins in 3...2...1...
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 24 2010,09:15

Don't show brandford this:

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....lie.php >


Viva Beck....
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 29 2010,13:40

Slimey sal...

< http://telicthoughts.com/de-fact....-260041 >





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...I cannot say formally whether an Intelligent Designer (God, ET's, whatever) was invovled. My philosophical belief is that God was the Designer, but that is not a scientific inference, only a circumstantial an personal view. My belief might be true, but there is an insufficient amount of evidence to make a direct inference, only a circumstantial one….

The question of whether evolutionary processes can make such structures is in principle a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. I'm not so sure the best in the mainstream really think Natural Selection is the primary answer. I expect there will be continued debate over which mechanisms can effect certain structures.

Right now, there is not even agreement over what parts of biology function, much less how they evolved. 20 years from now, our knowledge could be substantially greater than what we're working with today. I don't think there is any need to try to settle the issue today as I trust that the scientific method of observation, hypothesis forming, and experiment will bring us closer to the truth.


Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 28, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And yet you think the earth if 6000 years old you queef. Yes, queef. I went there.
Posted by: Quack on June 29 2010,15:49

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2010,13:40)
Slimey sal...

< http://telicthoughts.com/de-fact....-260041 >



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...I cannot say formally whether an Intelligent Designer (God, ET's, whatever) was invovled. My philosophical belief is that God was the Designer, but that is not a scientific inference, only a circumstantial an personal view. My belief might be true, but there is an insufficient amount of evidence to make a direct inference, only a circumstantial one….

The question of whether evolutionary processes can make such structures is in principle a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. I'm not so sure the best in the mainstream really think Natural Selection is the primary answer. I expect there will be continued debate over which mechanisms can effect certain structures.

Right now, there is not even agreement over what parts of biology function, much less how they evolved. 20 years from now, our knowledge could be substantially greater than what we're working with today. I don't think there is any need to try to settle the issue today as I trust that the scientific method of observation, hypothesis forming, and experiment will bring us closer to the truth.


Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 28, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And yet you think the earth if 6000 years old you queef. Yes, queef. I went there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some do; some don't. And my English vocabulary has been, ahem, enriched.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 01 2010,18:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: God must love sinners, because he created so many of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He made way more beetles.


The Creator, if He exists, has an inordinate fondness for beetles. — J.B.S. Haldane
Posted by: Zachriel on July 07 2010,08:44

Still blocked at Telic Thoughts.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: NJ is in the forefront of a battle between those determined to advance their own greedy interests at the expense of the public good on the one hand and fiscally concerned factions on the other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not since the American Revolution have so many New Jersians owed so much to concerned factions.

< >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Waive the Jones Act
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem is Bradford's reliance on unreliable sources. The < Jones Act > has not been an impediment to the cleanup, and the U.S. has accepted foreign aid. You would think that Bradford would learn not to trust his sources, but he never does.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 07 2010,08:58

Bradford is an emotional and intellectual cripple.

I'm sure he can 'learn' more here:

< http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/42502/ >
Posted by: Gunthernacus on July 08 2010,13:02

< angryoldfatman > tries to take chunkerz' homo eroticism crown:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I am Emperor of the World...
Nick Matzke could be my footstool boy and general purpose sycophant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But < chunkerz > wrestles it right back:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my experience it's the hard things that are worthwhile in life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recently found a note I had made to revisit this Bradford entry after a month - that was back in January, but I figured why waste all of that note-making effort.

< Will Mutation Clusters Pass Muster? >
The links within are interesting reading, but nothing from Bradford as to the relevance to ID.  The first comment, from Bilbo, is a quote from one of the links with Bilbo adding, "Interesting, indeed."  The third of three total comments is a non sequitur from Denial Smith.  The only other comment is from Bradford:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next time someone wants to accuse us of not talking about science this thread becomes exhibit A.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exhibit A, indeed.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 12 2010,06:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: Ernst Mayer points out (< as quoted by McHugh >):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science…[where] Laws and experiments are inappropriate…
….
Instead one constructs a … narrative

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite a < prolific use of ellipses >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: So Coyne's field is notrious for storytelling, not for science, and not for falsifiability.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just because it's historical doesn't mean it isn't science, nor did Mayr suggest that. Mayr continues,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Ernst Mayr >: The testing of historical narratives implies that the wide gap between science and the humanities that so troubled physicist C. P. Snow is actually nonexistent - by virtue of its methodology and its acceptance of the time factor that makes change possible, evolutionary biology serves as a bridge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, historical narratives are testable. Mayr says elsewhere,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Ernst Mayr >: As I say in the first section of the book, I don't need to prove it again, evolution is so clearly a fact that you need to be committed to something like a belief in the supernatural if you are at all in disagreement with evolution. It is a fact and we don't need to prove it anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: KCdgw on July 14 2010,11:24

< olegt: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sal: That's about the 5 time at TT you've pointed a severe misunderstanding on my part regarding physics and helped me learn. Thank you again.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Some people never learn.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Aardvark on July 16 2010,11:19

fifth monarchy man < Says: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a personal relationship with God the same way that I have a personal relationship with my wife.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I just dunno.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 16 2010,11:26

Quote (Aardvark @ July 16 2010,11:19)
fifth monarchy man < Says: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a personal relationship with God the same way that I have a personal relationship with my wife.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I just dunno.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone's not getting any..
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 16 2010,11:53

Quote (Aardvark @ July 16 2010,11:19)
fifth monarchy man < Says: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a personal relationship with God the same way that I have a personal relationship with my wife.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I just dunno.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given how many people his god is supposed to have a personal relationship with, what does that say about his wife?
Posted by: fnxtr on July 16 2010,12:56

Quote (Texas Teach @ July 16 2010,09:53)
Quote (Aardvark @ July 16 2010,11:19)
fifth monarchy man < Says: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a personal relationship with God the same way that I have a personal relationship with my wife.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I just dunno.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given how many people his god is supposed to have a personal relationship with, what does that say about his wife?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zing!!!

I have a personal relationship with the dryads living in the forest behind my house. No, I've never seen them, but I believe in them and talk to them, which is convincing evidence they're real.

(headshake).
Posted by: Aardvark on July 16 2010,13:50

Quote (Texas Teach @ July 16 2010,11:53)
 
Quote (Aardvark @ July 16 2010,11:19)
fifth monarchy man < Says: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a personal relationship with God the same way that I have a personal relationship with my wife.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I just dunno.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given how many people his god is supposed to have a personal relationship with, what does that say about his wife?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On his wife:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it was proven that my wife did not exist I would not think she was a liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Robin on July 16 2010,13:52

Quote (fnxtr @ July 16 2010,12:56)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just an FYI, but when I clicked on the links above an hour or so ago, I got a pop-up for some malware trojan called "Your Protection". Both seemed to redirect to the site where I got a message like "Warning: Your computer could be infected! Would you like to run a scan now?" There was no "no" choice". I just Went to Task Manager and shut down my browser, though it still tried to load.

I just tried the links now and they seem fine. Not sure If I clicked on something else by mistake, but AtBC was the only site I had open and this was the board I was on.
Posted by: Raevmo on July 16 2010,15:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just an FYI, but when I clicked on the links above an hour or so ago, I got a pop-up for some malware trojan called "Your Protection". Both seemed to redirect to the site where I got a message like "Warning: Your computer could be infected! Would you like to run a scan now?" There was no "no" choice". I just Went to Task Manager and shut down my browser, though it still tried to load.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same here.
Posted by: fnxtr on July 16 2010,17:59

Quote (Raevmo @ July 16 2010,13:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just an FYI, but when I clicked on the links above an hour or so ago, I got a pop-up for some malware trojan called "Your Protection". Both seemed to redirect to the site where I got a message like "Warning: Your computer could be infected! Would you like to run a scan now?" There was no "no" choice". I just Went to Task Manager and shut down my browser, though it still tried to load.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


??

What links? Aardvark's link to telic thoughts? Works fine for me...
Posted by: Acipenser on July 16 2010,18:09

I received the same warning when I tried to access TT directly from my computer in our office.
Posted by: Aardvark on July 16 2010,19:40

Regarding the pop-ups:

Farshad Says: (I won't link to the comment)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Warning!

This site is infected with WordPress Redirect Exploit trojan.

Instructions to clean:

< http://wiki.mediatemple.net/w/WordPress_Redirect_Exploit >

regards,
Farshad
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I use No-script, so I guess that's why it never happened to me.
Posted by: KCdgw on July 19 2010,12:45

We can haz ID predickshun!

< fifth monarchy man: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I for one have often thought about variability in genome sizes and I think the recent findings are a great opportunity to test the arguement and move forward in this debate.
I offer the following prediction
All things being equal, if two similar organisms have very different genome sizes the larger genome will be found in the organism with the most varied growth conditions.
For example If It is found that Coyotes and Grey foxes have different size genomes I would expect Coyotes to have the larger one because of their more varied diet and habitat.
The same goes for house flies verses fruit flies.
as TP says "lets do science"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 19 2010,13:56

Quote (KCdgw @ July 19 2010,12:45)
We can haz ID predickshun!

< fifth monarchy man: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I for one have often thought about variability in genome sizes and I think the recent findings are a great opportunity to test the arguement and move forward in this debate.
I offer the following prediction
All things being equal, if two similar organisms have very different genome sizes the larger genome will be found in the organism with the most varied growth conditions.
For example If It is found that Coyotes and Grey foxes have different size genomes I would expect Coyotes to have the larger one because of their more varied diet and habitat.
The same goes for house flies verses fruit flies.
as TP says "lets do science"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be interested to hear if this yahoo can tell us why, exactly, this prediction arises from ID "theory". Do we expect this relationship between "varied" growth conditions and genome size based on the THINK, or on the POOF elements of design theory?
Posted by: KCdgw on July 19 2010,15:11

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 19 2010,13:56)
Quote (KCdgw @ July 19 2010,12:45)
We can haz ID predickshun!

< fifth monarchy man: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I for one have often thought about variability in genome sizes and I think the recent findings are a great opportunity to test the arguement and move forward in this debate.
I offer the following prediction
All things being equal, if two similar organisms have very different genome sizes the larger genome will be found in the organism with the most varied growth conditions.
For example If It is found that Coyotes and Grey foxes have different size genomes I would expect Coyotes to have the larger one because of their more varied diet and habitat.
The same goes for house flies verses fruit flies.
as TP says "lets do science"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be interested to hear if this yahoo can tell us why, exactly, this prediction arises from ID "theory". Do we expect this relationship between "varied" growth conditions and genome size based on the THINK, or on the POOF elements of design theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think FMM's idea is, a designer would want to provide organisms that are exposed to wide-ranging habitats or diets more DNA to develop adaptive solutions.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 19 2010,16:59

Quote (KCdgw @ July 19 2010,15:11)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 19 2010,13:56)
Quote (KCdgw @ July 19 2010,12:45)
We can haz ID predickshun!

< fifth monarchy man: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I for one have often thought about variability in genome sizes and I think the recent findings are a great opportunity to test the arguement and move forward in this debate.
I offer the following prediction
All things being equal, if two similar organisms have very different genome sizes the larger genome will be found in the organism with the most varied growth conditions.
For example If It is found that Coyotes and Grey foxes have different size genomes I would expect Coyotes to have the larger one because of their more varied diet and habitat.
The same goes for house flies verses fruit flies.
as TP says "lets do science"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be interested to hear if this yahoo can tell us why, exactly, this prediction arises from ID "theory". Do we expect this relationship between "varied" growth conditions and genome size based on the THINK, or on the POOF elements of design theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think FMM's idea is, a designer would want to provide organisms that are exposed to wide-ranging habitats or diets more DNA to develop adaptive solutions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, then he must think that he knows something about the designer's thought processes. And here I thought ID was telling us that knowledge about the designer is not necessary in order to detect design.

Maybe he needs a reminder. Or maybe you can ask him the source of his knowledge about the mysterious designer!
Posted by: Zachriel on July 20 2010,08:22

We may have finally discovered the reason that ID Science has been stalled for so long. It's all Nick Matzke's fault!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Nick Matzke >: Ah, what a refreshing turn of events! People are actually trying to account for the phenomenon for once, and finding it's not so easy. Why has genome size variability not been a part of every ID discussion of the junk DNA question, when it's clearly the fundamental basis for discussion of the topic of whether or not junk DNA in general is functional.
...
I and many others have talked about this stuff for years on the blogs, but not one prominent IDist has even bothered to get up to speed with these basics of the discussion, which I got straight from the literature on genome size evolution. I wonder why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Nick Matzke >: I wonder why?

< fifth monarchy man >: three possible answers

1) your attitude
2) your perceived motive
3) lack of interest in a subject (genome size) that up till now did not seem to have any thing to do with the ID debate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that and lack of interest in IDers.

Bad Nick Matzke. Bad.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 20 2010,09:13

Quote (Zachriel @ July 20 2010,08:22)
< fifth monarchy man >: three possible answers

1) your attitude
2) your perceived motive
3) lack of interest in a subject (genome size) that up till now did not seem to have any thing to do with the ID debate


Bad Nick Matzke. Bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


4) IDCists ignorance about the subject
5) No obvious way to shoehorn Lewis, Chesterton and Jesus into the conversation
6) I DON'T KNOW / OTHER (the one IDCists Always forget)
Posted by: JAM on July 20 2010,10:26

Quote (KCdgw @ July 19 2010,14:11)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 19 2010,13:56)
Quote (KCdgw @ July 19 2010,12:45)
We can haz ID predickshun!

< fifth monarchy man: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I for one have often thought about variability in genome sizes and I think the recent findings are a great opportunity to test the arguement and move forward in this debate.
I offer the following prediction
All things being equal, if two similar organisms have very different genome sizes the larger genome will be found in the organism with the most varied growth conditions.
For example If It is found that Coyotes and Grey foxes have different size genomes I would expect Coyotes to have the larger one because of their more varied diet and habitat.
The same goes for house flies verses fruit flies.
as TP says "lets do science"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be interested to hear if this yahoo can tell us why, exactly, this prediction arises from ID "theory". Do we expect this relationship between "varied" growth conditions and genome size based on the THINK, or on the POOF elements of design theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think FMM's idea is, a designer would want to provide organisms that are exposed to wide-ranging habitats or diets more DNA to develop adaptive solutions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But why did you smack him down so quickly with data? Why not savor the moment and drum up interest?

I think you capped off a huge tard flow too efficiently.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 20 2010,11:16

wow:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /redundant-but-not-junk/ on this server.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/2.0.54 Server at telicthoughts.com Port 80
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on July 20 2010,11:29

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 20 2010,11:16)
wow:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /redundant-but-not-junk/ on this server.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/2.0.54 Server at telicthoughts.com Port 80
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I get that too, site borked I think.
Posted by: KCdgw on July 20 2010,11:52

Quote (JAM @ July 20 2010,10:26)
Quote (KCdgw @ July 19 2010,14:11)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 19 2010,13:56)
 
Quote (KCdgw @ July 19 2010,12:45)
We can haz ID predickshun!

< fifth monarchy man: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I for one have often thought about variability in genome sizes and I think the recent findings are a great opportunity to test the arguement and move forward in this debate.
I offer the following prediction
All things being equal, if two similar organisms have very different genome sizes the larger genome will be found in the organism with the most varied growth conditions.
For example If It is found that Coyotes and Grey foxes have different size genomes I would expect Coyotes to have the larger one because of their more varied diet and habitat.
The same goes for house flies verses fruit flies.
as TP says "lets do science"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be interested to hear if this yahoo can tell us why, exactly, this prediction arises from ID "theory". Do we expect this relationship between "varied" growth conditions and genome size based on the THINK, or on the POOF elements of design theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think FMM's idea is, a designer would want to provide organisms that are exposed to wide-ranging habitats or diets more DNA to develop adaptive solutions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But why did you smack him down so quickly with data? Why not savor the moment and drum up interest?

I think you capped off a huge tard flow too efficiently.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it was the the first actual testable prediction I've seen out of that site, so I got excited. And it's been a fairly respectful exchange, for once.
Posted by: midwifetoad on July 20 2010,11:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 20 2010,11:16)
wow:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /redundant-but-not-junk/ on this server.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/2.0.54 Server at telicthoughts.com Port 80
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Closed for housecleaning?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on July 20 2010,12:51

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 20 2010,11:58)
Closed for housecleaning?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting euphemism. I think "flushing" is more apt than "housecleaning", and certainly quicker.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 20 2010,12:57

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 20 2010,12:51)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 20 2010,11:58)
Closed for housecleaning?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting euphemism. I think "flushing" is more apt than "housecleaning", and certainly quicker.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU ARE RONG. AT TELICK THOUGHTS THE GOOD STUFF IS NIXPLANITERALLY FILTERED AWAY SO ONLY THE TURDS REMAIN.

WHICH REMINDS ME, I NEED A POO.
Posted by: Zachriel on July 27 2010,20:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Overcoming lies of the left is a tiresome task. But someone has to do it. Read < this >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is likely to come as a surprise that the US has become a model for its reduction in GHG emissions over the last decade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Olegt asks repeatedly to say what the "lies" are, but Bradford never gets around to it. Olegt also points out that the growth in emissions has hesitated due to the global recession.

In any case, the U.S. emits more than twice the greenhouse gases as European countries with a comparable level of industrialization and living standard, and several times per capita usage in China or India.

< >
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 02 2010,06:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: PZ is symbolic of something much more extensive than his blog. It's a malignant communication style that sabotages the ability of different factions in society to cooperate and get along.

< olegt >: This is a typical case of the pot calling the kettle black. You regularly denounce "the lefties" on this blog and now you accuse PZ of being divisive? The irony is thick.

< Bradford >: I do attack leftist ideas and criticize leftists but most critques are devoid of the type of personal attacks that typify PZ and his supporters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Elsewhere, someone using the nom de plume "Bradford" paints with a broad brush.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Seriously, what is wrong with leftists? Is there a genetic mutation that explains the need to bow down before a murdering thug whose chief claim to fame is having reigned over an impoverished island like the tyrant that he is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Olegt has < the skinny >.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 07 2010,06:35

Bradford pens his latest diatribe.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Creeping Scientific Authoritarianism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For support, he quotes an article from the American Enterprise Institute. They provide two examples of authoritarian tone in science.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Green & Alaghebandian >: < Friends of the Earth writes >, “For example, science tells us we must reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions to prevent dangerous climate change.” America’s climate change negotiator in Copenhagen is < quoted by the World Wildlife Fund > as saying, “China must do significantly more if we are to have a chance to solve the problem and to arrive at an international agreement that achieves what science tells us we must.” Science as dictator—not a pretty sight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The World Wildlife Fund is an advocacy group, of course, not a scientific organization. And their statement is correct. The science does indicate that if we want to prevent dangerous climate change, it will require a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.

America’s climate change negotiator, Todd Stern, is also not a scientist. Again, the statement includes the  antecedent concerning solving the problem.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 07 2010,06:51

An interesting view of effective contribution, per capita.

I'm wondering if france gets relatively better marks because of it's use of nukes.


Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 07 2010,10:33

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 07 2010,06:51)
An interesting view of effective contribution, per capita.

I'm wondering if france gets relatively better marks because of it's use of nukes.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Per capita responsibility is fine, but using a map colored this way creates the impression that (for example) 20 million Aussies are responsible for as much CO2 as 300 million Americans. Perhaps the map should display emissions per square kilometer? Or do away with the map and bar-chart the results, stacked in magnitude order?

You're assumptions are correct about the French nukes, from which they derive an overwhelming proportion of their electrical power. They generate enough to export.
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 07 2010,13:22

Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 07 2010,08:33)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 07 2010,06:51)
An interesting view of effective contribution, per capita.

I'm wondering if france gets relatively better marks because of it's use of nukes.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Per capita responsibility is fine, but using a map colored this way creates the impression that (for example) 20 million Aussies are responsible for as much CO2 as 300 million Americans. Perhaps the map should display emissions per square kilometer? Or do away with the map and bar-chart the results, stacked in magnitude order?

You're assumptions are correct about the French nukes, from which they derive an overwhelming proportion of their electrical power. They generate enough to export.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch! Really?

Okay, well... we're sparse on the ground, relatively wealthy, and cold. That's my excuse.

Edit: redundant and needless repetition.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 07 2010,13:47

I think per capita is fair and reasonable, considering we are talking about human caused emissions.

It's a bit scary to think how India and China will look if they continue to industrialize, without going for better technology.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Aug. 07 2010,19:33

One problem is that we Australians rip out coal to sell to Chinese to burn to make power to make goods to sell to the US. Where does the CO2 get booked on this map?
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 09 2010,09:26

Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 07 2010,13:22)
Okay, well... we're sparse on the ground, relatively wealthy, and cold. That's my excuse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(hums "Blame Canada! Blame Canada!...")

And blame the Guyanese, too. What are they up to down there?! Meth labs? Do Americans meth consumers take the responsibility for the CO2 emitted by Guyanese meth labs? What ever happened to good old American meth? *sigh* More jobs out-sourced and off-shored...
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 09 2010,09:34

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 07 2010,13:47)
I think per capita is fair and reasonable, considering we are talking about human caused emissions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree. I just find the correlation to terretorial area troubling. Not as troubling, mind you, as AGW denialism, so maybe let's not argue over technicalities.

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 07 2010,13:47)
It's a bit scary to think how India and China will look if they continue to industrialize, without going for better technology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they are copying us, they are screwed and so are we.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 12 2010,07:38

< >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: Start with the word “blue”. Is it possible that “blue” could evolve into “pink” using the following rules?

(1) Only single letter (a)substitutions or (b)additions/deletions are allowed for each step. (2) Each transitional word must be a meaningful word in English.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget that we are dealing with populations, including recombination.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: It turns out that it can. We can do so in nine steps.

blue> glue> glut > gout > pout> port> part> pant> pint> pink.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good work!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: This illustrates to me the way natural selection is used by committed Darwinists to explain virtually all evolutionary change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The question isn't whether "blue" can evolve into "yellow," but whether they have a common ancestor. Nor is a specific, arbitrary goal of your choosing the goal of evolution. If "qqqqq" were inserted into the dictionary, Word Evolution would never find it, because there is no available precursor. Many such sequences can never be found by an evolutionary process. But "blue" will evolve into all sorts of other words by this process; ashamed, slackers, skewering, spluttered,

oh, and "yellow."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

blue, glue, glut, gout, got, go, o, i

o
ow

i
hi
hid
had
head
held
hell
yell

yell-ow
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This must be why Zachriel was silently banned from Telic Thoughts.

Xposted to Telic Thoughts, but never showed.
Posted by: Quack on Aug. 12 2010,13:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This must be why Zachriel was silently banned from Telic Thoughts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well deserved too.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 12 2010,15:54

Olegt presses the analogy,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: Let's continue with the analogy. You've tried all combinations that came to mind and failed to get from blue to yellow. You've waited for a day for others to come up with a solution, and no one did. So you declare, on the basis of this failure, that yellow cannot evolve from blue. That's what IDers do, in a nutshell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


  and comes up with an elegant solution.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: In a few days, someone comes up with this sequence:

blue > flue > flee > floe > flow > glow > aglow > allow > fallow > fellow > yellow.

So the evolution turns out to be possible and, in hindsight, no more difficult than your own example, blue to pink. Your previous conclusion on the impossibility of evolution from blue to yellow was wrong. Likewise, the ID crowd potentially undermines the credibility of their own religion by insisting that science will never fill particular gaps. You never know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 12 2010,16:04

And all of a sudden at Telic Tards, analogy beocmes a bad thing...
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 12 2010,16:16

Bonus problem:

Show that Gaps evolve into FAIL.
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 12 2010,16:26

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 12 2010,16:16)
Bonus problem:

Show that Gaps evolve into FAIL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


GAPS > gape > gale > gall > pall > pail > FAIL ...
.
.
.
... > bail > ball > bald > bard > TARD!

Thus proving that TARD evolved from the GAPS.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 12 2010,16:26

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 12 2010,16:16)
Bonus problem:

Show that Gaps evolve into FAIL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


gaps
gars
garb
gard
gaud
gaun
gain
rain
rail
fail
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 12 2010,16:27

2 solutions, no common ancestors apart from the seed...
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 12 2010,16:35

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2010,16:27)
2 solutions, no common ancestors apart from the seed...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But then: convergent evolution, something about nested hierarchies, link to the ISSS website, blind and undirected chemical processes, baraminology...therefore ID.
</ID JOE>
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 12 2010,16:40

Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 12 2010,16:35)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2010,16:27)
2 solutions, no common ancestors apart from the seed...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But then: convergent evolution, something about nested hierarchies, link to the ISSS website, blind and undirected chemical processes, baraminology...therefore ID.
</ID JOE>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Add < set theory > to the list.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 12 2010,16:47

He's already upset with you at TT.
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 12 2010,16:48

< ID guy: >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nice job olegt.

You have proven that "evolution" just pulls shit out of the air in order to be attractive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


air > hair > chair > char > car > care > hare > hire > shire > shirt > shit

Yup. Hey, this is fun!
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 12 2010,16:50

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 12 2010,16:40)
Add < set theory > to the list.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Empty set meets empty head.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Aug. 12 2010,16:52

Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 12 2010,16:48)
< ID guy: >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nice job olegt.

You have proven that "evolution" just pulls shit out of the air in order to be attractive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


air > hair > chair > char > car > care > hare > hire > shire > shirt > shit

Yup. Hey, this is fun!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


POTW!
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 16 2010,15:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bilbo: < Who Got Banned and Why? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who banned Zachriel and Why?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 16 2010,15:15

I'd like to know why criticizing St. Bill O'Reilly was grounds for mt banination.
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 16 2010,15:21

Along those lines:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo says: >
Oleg(t),

So you're the last resident critic at TT. Can I get you a cup of coffee? The New York Times? A neck massage? I don't know how long it will be before you get banned, too. But I figure you deserve special treatment for lasting this long. And thank you. You're the only thing stopping TT from being a complete echo chamber.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


olegt, you have the power. Use it wisely.
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 16 2010,15:22

Actually, Rich, it was Glenn Beck you dissed.

:wags finger:
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 16 2010,15:25

Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 16 2010,15:22)
Actually, Rich, it was Glenn Beck you dissed.

:wags finger:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that's understandable then. I would have banned me also. He is 'the voice of reason'.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 16 2010,15:39

Someone should invite Bilbo here if he wants to chat.
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 16 2010,15:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 16 2010,15:25)
     
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 16 2010,15:22)
Actually, Rich, it was Glenn Beck you dissed.

:wags finger:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that's understandable then. I would have banned me also. He is 'the voice of reason'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Voices, he hears them. The difference between Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck is the difference between selling the Kool-aid and drinking it.
Posted by: dogdidit on Aug. 16 2010,15:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 16 2010,15:39)
Someone should invite Bilbo here if he wants to chat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe olegt will. I could read the NYTimes while oleg is getting that neck massage.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 16 2010,16:03

Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 16 2010,15:21)
Along those lines:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo says: >
Oleg(t),

So you're the last resident critic at TT. Can I get you a cup of coffee? The New York Times? A neck massage? I don't know how long it will be before you get banned, too. But I figure you deserve special treatment for lasting this long. And thank you. You're the only thing stopping TT from being a complete echo chamber.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


olegt, you have the power. Use it wisely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bilbo! That's a big clue!!

Without "evolutionists," ID has nothing to talk about. While Darwin's publication of Origin of Species set off a revolution in biology that is still on-going, ID is vacuous, meaningless, voiceless.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 16 2010,16:26

Now that almost all critics have been banned from TT they can get on with the job of progressing ID.

I expect a flurry of experimental work culminating in a series of papers.

Oh, what's that? Yes, time for the pills....
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 16 2010,16:28

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 16 2010,16:26)
Now that almost all critics have been banned from TT they can get on with the job of progressing ID.

I expect a flurry of experimental work culminating in a series of papers.

Oh, what's that? Yes, time for the pills....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem with asserting that "evolution can't explain" is that these pesky evolutionists *do* come along and explain. But that's easily fixed, in the name of academic freedom.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 16 2010,18:58

Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 16 2010,15:21)
Along those lines:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo says: >
Oleg(t),

So you're the last resident critic at TT. Can I get you a cup of coffee? The New York Times? A neck massage? I don't know how long it will be before you get banned, too. But I figure you deserve special treatment for lasting this long. And thank you. You're the only thing stopping TT from being a complete echo chamber.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


olegt, you have the power. Use it wisely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Olegt's comment inviting Bilbo to AtBC got deleted.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 16 2010,19:07

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 16 2010,18:58)
Olegt's comment inviting Bilbo to AtBC got deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: Heh, what are you, guys, afraid of? That your members will run off to the Swamp? Not bloody likely.

Have the courage to return my comment here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 16 2010,19:17

Olegt's latest comment disappeared.
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 16 2010,19:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Bilbo, why don't you participate in the off-list forum? You are listed as a member and all you have to do is sign in and vote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 17 2010,09:10

ID Guy identifies a point at which the designer intervenes:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is incorrect because as far as you know gene duplications are part of a targeted search- meaning an intelligent designer did participate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Care to prove it? >

You can never win with these fools.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 17 2010,09:42

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 16 2010,19:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Bilbo, why don't you participate in the off-list forum? You are listed as a member and all you have to do is sign in and vote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're trying to make light of it, Funny, given Expelled!, etc.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 17 2010,09:51

If you're going to do it, creobots, have some class:

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 17 2010,09:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 17 2010,09:42)
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 16 2010,19:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: Bilbo, why don't you participate in the off-list forum? You are listed as a member and all you have to do is sign in and vote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're trying to make light of it, Funny, given Expelled!, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID is like psychics who claim to contact the dead. A single unbeliever stops it working and so they have to be EXPELLED!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 17 2010,11:06

And now Bilbo says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bilbo Says:
August 17th, 2010 at 11:59 am No, Chunk. Do you think he is? But thanks to Bradford, I now have access to the off-list forum, where I have suggested that the banning policy be changed so that

1) There is an announcement when someone is banned.

2) There is an announcement as to why they were banned.

I stated that by doing neither that we are engendering suspicion that our motives are not above board. I am awaiting input from other moderators before I do anything else.


Comment by Bilbo — August 17, 2010 @ 11:59 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No comic sans for you, Bilbo! Come over here mate, your being far too honest for that place.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 17 2010,11:11

Bilbo has his own blog:

< http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/ >

I sent him the invite.
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 17 2010,11:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 17 2010,07:51)
If you're going to do it, creobots, have some class:

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, man.
I read that, then went surfing around until I got to the LHC post, wherein "Sastra" left this gem about Leon Lederman:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He'd written a book called The God Particle which, of course, had nothing to do with God at all. It was a nickname for, I think, the Higg's bosun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hahahaha!

"Arrr, me lads, make full sail for supersymmetry!"

Hahahahaha!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 17 2010,12:29

Is it Friday?

< http://telicthoughts.com/testing-the-evolvability-of-the-flagellum/ >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz Says:
August 17th, 2010 at 1:17 pm Bilbo,

If you think that is appropriate language, start your own thread…


Of course it's your call. I just tend to parse between obvious satire and gratuitous insult.

And Chunk, if you got a problem with me or my policies, I'm quite willing to leave TT. Just say the word.

Please don't leave Bilbo.


Comment by chunkdz — August 17, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 19 2010,09:50

< Bradford > points in the direction of < The Washington Times >: .



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
During the debate, Lord Whitty, former environment minister under the Labor government, claimed 95 percent of scientists were in agreement that man was responsible for a coming climatic cataclysm. Lord Monckton, representing climate realists, asked him to provide a reference backing up the claim. The audience jeered Lord Whitty for having none beyond, "Everyone knows it's true."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anderegga et al., Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS 2010: Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 19 2010,17:00

YES! Quotemine!

< http://telicthoughts.com/open-th....-261419 >

Slimy Sal Sez:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There were some incredible account of Christians on both sides of the war on the same battle field pitted against each other.

But there are no accounts like this in the Muslim faith.


Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 19, 2010 @ 11:31 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those Christians, always in-fighting. Not at all like those nice Muslims!
Posted by: Zachriel on Aug. 23 2010,07:15

Couple of odds and ends from Telic Thoughts.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< angryoldfatman >: For instance, the world successfully moved from extremely finite whale oil resources to much more plentiful petroleum and then finally to practically inifinite electricity to light up their homes, all without government-funded think tanks planning exactly how one should be phased out and the next should be phased in.

If our government treated environmentalists like France's did (or hell, like France pretty much treats everybody), we'd have enough nuclear power to have practically eliminated the use of coal by now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would mean nationalization of most of the electrical production. < Électricité de France >, which generates most of the power in France, is a majority state-owned corporation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< angryoldfatman >: But you know, we've got to keep the Birkenstock-wearing latte-sippers happy, along with the coal-miner unions and the railroad unions and the black-lung lawsuit lawyers and the mine-collapse lawsuit lawyers and all the other dependent industries who'd need to find other things to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


--
Not sure what to make of this from JOHN_A_DESIGNER:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: According to Ken Miller:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn’t exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you see the spin? The pejorative use of synthetic– like it is completely unnatural. But then, why did they need organic chemists to synthesize it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does he think "synthetic" means? Or is he confused on the term "organic" in organic chemists, which just refers to carbon chemistry? Or does he think it's supposed to be supernatural?!
Posted by: qetzal on Aug. 23 2010,11:33

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 23 2010,07:15)
Or is he confused...?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes.
Posted by: fnxtr on Aug. 23 2010,12:03

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 23 2010,05:15)
Couple of odds and ends from Telic Thoughts.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< angryoldfatman >: For instance, the world successfully moved from extremely finite whale oil resources to much more plentiful petroleum and then finally to practically inifinite electricity to light up their homes, all without government-funded think tanks planning exactly how one should be phased out and the next should be phased in.

If our government treated environmentalists like France's did (or hell, like France pretty much treats everybody), we'd have enough nuclear power to have practically eliminated the use of coal by now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would mean nationalization of most of the electrical production. < Électricité de France >, which generates most of the power in France, is a majority state-owned corporation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< angryoldfatman >: But you know, we've got to keep the Birkenstock-wearing latte-sippers happy, along with the coal-miner unions and the railroad unions and the black-lung lawsuit lawyers and the mine-collapse lawsuit lawyers and all the other dependent industries who'd need to find other things to do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


--
Not sure what to make of this from JOHN_A_DESIGNER:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< JOHN_A_DESIGNER >: According to Ken Miller:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn’t exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you see the spin? The pejorative use of synthetic– like it is completely unnatural. But then, why did they need organic chemists to synthesize it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does he think "synthetic" means? Or is he confused on the term "organic" in organic chemists, which just refers to carbon chemistry? Or does he think it's supposed to be supernatural?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe in JAD's world, organic chemists= no pesticides?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 25 2010,17:58

Bradford:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In pagan societies and in societies where there is no Christianity, marriage has been historically defined as a union between a man and a woman. It is the redefinition of this that was driven by secular authorities in contravention to the will of the people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Giggdy. >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Aug. 27 2010,05:14

Allen_MacNeill:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting; I take a look at a thread that appeared at first to be about philosophy of science, and lo and behold it morphs into what looks like a typical comments thread at Fox News. I admit I occasionally go there to rubberneck at the cultural equivalent of a bad motor vehicle accident, but to find the same kind of thing happening here, well…it's discouraging.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


nullasalus:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All in favor of discouraging Allen MacNeill and company, raise your hand.

*hand goes up*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently there's still too little echo in the chamber.

Might as well leave them to it.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 04 2010,08:35

Bradford lives in a bubble.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: ID critics and leftists can comment to their hearts content as long as they are not trollish or uncivil. The fact that there are ID critics who have been commenting at TT for years, and still do, is evidence of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The last comment by Zachriel that appeared on Telic Thoughts was on May 16, 111.094 days ago. During the interim, all Zachriel's comments have disappeared into the mist.

(Xposted to Telic Thoughts, but never appeared.)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 04 2010,12:23

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 04 2010,08:35)
Bradford lives in a bubble.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: ID critics and leftists can comment to their hearts content as long as they are not trollish or uncivil. The fact that there are ID critics who have been commenting at TT for years, and still do, is evidence of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The last comment by Zachriel that appeared on Telic Thoughts was on May 16, 111.094 days ago. During the interim, all Zachriel's comments have disappeared into the mist.

(Xposted to Telic Thoughts, but never appeared.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a shame, because TT couldhave be relevent to the ID / EVO dialogue. But it's just another right-wingnut site.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 11 2010,10:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: Would anybody else know if it's physically possible to design perfect DNA repair mechanisms? I realize that we have banned most of the critics who might be able to answer my question. Would the remaining few have an idea? Of course, if you answer, you might get banned. I have no power to stop anyone from banning you. It's a risk you must be willing to take.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's getting rather quiet over at Telic Thoughts.

To answer Bilbo's question; No. Quantum mechanics precludes perfect molecular replication or repair (though it can approach perfection). The question, though, is whether DNA replication is optimal. And optimal for what? Bacterial cells under stress can become hypermutators. On the other hand, mutations in somatic cells should generally be minimized.


-
Added in Edit:


If we consider replication as a transmission of information, then the Shannon–Hartley theorem shows that near-perfect transmission is possible, but there are always sources of noise that preclude perfect transmission. With regards to DNA replication, sources of noise include radiation and other chemicals in the cellular environment.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 11 2010,12:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's getting rather quiet over at Telic Thoughts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To paraphrase Tootsie "when was it ever busy,"

Johnathan Bartlett is trying to drum up business for his < posts on “Evolutionary Chance Mutation: A Defense of the Modern Synthesis" >. I almost feel sorry for him.

< link >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 11 2010,16:28

It would be interesting to compare the mutation rate in DNA with the unrecoverable error rate for hard drives.

I think you would want to match the number of bits written and read.

I'm betting hard drives are better by several orders of magnitude.
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 11 2010,16:36

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2010,14:28)
It would be interesting to compare the mutation rate in DNA with the unrecoverable error rate for hard drives.

I think you would want to match the number of bits written and read.

I'm betting hard drives are better by several orders of magnitude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But since multiple codons can translate to the same aa, DNA is more forgiving of errors. In machine language, 0 is 0 and 1 is 1 and never the twain etc...
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 12 2010,07:52

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2010,12:23)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 04 2010,08:35)
Bradford lives in a bubble.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bradford >: ID critics and leftists can comment to their hearts content as long as they are not trollish or uncivil. The fact that there are ID critics who have been commenting at TT for years, and still do, is evidence of that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The last comment by Zachriel that appeared on Telic Thoughts was on May 16, 111.094 days ago. During the interim, all Zachriel's comments have disappeared into the mist.

(Xposted to Telic Thoughts, but never appeared.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a shame, because TT couldhave be relevent to the ID / EVO dialogue. But it's just another right-wingnut site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What would the terms of a proper dialogue have to be? Is a proper dialogue thinkable, possible? I am afraid the answer is no. Isn't there always an element of science denial and lack of effort in research or study and understanding of evolutionary theory on the creationist side of the divide? The problem is the desire to believe creationism of some sort and/or the incapability of evolutionary science to point at a piece of irrefutable evidence like for example the fact of gravity.

If it isn't information theory it is the fossil record, radiometric dating, continental drift,ice ages, the Grand Canyon or just the Bible. There's something there for everyone wanting to be a creationist.

People want to be creationists; the alternative is too frightening. Although by and large, that problem seems to have been solved here in Europe.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 15 2010,12:30

Arf!

< http://telicthoughts.com/open-th....-261916 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz Says:
September 14th, 2010 at 8:06 pm Bilbo: Hi Chunk. I banned you from this thread.

Was it because of the "douche" thing, the "balls" thing, or the "bigot" thing?


Comment by chunkdz — September 14, 2010 @ 8:06 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 15 2010,12:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 15 2010,07:30)
Arf!

< http://telicthoughts.com/open-th....-261916 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz Says:
September 14th, 2010 at 8:06 pm Bilbo: Hi Chunk. I banned you from this thread.

Was it because of the "douche" thing, the "balls" thing, or the "bigot" thing?


Comment by chunkdz — September 14, 2010 @ 8:06 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have to hand it to Bilbo. He may go dancing in the snow at 4 am but at least he has some integrity!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 15 2010,13:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People want to be creationists; the alternative is too frightening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I reckon the innate desire to believe in some supernatural deity is a heritable trait. And one that could conceivably have had a survival value. for instance, it may have been an avenue, or at least support for that avenue, for social integration beyond the family group and thus possibly critical for the development of civilisation.

Which should make us all the more aware for our propensity to gullibility!  ;)

ETA or is it "propensity for gullibility"?
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 18 2010,21:47

Bradford have said many silly things but < this one > just takes the cake:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genomic integrity requires a degree of stability. The question raised at or near point of origin is whether a "primitive genome" could be both dynamic and stable. I realize that the answer to this among ID critics is a given and the question itself of no interest to them. But until viable "precursor genomes" become observable and stable reproducing entities, imagination will have to be our only guide.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course. No. Scientists have no interest whatsoever in the origin of genomes. < This > must be a hoax:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In a special < theme issue > of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, two dozen experts discuss genome evolution—starting from the deep beginnings in the presumably RNA world, through rampant genome innovation through lateral gene transfer across species, to the divergent histories of particular genes and gene families. They touch upon an emerging concept of the supergenome, which describes the set of all genes in the local environment that a prokaryote has potential access to because of lateral-transfer processes. Based on genomes of primitive organisms, researchers are piecing together the genetic tool kit of the earliest bilateral animals. And one paper argues that viruses, being vast sources of genetic material, cannot be dismissed as nonliving material.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Quack on Sep. 19 2010,04:51

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 15 2010,13:47)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People want to be creationists; the alternative is too frightening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I reckon the innate desire to believe in some supernatural deity is a heritable trait. And one that could conceivably have had a survival value. for instance, it may have been an avenue, or at least support for that avenue, for social integration beyond the family group and thus possibly critical for the development of civilisation.

Which should make us all the more aware for our propensity to gullibility!  ;)

ETA or is it "propensity for gullibility"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed a very relevant and important point. Matter of fact, during my morning chores I got to thinking about just that aspect and made up the title for my next essay: If evolution is true, why are there still creationists?

It may prove too difficult for me to write, but the short version would be about how growing up is, among other things, also the process of programming our brains.

Programming of the brain is just about creating structures to enable the brain to do it's intended job: everything we need to function in a society, to establish and maintain meaningful relationships and so on. And part of that is just what you mention: propensity for gullibility.

We need to hold certain things to be true, we need a firm foundation.  That foundation is established in our early years.

Anyone remember the frustration of discovering that Santa Claus was not real? We believed, we wanted to believe, but reality eventually got the upper hand.

We need to have trust, we need to believe, cooperation is impossible without trust. A pet subject of Ron Okimoto's is < scam > (Although a more modern version.)

I also have a Hitler card. Hitler had no problem identifying how effective child programming may be. The Hitlerjugend was created with characteristic German thoroughness, and I believe Stalin also had programs for the creation of  faithful, enthusiastic communists.

Faith in a father figure, developed to near perfection by Stalin still lingers on in Russia.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2010,11:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyone remember the frustration of discovering that Santa Claus was not real?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think people can figure out Santa Claus because it doesn't require losing their family and friends.
Posted by: fnxtr on Sep. 19 2010,12:05

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 19 2010,02:51)
Faith in a father figure, developed to near perfection by Stalin still lingers on in Russia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it's worked for pretty much every monotheistic religion. If it ain't broke...
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 21 2010,00:19

At the Australian Atheists Conference a lot of the ex-creationists do describe that deconverting is like finally growing up.
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 18 2010,11:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: If individual A is fast and individual B is intelligent, but individual A lives because he outruns predators, then selection selects against an otherwise good and favorable trait. This is interference selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That works in non-recombining organisms or traits, but if A mates with B, then there is a good chance that some of their offspring will be fast and intelligent.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: His claim of sexual selection is mostly advocated by Evolutionary Psychologists, not population geneticists, and several think it is wrong (since it would contradict natural selection).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Population geneticists are quite comfortable with sexual selection, and it is as easy to model as other types of selection.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: The fact that Darwinism is a minor element in biological and medical training is very telling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doctor to youth: Don't worry. You'll evolve out of it.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 18 2010,17:40

My understanding is that chemistry is also being downgraded in medical schools. No need for it.

Therefore it must be wrong.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 19 2010,09:42

And here I thought chemistry was elementary*...

*(118 of them at last count)
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 22 2010,07:04

More open discussion on Telic Thoughts. On a thread where ID guy posts unmolested.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: olegt, ... Go be stupid somewhere else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh. But it did make us wonder what the brouhaha was all about.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< olegt >: Here is a link to an article discussing them: L. M. Cook, "The rise and fall of the Carbonaria form of the peppered moth," The Quarterly Review of Biology 78, 399 (2003)). < doi:10.1086/378925 >. It is a good idea to read the article (or at least skim this < Wikipedia entry >) before taking a misguided swipe at the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: olegt,

I made it clear that my questions were not intended as a "swipe" at evolutionary theory, and that my hypothetical was – wait for it – hypothetical. At no point did I suggest that this was "really what happened" in the peppered moth story – in fact, I linked to the wikipedia entry where Cook is mentioned. I even pointed out that my question was not at all directed at challenging the results of the experiment whose details I linked to.

But here's the real issue: All of this is clear in the thread. I have very little patience for, let's be blunt here – Goddamn idiots with poor reading comprehension. I've tried to be patient with your apparent learning disability in the past, but that's at an end.

Go be stupid somewhere else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Olegt posted updated research on the topic, so that alone makes the comment a worthy contribution to the discussion. Of course, if Telic Thoughts didn't have a habit of banning and making contributors unwelcome, he might have his other answers.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: But let's say that it just so happens that moths with darker wings are getting snuffed out through various series of unfortunate events unrelated to their having dark wings.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What if the rock fell upward?!

It depends on what you mean by "unfortunate events," but seems to imply happenstance, rather than some linked trait.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: First question: It would be incorrect to say that moths with lighter wings were selected for, wouldn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's correct. They are selected against.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: Second question: If the lighter wings were not a result of natural selection, then what do we call the evolutionary events that resulted in lighter wings in this scenario?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it is due to random sampling of alleles from a small population, then it would be genetic drift. Otherwise, it might be due to contingent circumstances.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: Is it just 'luck'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If a population is small, then selection can be inefficient, and drift can be more important. If the population is large, and drift is not a plausible explanation, then we might look for other factors, such as linked traits, or kids with butterfly nets.

-
Had to reconstruct comment. Added stuff back in that was lost.

Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 22 2010,09:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: I'll settle for any paper you think does a good job of identifying natural selection in a given population, and which is available online in full.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most anything by < Peter or Rosemary Grant >.

Boag & Grant, < Intense natural selection in a population of Darwin's Finches (Geospizinae) in the Galápagos >, Science 1981: In this report we demonstrate directional natural selection in a population of Darwin's finches and identify its main cause... Our results are consistent with the growing opinion among evolutionary ecologists that the trajectory of even well buffered vertebrate species is largely determined by occasional "bottlenecks" of intense selection during a small portion of their history.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 22 2010,10:06

My "misguided swipe" comment was directed at Sal, not an nullasalus.

Null's post was silly nonetheless. If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 22 2010,22:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this report we demonstrate directional natural selection in a population of Darwin's finches and identify its main cause...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Butte there stilled birds!!111!!!eleven!!!!
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 23 2010,06:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: Alright then – does that mean that absolutely any scenario with reproduction and variance taking place whatsoever is 'natural selection' of a sort?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not natural selection unless there is a tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: And if not, can you give a scenario (totally hypothetical is fine) where there is reproduction and variance, but no natural selection whatsoever?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As KC explained in the previous comment on the thread, when variations are selectively neutral, such as the case for many synonymous substitutions. Even with strictly neutral variation, populations will evolve, with some alleles becoming more frequent (sometimes to fixation), and others less so (sometimes to extinction), according to some fairly basic arithmetic.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 23 2010,07:12

You have to wonder if they are finally realising that their understanding of what they claim to have been critiquing all these years is woefully inadequate.

I'm just an interested amateur, but it seems to me that if null took a course or three, or even just studied a couple of text books, he'd not be asking the questions that he's asking.

They are having more trouble with terminology then anything else it seems!

And luckily Slimey Sal is there to shed some light on the issues



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I hope this posts provides some enlightenment to the subtleties of what it means "to select for". If you perceive the equivocation, you'll be far ahead of a lot of biologists in these matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, Sal, is that why you are studying physics and not biology? He's nothing left to learn in biology I guess, he knows it all. That must be it...
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 23 2010,10:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not natural selection unless there is a tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Minor point, but *evolution* by NS requires the variation to have a heritable basis - NS per sé just requires differential reproductive success due to phenotypic variations.

dR = h^2 dS
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 23 2010,10:35

OM:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, Sal, is that why you are studying physics and not biology? He's nothing left to learn in biology I guess, he knows it all. That must be it...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is Sal really still studying physics? Haven't seen him bragging about it for a while. Wouldn't be surprised at all if he flunked...
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 23 2010,12:05

Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 23 2010,10:14)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's not natural selection unless there is a tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Minor point, but *evolution* by NS requires the variation to have a heritable basis - NS per sé just requires differential reproductive success due to phenotypic variations.

dR = h^2 dS
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good point, actually. Selection works on phenotype, so it depends on what proportion of the variation is due to the genotype, that is, the heritability of the trait.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 25 2010,09:35

Joe thinks he's beeing all clever:

< http://telicthoughts.com/god-of-the-gaps-analysis/#comment-262698 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy Says:
October 25th, 2010 at 7:39 am When someone tells me I am using the God-of-the-gaps and shows:

(1) X
(2) I can’t explain X
Therefore,
(3) God is the explanation for X

I just re-write it for them in the correct format

1- We observe X

2- Everytime we have observed X and knew the cause it has ALWAYS been via agency interaction

3- We have NEVER observed blind, undirected (chemical) processes producing X

4- Therefore when we observe X and don't know the cause we can safely infer it was via agency interaction

5- And to refute that inference all one has to do is show that blind, undirected (chemical) processes do indeed suffice.

Then I sit back and let the flailing begin…  


Comment by ID guy — October 25, 2010 @ 7:39 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmm, what number should "I smuggle some question-begging bad analogy in there, because we've never seen 'agency interaction' ACTUALLY DESIGN THIS THING"?

I think he's left it out.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 25 2010,12:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3- We have NEVER observed blind, undirected (chemical) processes producing X

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nor have we ever observed x in the process of being designed (although we have observed x being incrementally modified through mutation and selection).

That should help.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 25 2010,21:54

Anyone looking for a signature should seriously consider < this gem > from Bradford:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Christianity does not entail subjective assessments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 26 2010,13:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kornbelt888 >: If aliens started life on earth and intervened from time to time, how would we be able to detect it scientifically if they didn't intend for us to detect it scientifically?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Find a < monolith >.

This is a typical, disembodied hypothetical. Without some hypothesis concerning the intervention, there is no way to answer the question.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 01 2010,03:53

< >

The question then is will Bilbo be demanding that Salvador Cordova apologise for his next quote mine?

What kind of Christian does quote-mining make Sal then?

< http://telicthoughts.com/open-letter-to-darrel-falk/ >
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 06 2010,09:35

{sniff}

It's nice to be remembered.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Thought Provoker >: BTW, Zachriel's high crime was "Trolling and Insipidity"?
He had been posting on TT for over three years. Did you guys just finally get tired of him? Or was it that Zachriel's extracurricular activities over at ATBC that finally got to be too much for Bradford?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See < The Banned List >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: Pretty much everyone who has debated Zachriel had the same complaint, including me. It's rather unlikely that this is a coincidence. Thats why we banned him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. No, it's not a coincidence! Not at all!

As for insipidity, Zachriel always tried to add new content to a thread. It can be difficult when the same fallacies are constantly introduced, but it was certainly our intention. For instance, this is from our last thread on Telic Thoughts.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Daniel Smith: Here's a prediction I made back in 2007 …



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Zachriel >: Way back in 2007. That's probably where these researchers picked up the idea.

Blencowe, Alternative Splicing: New Insights from Global Analyses, Cell 2006.

Modrek & Lee, A genomic view of alternative splicing, Nature Genetics 2002.

Smith, Patton & Nadal-Ginard, Alternative Splicing in the Control of Gene Expression, Annual Review of Genetics 1989.

Chow et al., An amazing sequence arrangement at the 5' ends of adenovirus 2 messenger RNA, Cell 1977.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Snarky, yes. But not trolling. And to the point.

We made several other comments on the thread, cited additional literature, and it became increasingly apparent that their inability to comprehend Deciphering the splicing code was due to equivocation on the word 'code.' Indeed, the authors of the paper used scare-quotes around 'code' to avoid any confusion on their use of the term.

What they fail to realize is that commenting in detail requires effort and time, especially when trying to remember and locate appropriate support. It is a sign of respect to take the time to answer their queries, especially when their views are so soundly rejected by the vast majority of scientists, and their arguments were hackneyed a century or millennium or more ago.

Here's our last comment:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
fifth monarchy man: Do you expect at least two codes? multiple codes within codes? No expectations one way or the other?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Zachriel >: We expect a hierarchy of relationships, similar to terrestrial life. It is doubtful that the depths of those complex relationships has been fully plumbed in terrestrial life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fifth monarchy man can't understand this, because —even after it was explained to him— a code normally just means a (x-to-one) correspondence between sets. As there may be something akin to a power-law distribution of gene relationships, you wouldn't measure it with a simple scalar.

Despite our best efforts, fifth monarchy man became frustrated and confused. Hence, the accusation of trolling.

But it's still nice to be remembered.

<
>
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 06 2010,09:47

Meanwhile, ID guy shows how NOT to be an insipid troll.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ID guy >: Is it just me or has The "Thought Provoker" turned into a whiny baby?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on Nov. 06 2010,12:36

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 06 2010,07:35)
See < The Banned List >.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those incompetents thought I was 'frostman'?
Posted by: keiths on Nov. 06 2010,13:01

Poor Guts is still < trying to defend biblical slavery >.
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 07 2010,07:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Thought Provoker >: It was no secret you, and especially Bradford, regularly checked what was written over at ATBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Commenting about Telic Thoughts on this thread is on-topic. For instance, in April, when chunkdz was < blatantly trolling > Thought Provoker's thread, we pointed it out here, because to point it out there would be to feed the troll and further derail the thread.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Pez >: Zach{riel} was inherently dishonest. That much was obvious from any discussions with him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What you mean is that we treated your views as if they were worthy of a respectful response, but wouldn't simply cower to the force of your certainty, even as we watched others being banned for the same.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Pez >: I would ban persistent and regular critics after about two years no matter their demeanour. By then they have asked every question they have and posed every challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The simplest and most direct solution is to ignore people who don't contribute in a positive manner, but are otherwise comporting themselves civilly. On the other hand, a two year rule is probably much too long. Frankly, everything ID has had to say has been said. These arguments were old when Aristotle was young. There's no reason to have any posts on an ID blog.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 07 2010,15:01

Oh well, I tried. < Link >

I agree with those who suggest Joe/ID Guy may be one of the best weapons against the ID Movement we could possibly have.

It looks like those in the TT "pantheon" are comfortable with their unjustifiable actions.  After all, they are the TT gods and critics should be thankful for whatever time-limited tolerance they grant and always be respectful guests.

Guts and Bradford are now on record they aren't checking on AtBC... maybe in the past... and they have "informants"... but not they aren't looking any more.

I guess they will have to rely on JoeG's... err... umm... veracity to let them know what is going on here. (While he insists he isn't ID Guy).

The other possibility is one or both will continue to read the comments of this and other blogs because it appears they can't help themselves.  Complaining about critics is what they do best.

Once Bilbo gives up, there will be little to no difference between Telic Thoughts and Uncommon Descent.

Oleg, you are one stubborn physicist.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 08 2010,08:31

If history teaches is anything its that insular, jingoistic societies without freedom of expression or an open dialogue with critics are usually right and end up being vindicated in the end. Or being poisoned waiting for the spaceship behind the comet.
Posted by: Acipenser on Nov. 10 2010,00:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
nullasulas: ""Venturing an ignorant guess" based on the paucity of data provided is the goal of the game. This isn't about making a credible, airtight hypothesis based on adequate data – in fact, that's expressly not the point. Nor is it to offer a correct explanation, because the key bit of data is not only missing, but contains a conclusion that is expressly verboten.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Verboten?  Are your sure about that?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
nullasalus:Yes, I am well aware that GE organisms are common knowledge. Yes, I know that the hypothetical is unrealistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess I missed the point of his game since he banned me from the thread.  I'm crushed.
Posted by: KCdgw on Nov. 10 2010,06:06

Quote (Acipenser @ Nov. 10 2010,00:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
nullasulas: ""Venturing an ignorant guess" based on the paucity of data provided is the goal of the game. This isn't about making a credible, airtight hypothesis based on adequate data – in fact, that's expressly not the point. Nor is it to offer a correct explanation, because the key bit of data is not only missing, but contains a conclusion that is expressly verboten.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Verboten?  Are your sure about that?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
nullasalus:Yes, I am well aware that GE organisms are common knowledge. Yes, I know that the hypothetical is unrealistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess I missed the point of his game since he banned me from the thread.  I'm crushed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a reason why he suggested that only IDers participate.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 10 2010,06:15

Quote (Acipenser @ Nov. 10 2010,00:16)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
nullasulas: ""Venturing an ignorant guess" based on the paucity of data provided is the goal of the game. This isn't about making a credible, airtight hypothesis based on adequate data – in fact, that's expressly not the point. Nor is it to offer a correct explanation, because the key bit of data is not only missing, but contains a conclusion that is expressly verboten.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's an "airtight hypothesis"? Aren't hypotheses, by definition, "tentative explanations"?

The confusion of IDiots about the terms of science has always amazed me...
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 10 2010,06:18

The thread is hilarious. It underscores the fact that ID is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Posted by: KCdgw on Nov. 10 2010,07:44

The idea behind the thread is to come up with a cartoonish view of evolutionary biologists refusing to admit the verboten explanation that an intelligent agent is responsible for the phenomenon. Apparently it's not polite to point out this would stick out like a sore thumb to any biologist worth a damn.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2010,09:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
refusing to admit the verboten explanation that an intelligent agent is responsible for the phenomenon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not that the intelligent agent explanation is verboten, it's that it doesn't explain anything.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 10 2010,10:56

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,07:58)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
refusing to admit the verboten explanation that an intelligent agent is responsible for the phenomenon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not that the intelligent agent explanation is verboten, it's that it doesn't explain anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, exactly.

"Okay, let's say some things were designed. Now what?"
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 10 2010,11:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< nullasalus >: Here's the game: Imagine you're an evolutionary biologist who comes across a population of these GE salmon.
...
Now, the goal is to come up with a theoretical, plausible seeming explanation for why this is being seen in nature. Feel free to import whatever hypotheticals you wish. However, one explanation is absolutely verboten – and in this case, it happens to be the actual (hypothetical) explanation:

* These salmon were genetically engineered by intelligent agents to mature faster.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would require ignoring the genetic evidence. The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2010,14:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 10 2010,14:24

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 10 2010,14:34

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2010,14:41

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 10 2010,14:49

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 10 2010,14:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 10 2010,14:59

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,14:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We were baited into it.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2010,15:00

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 10 2010,15:19

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 10 2010,15:41

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
   
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
Posted by: KCdgw on Nov. 10 2010,15:45

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
   
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
     
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 10 2010,15:52

Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
     
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
     
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
       
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 10 2010,15:57

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
   
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
     
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
       
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
       
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2010,16:01

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,14:19)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)

I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just as long as it isn't a whale shark - cause then somebody would probably ask for a cetacean.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 10 2010,16:03

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
   
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
       
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
       
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
         
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up.



* fish, not the mammal
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 10 2010,17:45

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
     
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
       
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
       
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
         
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
         
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
           
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
           
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
             
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
             
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
               
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2010,21:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up.



* fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I see no porpoise to that remark.
Posted by: KCdgw on Nov. 11 2010,07:39

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

 
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
       
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
       
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
         
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
         
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
           
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
           
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
             
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
             
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
               
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
               
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to tuna-out.
Posted by: KCdgw on Nov. 11 2010,07:43

Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

 
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
       
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
         
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
         
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
           
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
           
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
             
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
             
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
               
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
               
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
                 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to tuna-out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And its a crappie thread, besides.
Posted by: dogdidit on Nov. 11 2010,08:15

Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:43)
 
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
   
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

     
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
           
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
           
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
             
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
             
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
               
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
               
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
                 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
                 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
                   
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
                   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to tuna-out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And its a crappie thread, besides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop this, you bass tards!
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 11 2010,08:34

Quote (dogdidit @ Nov. 11 2010,08:15)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:43)
 
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
   
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

     
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
           
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
             
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
             
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
               
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
               
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
                 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
                 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
                   
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
                   
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
                     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to tuna-out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And its a crappie thread, besides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop this, you bass tards!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go fish.
Posted by: BillB on Nov. 11 2010,08:43

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,14:34)
Quote (dogdidit @ Nov. 11 2010,08:15)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:43)
   
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
     
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

       
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
             
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
             
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
               
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
               
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
                 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
                 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
                   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
                   
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
                     
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
                     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to tuna-out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And its a crappie thread, besides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop this, you bass tards!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go fish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Cod, not again!
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 11 2010,09:26

Quote (BillB @ Nov. 11 2010,08:43)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,14:34)
Quote (dogdidit @ Nov. 11 2010,08:15)
 
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:43)
   
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
     
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
     
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
             
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
               
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
               
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
                 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
                 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
                   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
                   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
                     
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
                     
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
                       
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to tuna-out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And its a crappie thread, besides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop this, you bass tards!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go fish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Cod, not again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the hallibut, get off your perch and sucker your asp!
Posted by: KCdgw on Nov. 11 2010,10:02

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,09:26)
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 11 2010,08:43)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,14:34)
 
Quote (dogdidit @ Nov. 11 2010,08:15)
 
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:43)
     
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
     
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
       
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
               
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
               
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
                 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
                 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
                   
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
                   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
                     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
                     
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
                       
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
                       
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to tuna-out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And its a crappie thread, besides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop this, you bass tards!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go fish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Cod, not again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the hallibut, get off your perch and sucker your asp!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wahoo!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 11 2010,10:13

Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,08:02)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,09:26)
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 11 2010,08:43)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,14:34)
 
Quote (dogdidit @ Nov. 11 2010,08:15)
   
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:43)
     
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
       
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
       
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

 
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
               
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
                 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
                 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
                   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
                   
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
                     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
                     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
                       
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
                       
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
                         
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to tuna-out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And its a crappie thread, besides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop this, you bass tards!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go fish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Cod, not again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the hallibut, get off your perch and sucker your asp!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wahoo!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all mako me sick.
Posted by: keiths on Nov. 11 2010,13:04

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 11 2010,08:13)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,08:02)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,09:26)
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 11 2010,08:43)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,14:34)
   
Quote (dogdidit @ Nov. 11 2010,08:15)
     
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:43)
       
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
         
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
         
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
           
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
                 
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
                   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
                   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
                     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
                     
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
                       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
                   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
                         
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
                         
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
                           
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to tuna-out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And its a crappie thread, besides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop this, you bass tards!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go fish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Cod, not again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the hallibut, get off your perch and sucker your asp!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wahoo!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all mako me sick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Walleye think this has gone on long enough.
Posted by: Raevmo on Nov. 11 2010,13:33

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2010,13:04)
 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 11 2010,08:13)
   
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,08:02)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,09:26)
 
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 11 2010,08:43)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,14:34)
       
Quote (dogdidit @ Nov. 11 2010,08:15)
       
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:43)
           
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
           
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
             
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

 
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
               
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
                     
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
                     
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
                       
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
                       
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
                         
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
                         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
                     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
                           
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
                             
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
                             
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to tuna-out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And its a crappie thread, besides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop this, you bass tards!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go fish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Cod, not again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the hallibut, get off your perch and sucker your asp!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wahoo!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all mako me sick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Walleye think this has gone on long enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ik snapper niks meer van
Posted by: DaveH on Nov. 11 2010,15:58

Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 11 2010,13:33)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2010,13:04)
 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 11 2010,08:13)
   
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,08:02)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,09:26)
   
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 11 2010,08:43)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,14:34)
       
Quote (dogdidit @ Nov. 11 2010,08:15)
         
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:43)
           
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
             
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
             
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

   
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
               
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
                     
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
                       
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
                       
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
                         
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
                         
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
                           
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
                       
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
                             
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
                             
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
                               
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cod happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all have finally jumped the shark.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm getting a haddock over all this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you having a wet bream?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am afraid this is eel-conceived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all smells of, ick, theology!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes me want to tuna-out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And its a crappie thread, besides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop this, you bass tards!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go fish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Cod, not again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the hallibut, get off your perch and sucker your asp!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wahoo!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You all mako me sick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Walleye think this has gone on long enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ik snapper niks meer van
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The answer they are looking for is: "The piece of Cod that passeth all understanding"
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 11 2010,20:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go fish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh Cod, not again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the hallibut, get off your perch and sucker your asp!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wahoo!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You all mako me sick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you gonna need a sturgeon to help with that?

Henry
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 12 2010,03:58

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2010,20:50)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go fish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh Cod, not again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the hallibut, get off your perch and sucker your asp!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wahoo!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You all mako me sick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you gonna need a sturgeon to help with that?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do I scent a red herring floundering through this channel?
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 12 2010,10:54

In that case, should we change the channel?
Posted by: EyeNoTwo on Nov. 12 2010,11:26

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 12 2010,03:58)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2010,20:50)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go fish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh Cod, not again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the hallibut, get off your perch and sucker your asp!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wahoo!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You all mako me sick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you gonna need a sturgeon to help with that?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do I scent a red herring floundering through this channel?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's obvious the point he was trying to make went right bayou. Was that a fluke?
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 12 2010,21:14

Quote (EyeNoTwo @ Nov. 12 2010,11:26)
Was that a fluke?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's blenny more where that came from.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 13 2010,16:13

This shoaling has condemned all your soles to Mobula mobular.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 13 2010,18:13

Nullasalus has laid down some new rules for me, including that I can't thank him any more.
< link >

But the semi-interesting part is that Nullasalus declares copying, verbatium, a DI article quotemining Thomas Jefferson to argue "In reality, Jefferson did not believe that intelligent design was a religious doctrine." is topical whereas providing the actual words of Jefferson in context is not.

It looks like I may be shortly joining the list of the TT banned.  Especially if I continue to provide side comments like this on AtBC which those on TT say they never read.

Frankly, I wouldn't blame anyone for suggesting the fish puns are more interesting than this.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2010,19:01

I'm sure null will enjoy talking to < Daniel > instead TP:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why can't we start from a theistic interpretation of data?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't you start Daniel? I'm sure others will follow.
Posted by: phhht on Nov. 13 2010,20:57

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why can't we start from a theistic interpretation of data?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[/quote]
Anyone is free to start from any interpretation he wishes.  The trouble is not that a theistic interpretation is wrong.  It's not even wrong.  It's unnecessary.

It is desirable to minimize the a priori assumptions before interpreting.  If an assumption is unnecessary, it's best not to make it.

You'll note for example that in technical, mathematical, engineering, and scientific publications, there is no appeal to gods (or some unnamed designer).  Not because it's  wrong, but because it is possible to explain the subject without resort to the supernatural (whatever that is).

As far as I know, there has never been a case in which an appeal to gods was necessary.  Empirical naturalism suffices without them.
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 13 2010,23:46

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 12 2010,21:14)
Quote (EyeNoTwo @ Nov. 12 2010,11:26)
Was that a fluke?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's blenny more where that came from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lots mola where that came from.

But don't ask me, I've got jackfish.
Posted by: EyeNoTwo on Nov. 14 2010,07:06

You folks can't tell your wrasse from a sole in the sound.....
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 14 2010,08:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Salvador T. Cordova >: Here is a listing of traits of each the individuals in the "population":

Individual A:

1. blue eyes
2. fast
3. not too bright
4. red hair

Individual B:
1. brown eyes
2. slow
3. extremely intelligent
4. brown hair

It turns out a predator kills of Individual B because he is too slow. What happens to the other traits in question (like eye color, hair color, intelligence).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Assuming A and B had the opportunity to mate, producing several offspring, there's a good chance that some of their children will be both fast and intelligent, with a mix of the other traits among the siblings.
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 14 2010,09:34

Quote (EyeNoTwo @ Nov. 14 2010,07:06)
You folks can't tell your wrasse from a sole in the sound.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Know your plaice!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 14 2010,22:27

Hey Telic Thoughts, you're less interesting than fish puns. But you have a ....Pantheon!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 15 2010,03:09

Denial Smith brings  logic to the table:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think we need to study the evidence with an open mind to discover what God did. Like I said, we have lots of hypotheses in the religious world we can test to see how they stand up against the evidence to the contrary.

Schindewolf described sudden bursts of evolutionary activity in the fossil record, followed by periods of gradual evolution, finally culminating in lineages that over-evolved into extinction. When I first read that, I thought "It's like a farmer dispersing various kinds of seed to see what takes hold, cultivating what sticks until the land can no longer take it, letting it die off, then repeating the cycle".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, Denial, God would know in advance what "seed would take hold" so why would it bother in the first place?

Null also "clarifies" his position:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See, my own attitude is very similar. The only difference, I tend to file evolution and natural selection (though as of late, my confidence in the latter wanes) as 'tools used by a designer'. I reject the idea that evolution, even natural selection, is somehow 'in competition' with actual design for an explanation – put another way, every instance of natural selection is one of artificial selection for all science knows.

The same with that typical ID triad of 'design, chance, or necessity'. Since a designer can design through necessity in part, and 'chance' is little more than a contingent outcome (and processes that are contingent can be brought to definite ends by a mind), I have to reject the triad. It's all design, for all science knows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's amazing that null trusts science so far as to trust the PC he's sat in front of but can't bring himself to believe that "natural selection" is anything but natural despite no evidence.

I guess it's why the 9/11 stuff goes down so well at TT, just another "evidence free" topic they can talk about and the lack of evidence is the reason. If they have evidence one way or another they'd have to start kicking people out of the big tent. Of course, they exists plenty of evidence already but from "scientists" who can't be trusted. If Behe ever gets in the lab and rules out a young earth, for example, there will be trouble!

< Link >

And null, every instance of natural selection is one of artificial selection by invisible pink unicorns for all science knows. That's real helpful....
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 22 2010,09:52

In case anyone is interested, I ran across this paper which we may be discussing on TT.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Abstract
Background:
The bacterial flagellum is the most important organelle of motility in bacteria and plays a key role in many bacterial lifestyles, including virulence. The flagellum also provides a paradigm of how hierarchical gene regulation, intricate protein-protein interactions and controlled protein secretion can result in the assembly of a complex multi-protein structure tightly orchestrated in time and space. As if to stress its importance, plants and animals produce receptors specifically dedicated to the recognition of flagella. Aside from motility, the flagellum also moonlights as an adhesion and has been adapted by humans as a tool for peptide display. Flagellar sequence variation constitutes a marker with widespread potential uses for studies of population genetics and phylogeny of bacterial species.

Results: We sequenced the complete flagellin gene (flaA) in 18 different species and subspecies of Aeromonas. Sequences ranged in size from 870 (A. allosaccharophila) to 921 nucleotides (A. popoffii). The multiple alignment displayed 924 sites, 66 of which presented alignment gaps. The phylogenetic tree revealed the existence of two groups of species exhibiting different FlaA flagellins (FlaA1 and FlaA2). Maximum likelihood models of codon substitution were used to analyze flaA sequences. Likelihood ratio tests suggested a low variation in selective pressure among lineages, with an ? ratio of less than 1 indicating the presence of purifying selection in almost all cases. Only one site under potential diversifying selection was identified (isoleucine in position 179). However, 17 amino acid positions were inferred as sites that are likely to be under positive selection using the branch-site model. Ancestral reconstruction revealed that these 17 amino acids were among the amino acid changes detected in the ancestral sequence.

Conclusion: The models applied to our set of sequences allowed us to determine the possible evolutionary pathway followed by the flaA gene in Aeromonas, suggesting that this gene have probably been evolving independently in the two groups of Aeromonas species since the divergence of a distant common ancestor after one or several episodes of positive selection.
Reviewers: This article was reviewed by Alexey Kondrashov, John Logsdon and Olivier Tenaillon (nominated by Laurence D Hurst).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-4-23.pdf >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 22 2010,11:16

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Nov. 22 2010,09:52)
In case anyone is interested, I ran across this paper which we may be discussing on TT.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Abstract
Background:
The bacterial flagellum is the most important organelle of motility in bacteria and plays a key role in many bacterial lifestyles, including virulence. The flagellum also provides a paradigm of how hierarchical gene regulation, intricate protein-protein interactions and controlled protein secretion can result in the assembly of a complex multi-protein structure tightly orchestrated in time and space. As if to stress its importance, plants and animals produce receptors specifically dedicated to the recognition of flagella. Aside from motility, the flagellum also moonlights as an adhesion and has been adapted by humans as a tool for peptide display. Flagellar sequence variation constitutes a marker with widespread potential uses for studies of population genetics and phylogeny of bacterial species.

Results: We sequenced the complete flagellin gene (flaA) in 18 different species and subspecies of Aeromonas. Sequences ranged in size from 870 (A. allosaccharophila) to 921 nucleotides (A. popoffii). The multiple alignment displayed 924 sites, 66 of which presented alignment gaps. The phylogenetic tree revealed the existence of two groups of species exhibiting different FlaA flagellins (FlaA1 and FlaA2). Maximum likelihood models of codon substitution were used to analyze flaA sequences. Likelihood ratio tests suggested a low variation in selective pressure among lineages, with an ? ratio of less than 1 indicating the presence of purifying selection in almost all cases. Only one site under potential diversifying selection was identified (isoleucine in position 179). However, 17 amino acid positions were inferred as sites that are likely to be under positive selection using the branch-site model. Ancestral reconstruction revealed that these 17 amino acids were among the amino acid changes detected in the ancestral sequence.

Conclusion: The models applied to our set of sequences allowed us to determine the possible evolutionary pathway followed by the flaA gene in Aeromonas, suggesting that this gene have probably been evolving independently in the two groups of Aeromonas species since the divergence of a distant common ancestor after one or several episodes of positive selection.
Reviewers: This article was reviewed by Alexey Kondrashov, John Logsdon and Olivier Tenaillon (nominated by Laurence D Hurst).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-4-23.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's the point TP? The abstract contains the word "probably" which means it's just another evolutionary just-so story which can be summarily dismissed, whatever the merits of the argument may be.

I can already predict what ID Guy will say, and I'm sure you can too.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 22 2010,12:31

Actually, JoeG surprised me a little.  He continues to provide entertainment and is a fine representative of the ID Movement.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That paper is about one gene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< link >

Yes and < SRY > is only one gene too.

EDIT-spelling
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 22 2010,12:52

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Nov. 22 2010,10:31)
Actually, JoeG suprised me a little.  He continues to provide entertainment and is a fine representative of the ID Movement.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That paper is about one gene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< link >

Yes and < SRY > is only one gene too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know a gal with complete androgen insensivity syndrome. All woman minus a uterus. At puberty they took out testes where her ovaries should have been. All because of a variation in the androgen receptor gene.  One gene.
Posted by: olegt on Nov. 22 2010,22:10

Although TT is now mostly a tea-party gathering, there are some not-quite-so boring moments.

In the < latest thread >, nullasalus is conducting a rigorous exercise in mental masturbation, wherein he imagines a naturalistic theory yielding a 6,000-year-old Earth. I kid you not.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's say I have a cosmological theory: The universe is only, say.. 6000 years old. Year 0 marks the sudden appearance of planets, galaxies, species, environments, humanity, and time itself. I'm sure this sounds like a familiar story to you – it is (at least a popular variant of) the young-earth creationist position. But as I've just described it, there's another way to tag this idea.

That tag is "a naturalistic theory".

What I described is entirely open to the modern naturalist – maybe all those things popped into existence uncaused. Maybe I'll posit an additional explanatory mechanism, like a brutely existing multiverse, some mega-Boltzmann fluctuation. Maybe there is some law governing universes, and this just happens to be one way (or THE way) they pop into being. Maybe I don't even have an answer on hand that I prefer – but there's no reason in principle one couldn't eventually avail itself.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Positively new age-y.

The guy is some sort of an armchair philosopher whose understanding of science can be summarized in one word: dismal. He < finds > a passage in Feynman's Lectures on Physics that he thinks is evidence that we don't understand what energy is:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity and when we add it together it gives "28"—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanisms or the reasons for the various formulas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What he does not apparently realize is that this passage was addressed to freshman students (this is from Ch. 4 in Volume 1 of the lectures). Feynman was being coy. We do know what energy is but the explanation cannot be unloaded on freshmen, it requires some learning. At the level of freshman physics, the concept of energy is indeed confusing: there are all kinds of energy and it's not clear whence this concept came.

But skip to the end of the course (Ch. 15 in Volume 3) and Feynman tells you where energy conservation comes from.  From a symmetry.  Every symmetry in nature is associated with a conserved quantity. That was realized by Emmy Noether, a brilliant mathematician, in the context of classical mechanics, where the connection is not easy to understand. The direct relation between symmetries and conservation laws is much more explicit in quantum physics, and that is the reason we have to wait until the end of an introductory physics sequence to tell students about it.

It is the symmetry with respect to translations in time that is responsible for the existence of a conserved quantity we call energy. (Likewise, the symmetry with respect to translations in space leads to the conservation of momentum and the symmetry with respect to rotations yields conservation of angular momentum.) So no, energy is not a mysterious quantity that no one understands, it is a reflection of the uniformity of time.

But you can't expect armchair philosophers to know that.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 23 2010,01:45

Oleg,

Thank you for the explanation.

It saved me the trouble of trying to sort it out myself.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 27 2010,13:18

Congratulations, Zachriel.

It looks like you have made such an impression at Telic Thoughts, you are no longer just Banned, you are now a person-who-shall-not-be-named.

In a comment concerning the WWII bombing of Dresden, I said something similar to "It's too bad Zachriel is banned because he probably would have something interesting to say on this".

After which my comment got stuck in the spam queue.

When ask for help, Bradford explained...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
TP, the comment was stuck in the spam queue. Reason being the last part of the comment directed at the banning policy. I'd advise you to repost the otherwise productive comment without the last part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< link >

So I checked by sending a comment asking if
the name Zachiel was added to the spam filter.

It got stuck in the spam filter too.

ETA - changed "problem" to "probably"
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 27 2010,13:21

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 15 2010,04:09)
Denial Smith brings  logic to the table:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That statement alone makes my head hurt.
Posted by: Zachriel on Nov. 27 2010,20:29

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Nov. 27 2010,13:18)
Congratulations, Zachriel.

It looks like you have made such an impression at Telic Thoughts, you are no longer just Banned, you are now a person-who-shall-not-be-named.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We accept this honor in sincere tribute to all the fallen heroes {sniff} who have gone before us.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Nov. 27 2010,22:37

BTW, the comment was basically highlighting how < Air Chief Marshal Sir Douglas Claude Strathern Evill > was involved.  Apparently, even the papers at the time noted how appropriate his name was.

I was planning on bringing in what I know about this, but not any more.

Bradford has made his decision for all TTers.
Posted by: Art on Nov. 29 2010,13:51

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Nov. 27 2010,13:18)
Congratulations, Zachriel.

It looks like you have made such an impression at Telic Thoughts, you are no longer just Banned, you are now a person-who-shall-not-be-named.

In a comment concerning the WWII bombing of Dresden, I said something similar to "It's too bad Zachriel is banned because he probably would have something interesting to say on this".

After which my comment got stuck in the spam queue.

When ask for help, Bradford explained...

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
TP, the comment was stuck in the spam queue. Reason being the last part of the comment directed at the banning policy. I'd advise you to repost the otherwise productive comment without the last part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< link >

So I checked by sending a comment asking if
the name Zachiel was added to the spam filter.

It got stuck in the spam filter too.

ETA - changed "problem" to "probably"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd hate to think that I am the reason no one can comment on art at TT.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 29 2010,15:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd hate to think that I am the reason no one can comment on art at TT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL </delurk
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 05 2010,22:47

Oleg,

Giving you a heads up.

Time will tell if Bradford will react to the OOL paper I pointed him to.

< Magnetism, FeS colloids, and Origins of Life >

I'm still trying to work my way through understanding it, but it looks like the authors are arguing life's complexity started out as frustrated magnets before moving to the RNA world.

I thought the frustrated magnets part would be of interest to you, if for no other reason than to provide a chuckle.
Posted by: Hermagoras on Dec. 06 2010,19:57

What happened to Daniel Smith?  Didn't he used to be on the science side?  Or am I confusing him with someone else?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Dec. 06 2010,20:57

Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 06 2010,19:57)
What happened to Daniel Smith?  Didn't he used to be on the science side?  Or am I confusing him with someone else?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're thinking of someone else. < Here's Daniel's Introductory thread >
Posted by: Hermagoras on Dec. 06 2010,23:16

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 06 2010,20:57)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 06 2010,19:57)
What happened to Daniel Smith?  Didn't he used to be on the science side?  Or am I confusing him with someone else?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're thinking of someone else. < Here's Daniel's Introductory thread >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I'm thinking of someone else.  Another Daniel, or another Smith, who posted sensible stuff on UD (and may have been banned there).
Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 06 2010,23:29

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 05 2010,20:47)
< Magnetism, FeS colloids, and Origins of Life >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting ideas. Ten pages of references makes me think the authors are more than a little insecure. But the basic notion seems OK. I actually like the magnetism idea.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 07 2010,10:28

Dr. GH,

I spent a couple of minutes searching the internet for your background.  From what I found, I very much appreciate your input.

I am presuming this is a rather radical idea; therefore I wasn't surprised by the significant reliance on references to other authors.

I too am being cautious as to accepting this as a plausible scenario.  I don't know enough about frustrated magnets.

I am hoping Oleg will comment on it.

Thanks
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 07 2010,11:37

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 07 2010,10:28)
I am hoping Oleg will comment on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, why not ask world renowned scientist "ID guy"?  He's so class that he knows the content of Behe's latest publication despite the fact it's not even available yet!
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 07 2010,13:31

Yes, I noticed that too.

Apparently Behe has shared his paper with at least one DI fellow, Luskin.

Could it be possible JoeG is a covert operative employed by DI?

"If you make a fool of yourself we will disavow any knowledge of your actions.  This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Joe."
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Dec. 07 2010,16:33

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 07 2010,14:31)
Could it be possible JoeG is a covert operative employed by DI?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it's way more likely he's a covert FCD trying to make ID look bad.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 11 2010,10:30

olegt:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once you understand that, you should be able to determine whether Newton's theory of gravity is better than the angel theory of planetary motion. One of these theories can be used to predict the existence of Neptune and the other cannot. Does that metric make sense?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Daniel Smith:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Nope, because the "theory of angels" is also based on the predictable motion of angels pushing the planets around. (They apparently do this as if constrained by laws of some type.)

Either way – angels or gravity – the theories are based on the predictable movements of nature. If you replace the word "angels" with the word "gravity", you're still in the same place scientifically. Both forces (from a scientific standpoint) DO the same thing. In fact, we don't know that it's not angels doing the work, we just know that the work being done predictably follows certain laws.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< duh. > Funny how Denial Smith failed to address the point that one formulation can predict the existence of Neptune and the other cannot, despite the fact it was the very point he was answering.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 11 2010,14:13

I have < asked > Daniel Smith to fill in the details. Should be interesting.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 11 2010,16:02

FMM:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are lots of ways this could be done but the easiest way would be to substitute the word angelic for the word gravitational in your explanation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He shows how it's done:

Two astronomers, Le Verier and Adams, proposed that these deviations were due to a non-negligible angelic attraction from another planet unknown at the time.

< duh. > These people are operating on a different plane of reality. Their mental models are, well, different. To say the least.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 17 2010,10:38

Bilbo gets upset at outing dippy Joe:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bilbo Says:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:15 pm Hi TP,

I already warned ID Guy and Oleg(t) about playing the "I know your name game." Now I will warn you. No more Joe G stuff. And try not to get sand in your computer.


Comment by Bilbo — December 16, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The trouble is the actual comment from TP is:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, frankly, JoeG-like assertions will effect me even less than usual.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



JoeG-like assertions <> You are Joe G.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 17 2010,12:08

Hi Richard,

Good of you to notice.  It's no secret. And, on cue, ID Guy stepped up with one of his usual comments.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting at an open Kiki bar reading about all the flights cancelled by snow storms.  Here, it's about 75 F (22 C) with a nice breeze, clear blue ocean and pretty sailboats.  And, oh yea, 60's songs playing in the background like < Eleanor Rigby >.

In short...  who cares? :D

Oooh, good Neil Young song is playing now...
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 18 2010,09:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: My point is that in Darwin’s there were no scientifically observed instances of natural selection that he could point to. This is not opinion it’s fact that you have granted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, it's quite amazing. Darwin *inferred* natural selection from the patterns of macroevolution. Since then, microevolution and natural selection have been directly observed, verifying a crucial prediction of the theory.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 19 2010,16:14

Dr. GH,

Thank you for posting a link to your OOL summary.

I hope you don't mind I did a copy and paste of a large section of it and posted it to Telic Thoughts.

< link >

We will see what happens.
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 20 2010,14:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz: These agenda driven crackwhores prefer to use science as a bludgeon to attack religion rather than use it as a tool for understanding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Pez >: Very thought provoking, Chunkdz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 21 2010,00:21

Chunkdz has some thoughts and mean words to say about us:

< http://telicthoughts.com/new-bio-complexity-paper/#comment-264687 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My thought was "I wonder why Thought Provoker thought it was a good idea to link to the website of some drunken-douchebag-ideologue-culture-warrior-demagogue-bigot-who-is-such-a-loud-mouthed-cra
zed-alcoholic-jackass-that-even-the-Pandas-Thumb-can't-stand-him-and-who-is-such-a-whackaloon-paranoid-ultra-uber-liberal-that-he-actually-t
hinks-Ed-Brayton-is-a-supporter-of-the-religious-right."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh Chunk, you phoned that in. Where is your homoerotic panache? You could have thrown in "engorged-man-mean" or "metronomically-relentless-piston-like-thrusts", actually, that second one is a bit too good for you. But keep it thooper-ghay, we'll be supportive when you come out.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 21 2010,02:10

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 19 2010,16:14)
We will see what happens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


C'mon TP, you already *know* exactly what will happen!

The only thing that remains to be seen is why you waste your time over at TT at all!
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Dec. 21 2010,09:49

It looks like comment number 264687 has been "disappeared".

Actually, I hadn't expected the reaction I got from Chunkdz.  Is there some history there?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 21 2010,10:02

Boo. Methinks chickenshit Chunk beleted it because it's not in the memory hole (but some fine work by OlegT is..)

< http://telicthoughts.com/57/ >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 21 2010,10:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 21 2010,00:21)
Chunkdz has some thoughts and mean words to say about us:

< http://telicthoughts.com/new-bio-complexity-paper/#comment-264687 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My thought was "I wonder why Thought Provoker thought it was a good idea to link to the website of some drunken-douchebag-ideologue-culture-warrior-demagogue-bigot-who-is-such-a-loud-mouthed-cra

zed-alcoholic-jackass-that-even-the-Pandas-Thumb-can't-stand-him-and-who-is-such-a-whackaloon-paranoid-ultra-uber-liberal-that-he-actually-t

hinks-Ed-Brayton-is-a-supporter-of-the-religious-right."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh Chunk, you phoned that in. Where is your homoerotic panache? You could have thrown in "engorged-man-mean" or "metronomically-relentless-piston-like-thrusts", actually, that second one is a bit too good for you. But keep it thooper-ghay, we'll be supportive when you come out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just remember Chunkdz, we like our beer cold and our homosexuals FLAMING!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 23 2010,00:00

Geez, every time they get slapped down with a zinger, they memory hole it!

< http://telicthoughts.com/57/ >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
olegt Says:

December 22nd, 2010 at 7:45 am Bradford wrote:


We're witnessing an existing problem being exacerbated by an expansion of regulatory powers unless Olegt does not see the expansion as problematic. Is that it Olegt? More regulation is a good thing?


You have no clue where I stand on the question of government regulation in this (or any other) cases, Bradford, so don't put words in my mouth.

All I did in this thread was object to your over-the-top characterization of the FCC regulating the net as "a tyrannical act." You ain't seen nothin resembling a tyrannical act in your life, chicken hawk.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 23 2010,00:11

Ooooo, I bet that left a mark!

:D


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Zachriel on Dec. 31 2010,08:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: Saying that his biases affected his paper and were overlooked by per review borders on slander.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, boy. Let's take a look.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Behe >: This reasoning can be concisely stated as what I call “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is called a “rule” in the sense of being a rule of thumb. It is a heuristic, useful generalization, rather than a strict law; other circumstances being equal, this is what is usually to be expected in adaptive evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why call it a Rule, then?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< KC >: My comment on his rule is that it's premature, based entirely on a review of short-term laboratory studies (with Lenski's as the exception), and only on prokaryotes. I don't think that's even close to enough to justify coming up with a general "first rule" of adaptation, which Behe specifically believes can be extended to eukaryotes and natural populations as well. For one thing, a lot of factors (budgetary, what research questions are being addressed by the study, etc) contribute to why certain studies are done, and what organisms are chosen. This can skew the results for someone from the outside looking at something that the studies themselves were not specifically addressing. It's a major concern for researchers doing "meta-analyses" of data from numerous studies– they have to take great pains to analyze the conditions and methods of the studies to ensure that unseen biases are not influencing the "meta-picture" of the data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, there are a variety of reasons data can be skewed. We tend to look for the keys where the light is best.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: Claiming that there is secret data is the stuff of conspiracy theorists not science. Saying that his biases affected his paper and were overlooked by per review borders on slander.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite an accusation. Even though his comments concerned the data, KC clarifies further — just to make sure there is no misunderstanding.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< KC >: I didn’t mean to imply that; instead, I should have said it was only the data Behe thought was relevant. And another thing—when I talk about bias in the data, I’m not talking about Behe’s personal biases. I took special pains earlier in this thread to point out that lots of factors can influence the results when doing meta-analysis. These have nothing to do with personal bias. Yet still you assume I was impugning Behe’s motives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course he does.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
KC: You were the one who said my calling Behe’s conclusions premature was slanderous.

< fifth monarchy man >: Again I never said anything of the sort. Here is my exact quote:  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Saying that his biases affected his paper and were overlooked by per review borders on slander.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Parsing pretty fine there, fifth monarchy man. The comments weren't slanderous, never bordered on slander, had nothing to do with Behe or professional reputation, but with his paper.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: If you think Behe cherry picked data and his reviewers did not catch it…… prove it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fifth monarchy man still doesn't understand the bit about how data can be skewed without any purposeful intention by the researcher.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: So in KC’s world claiming the peer reviewers did not bother to properly investigate the bias of a known IDer is pretty much the same thing saying a paper is premature?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fifth monarchy man reiterates his ignorance of peer review.

By the way, KC didn't say that the paper was premature, but that "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution" may be premature. Fifth monarchy man keeps confusing the point. The paper does, perhaps, add a bit to the body of scientific knowledge, however, that doesn't mean it isn't subject to criticism.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: So if we don’t suspect fraud in this case are you saying its ok to trust the peer review process?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Peer review just helps ensure that papers reach a *minimum* level of professional standard while advancing the goals of the publication.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< KC >: Peer review only goes so far. It’s not the last word—how can it be?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A scientist hopes publication is the *first* word of a conversation. If it's the last word, it means the paper is being {gasp} ignored.
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 31 2010,09:19

Interesting comment by Zachriel. As just an outside lurker (mostly), am I right in assuming that a scientist who wants to be and remain a respected scientist have to be careful with his words, and that critics have to be careful that they do not read anything into them that isn't there? (Besides making sure they have a proper understanding of what they criticize, something I think I see demonstrated that they do not more often than we ought to be comfortable with.)




ETA italicized
Posted by: KCdgw on Jan. 01 2011,20:57

IDers just can't stand it when you tell them that sometimes they just don't have the expertise to evaluate a scientific claim.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 01 2011,22:49

They also take it poorly when their expertise in theological matters is questioned, and the more qualified the questioner the less they seem to like it.

I, for one, would be overjoyed to hear an ID advocate whose underlying presupposition concerning the designer was drawn from something other than the usual Abrahamic background. Surely there must be someone out there who cleaves instead to the primacy of, say, the Popul Vuh...


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Zachriel on Jan. 06 2011,08:38

Since they banned most all their critics, < Telic Thoughts > is like watching amateur tennis. They just can't seem to get a decent rally going. Last post over a day ago.

chunkdz: January 4, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
kornbelt888: January 4, 2011 @ 2:33 pm
Guts: January 4, 2011 @ 4:18 pm
johnnyb: January 4, 2011 @ 4:34 pm
Bilbo: January 4, 2011 @ 8:01 pm
Daniel Smith: January 4, 2011 @ 8:21 pm
Bradford: January 4, 2011 @ 10:46 pm
nullasalus: January 5, 2011 @ 12:47 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:35 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:36 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:40 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:54 am

Without arguing against 'evolutionism', it seems < Telic Thoughts > has nothing to say. It's rather sad — like a kid who has no one to play with because he chased off all his friends.


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 06 2011,08:59

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 06 2011,08:38)
Since they banned most all their critics, < Telic Thoughts > is like watching amateur tennis. They just can't seem to get a decent rally going. Last post over a day ago.

chunkdz: January 4, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
kornbelt888: January 4, 2011 @ 2:33 pm
Guts: January 4, 2011 @ 4:18 pm
johnnyb: January 4, 2011 @ 4:34 pm
Bilbo: January 4, 2011 @ 8:01 pm
Daniel Smith: January 4, 2011 @ 8:21 pm
Bradford: January 4, 2011 @ 10:46 pm
nullasalus: January 5, 2011 @ 12:47 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:35 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:36 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:40 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:54 am

Without arguing against 'evolutionism', it seems < Telic Thoughts > has nothing to say. It's rather sad — like a kid who has no one to play with because he chased off all his friends.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch, IMHO.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 06 2011,10:27

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 06 2011,08:38)
Since they banned most all their critics, < Telic Thoughts > is like watching amateur tennis. They just can't seem to get a decent rally going.

{snip for minimalism}

Without arguing against 'evolutionism', it seems < Telic Thoughts > has nothing to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, I'm pretty sure they are quite content with just talking into the toilet and listening to the echo.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 06 2011,11:30

ID guy has the last post on most of the threads atm.

Now that there are no evolutionists messing up the environment over at TT they can get on with the science of ID....
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 06 2011,13:16

Zachriel:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since they banned most all their critics, Telic Thoughts is like watching amateur tennis. They just can't seem to get a decent rally going. Last post over a day ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Kinda like a self-imposed boycott! Has Oleg been banned too, finally? All we need is Nick Matzke and KC to hold off and the implosion of tard will be complete. Now soi-disant philosopher, Nullasalus, is enjoying his new status as a UD contributor, we may even be deprived of his thoughtful contributions at TT. There seems an inevitability with ID sites, Overwhelming Evidence, ISCID, ARN.org. Is there a pattern forming?

ETA a comma

ETA Belated meilleurs voeux pour la nouvelle année, surtout la santé, tout le monde!
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 06 2011,13:36

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 06 2011,11:30)
ID guy has the last post on most of the threads atm.

Now that there are no evolutionists messing up the environment over at TT they can get on with the science of ID....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They caught on to our evil plan to keep them busy to prevent ID research.  We're done for now - hide the ebola and the matches!
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 06 2011,18:30

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 06 2011,11:36)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 06 2011,11:30)
ID guy has the last post on most of the threads atm.

Now that there are no evolutionists messing up the environment over at TT they can get on with the science of ID....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They caught on to our evil plan to keep them busy to prevent ID research.  We're done for now - hide the ebola and the matches!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you mean "we're done-for, now", or "we're done, for now?"  :-)
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 06 2011,21:32

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 06 2011,13:16)
Zachriel:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since they banned most all their critics, Telic Thoughts is like watching amateur tennis. They just can't seem to get a decent rally going. Last post over a day ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Kinda like a self-imposed boycott! Has Oleg been banned too, finally? All we need is Nick Matzke and KC to hold off and the implosion of tard will be complete. Now soi-disant philosopher, Nullasalus, is enjoying his new status as a UD contributor, we may even be deprived of his thoughtful contributions at TT. There seems an inevitability with ID sites, Overwhelming Evidence, ISCID, ARN.org. Is there a pattern forming?

ETA a comma

ETA Belated meilleurs voeux pour la nouvelle année, surtout la santé, tout le monde!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Happy New Year, Alan.

I'm simply bored with TT. Their most frequent commentator is Joe Gallien. And nullasalus you can now < get on UD >, fortified with Vincent Torley. So why even bother?

The title of the latest TT thread looks pretty ominous. < Teh decline effect >.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 16 2011,03:25

Oleg:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm simply bored with TT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But look < here >!

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Take water for instance. what is water – H20 – three molecules [sic]. And yet even in the Bible H20 is treated as if it is extremely important. We look for life by looking for water. Something I did not know for a long time that water is all over our own solar system. The rings of Saturn are predominantly water ice. And Enceladus, the moon of Saturn, is continuously spewing water geysers. There is an ocean of water under the surface of Europa, a moon of Jupiter. There is water ice on Mars. Maybe everyone already knows this – it was amazing to me when I learned it. But the point about water I guess would be in response to those who would say regarding my Scrabble example, "There is nothing viable about the word AND." So what is so great about three molecules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Even without you to prompt them, Oleg, the deep intellectual thoughts continue apace!  :D

ETA link
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 16 2011,04:58

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 06 2011,19:16)
Zachriel:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since they banned most all their critics, Telic Thoughts is like watching amateur tennis. They just can't seem to get a decent rally going. Last post over a day ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Kinda like a self-imposed boycott! Has Oleg been banned too, finally? All we need is Nick Matzke and KC to hold off and the implosion of tard will be complete. Now soi-disant philosopher, Nullasalus, is enjoying his new status as a UD contributor, we may even be deprived of his thoughtful contributions at TT. There seems an inevitability with ID sites, Overwhelming Evidence, ISCID, ARN.org. Is there a pattern forming?

ETA a comma

ETA Belated meilleurs voeux pour la nouvelle année, surtout la santé, tout le monde!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Salut Alan, tout nos voeux pour cette année 2011, et c'est cool de te voir de retour :)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 16 2011,05:51

< JT >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just imagine if this had been a tea-partier that had done it. It would open the floodgates to violent revolution for someone to get the ball rolling like this. Good thing the guy was crazy – that way anyone planning the same thing will think, "I'll probably just be branded as crazy, too." That could have been the intention of whatever organization contrived this little drama for the sake of national security. Nip all this potential thinking in the bud of "We the people…" and it being every citizen's obligation to uphold the constitution. Oh well a point of view, anyway. Not saying its mine necessarily.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So it's taken about a week for the conspiracy theories to kick off.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not saying its mine necessarily.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And I'm not saying Glen Beck murdered a girl, but...
Posted by: paragwinn on Jan. 16 2011,06:17

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 16 2011,05:51)
So it's taken about a week for the conspiracy theories to kick off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's always wise to let the Kool-Aid breathe for awhile before imbibing.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 16 2011,09:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...c'est cool de te voir de retour :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Salut, SD! Mais quoi de neuf? Pas grand-chose, je crois!
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 16 2011,14:07

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 16 2011,03:25)
Oleg:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm simply bored with TT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But look < here >!

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Take water for instance. what is water – H20 – three molecules [sic]. And yet even in the Bible H20 is treated as if it is extremely important. We look for life by looking for water. Something I did not know for a long time that water is all over our own solar system. The rings of Saturn are predominantly water ice. And Enceladus, the moon of Saturn, is continuously spewing water geysers. There is an ocean of water under the surface of Europa, a moon of Jupiter. There is water ice on Mars. Maybe everyone already knows this – it was amazing to me when I learned it. But the point about water I guess would be in response to those who would say regarding my Scrabble example, "There is nothing viable about the word AND." So what is so great about three molecules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Even without you to prompt them, Oleg, the deep intellectual thoughts continue apace!  :D

ETA link
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My bolding.  It's not like, oh, we'd die without water or anything.

ETA - the rest is worse, but I just noticed the "three molecules" - H20 is one molecule, three atoms.  Unless he's referring to some new Triwater - maybe like the Triforce?  Did Jack Handy write this?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 19 2011,05:48

Daniel Smith needs to take a long look at himself in the mirror I think.

< >
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 26 2011,08:20

< Bradford > is a pompous ass:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Telic Thoughts is a mecca for free thinkers not wishing to be bound by the tedious norms of political correctness which afflict America today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep. All three of them.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 26 2011,09:52

Bradford keeps using that phrase 'free thinkers'.  I do not think it means what he thinks it means. (/Inigo Montoya)

Betcha he's one of those folks who likes to use Marxist, Communist, Stalinist, Maoist, Socialist, and Fascist as if they're interchangeable, too.

(eyeroll)

Whatta maroon.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 07 2011,13:05

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 06 2011,03:24)
In case anyone is still following  silent banninations at UD, aiguy, who was tying the usual suspect in knots in < this thread >  (his < last comment >) < reports > elsewhere being put in perpetual moderation.            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I posted a couple times over at uncommondescent, but apparently offended somebody and now I'm on banished to interminable "hold for moderation" purgatory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


aiguy not only tied them up in knots but then proceeded to skewer the lot of em.

< chunkdz >:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that the code of life is globally optimal (given plausible pre-biotic conditions), along with the fact that it hasn't changed significantly in 4 billion years (it's hard to improve upon a global optimum) tells us that the designer of life either got really lucky right off the bat or had learned how to design an optimal code. Evolution is not in the business of making a globally optimal anything.

I think you are looking at the problem as a designer rather than a forensic investigator. 4 billion years into the program we are looking for traces and clues, not hard examples of the designer in action. Or as Mike Gene says, "the faint echoes of teleology".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet only the other day  < Gordon > was arguing that cows could not have evolved. So hardly "the faint echoes of teleology".

This wiki page on < Aurochs >says the designer must have been fiddling round in the plains with them not very long ago at all. Like Gordon says
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Others might want to point out that the body plan involved is well beyond the FSCO/I threshold, so there is a serious question whether we have a mechanism per Darwinist evolutionary theory, that would substantiate that claim, much less observed evidence that would make it conclusive as “fact.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or is it still "just a cow"?

It's all so confusing! That's the thing about ID. You can study at one school but beware should you transfer just before the exams! Same answers written down, but you fail because you changed schools!

It's a shame that there's no central venue where they can all make their case, support with evidence and then all agree to get behind the party that makes the best case and follow that evidence to where it leads.

Oh, er. Um. Yes.
Posted by: Joe G on Feb. 08 2011,11:49

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 07 2011,13:05)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 06 2011,03:24)
In case anyone is still following  silent banninations at UD, aiguy, who was tying the usual suspect in knots in < this thread >  (his < last comment >) < reports > elsewhere being put in perpetual moderation.            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I posted a couple times over at uncommondescent, but apparently offended somebody and now I'm on banished to interminable "hold for moderation" purgatory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


aiguy not only tied them up in knots but then proceeded to skewer the lot of em.

< chunkdz >:          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that the code of life is globally optimal (given plausible pre-biotic conditions), along with the fact that it hasn't changed significantly in 4 billion years (it's hard to improve upon a global optimum) tells us that the designer of life either got really lucky right off the bat or had learned how to design an optimal code. Evolution is not in the business of making a globally optimal anything.

I think you are looking at the problem as a designer rather than a forensic investigator. 4 billion years into the program we are looking for traces and clues, not hard examples of the designer in action. Or as Mike Gene says, "the faint echoes of teleology".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet only the other day  < Gordon > was arguing that cows could not have evolved. So hardly "the faint echoes of teleology".

This wiki page on < Aurochs >says the designer must have been fiddling round in the plains with them not very long ago at all. Like Gordon says
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Others might want to point out that the body plan involved is well beyond the FSCO/I threshold, so there is a serious question whether we have a mechanism per Darwinist evolutionary theory, that would substantiate that claim, much less observed evidence that would make it conclusive as “fact.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or is it still "just a cow"?

It's all so confusing! That's the thing about ID. You can study at one school but beware should you transfer just before the exams! Same answers written down, but you fail because you changed schools!

It's a shame that there's no central venue where they can all make their case, support with evidence and then all agree to get behind the party that makes the best case and follow that evidence to where it leads.

Oh, er. Um. Yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was part of that thread with aiguy and he is as clueless as you are.

And IDists have made our case and supported it with evidence.

OTOH your position doesn't have anything. If it did ID wouldn't even exist. Strange how that works...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 08 2011,12:49

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:49)

 I was part of that thread with aiguy and he is as clueless as you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, you were 99% ignored and speaking to an empty room. On the odd point aiguy picked you up on you were eviscerated for all to see.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And IDists have made our case and supported it with evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes yes, in books, blogs and forums. But not in the only place it really matters.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OTOH your position doesn't have anything. If it did ID wouldn't even exist. Strange how that works...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact those who protest against reality for religious reasons would continue to protest even if we had a DVD of the origin of life and it's subsequent evolution.

If my "position has nothing" then one wonders why it's so successful (99%+ of working biologists support "Darwinism") and if your position has better evidence then why is it not the dominant paradigm?

It's funny, but there are many religious people, universities and even countries that research "Darwinism". One would think they would be on your side, but they are not, they are laughing at you.

Why don't you wander down to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and ask Dembski how his global flood "research" (i.e. reading the bible) is going? That's the future for ID, backwater bible belt universities.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 08 2011,12:53

Oh, and let's make sure everybody knows how Dembski slapped you down Joseph, and the next time your repeat your "targetted search" bullshit I'll be sure to link to this image again

< >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 08 2011,12:56

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:49)
I was part of that thread with aiguy and he is as clueless as you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it's vastly amusing how everybody on that thread was keen, nay, eager to speak to aiguy but nobody gave a shit about your comments and you hardly had any interaction with anybody *but* aiguy on that thread. And that was just a few sentences to gut your "argument" for all to see.

Face it Joe, you are the best possible advocate that ID could have. Put you on the stand and the case will be done and dusted.
Posted by: Robin on Feb. 08 2011,15:46

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:49)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And IDists have made our case and supported it with evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA...

...(breath)...

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Man that's funny Joey!

Here's a clue ID-Joe-joe: when something comes along and bites you on the ass, that is evidence that something bit you on the ass, not evidence that biting your ass has some purpose.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OTOH your position doesn't have anything. If it did ID wouldn't even exist. Strange how that works...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(snicker) Oh Joe...I hope you do stand-up; your jokes are darn funny!

The fact is, "ID" was strong before evolutionary theory was formalized. Now - and you are a prime example of this - it is but a fringe basket into which wingnuts have placed most of their social control aspiration eggs. It has no credibility or power in science and none in technology, to say nothing of economics, finance, business, or heck...even farming. It offers nothing of value to anyone.

OTOH, evolutionary theory, along with other areas of actual science, will continue to be the accepted basis for actual explanations about the natural world and will continue to marginalize what little foot stomping you clowns make.

So, good luck with that stand-up career there Joey boi...it's about the only thing you apparently have going for you! LOL!
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Feb. 10 2011,12:59

Sal makes a mindless argument:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   It's not reasonable to assume that minute quantities of amino acids could ever fuel the origin of life.

   Larry Moraun [sic]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Err, not even LARGE quantities of amino acids. Take a dead and decaying Elephant. Anyone care to specualte whether novel life will emerge out the massive quantities of homo-chiral amino acids in a decaying elephant? So why the belief that a few amno acids can spawn life if a large amount cannot? Answer (to the question of such dogged belief): the priority of the mindless OOL paradigm!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Larry Moran's argument is about the chemistry of linking amino acids.

amino 1 + amino 2  equilibrium arrows water plus dipeptide

dilute soup, lots of water, by leChatelier's principle equilibrium shifts left to individual amino acids.

concentrated amino acids, equilibrium shifts right to form peptide bonds.   High enough concentrations in the ocean are implausible.

Nor is a uniform concentration and temperature expected (equilibrium).  Nor are prebiotic conditions to be even remotely similar to a dead elephant, hence chemical reactions would be different.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Feb. 10 2011,17:06

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 10 2011,12:59)
Sal makes a mindless argument:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   It's not reasonable to assume that minute quantities of amino acids could ever fuel the origin of life.

   Larry Moraun [sic]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Err, not even LARGE quantities of amino acids. Take a dead and decaying Elephant. Anyone care to specualte whether novel life will emerge out the massive quantities of homo-chiral amino acids in a decaying elephant? So why the belief that a few amno acids can spawn life if a large amount cannot? Answer (to the question of such dogged belief): the priority of the mindless OOL paradigm!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Larry Moran's argument is about the chemistry of linking amino acids.

amino 1 + amino 2  equilibrium arrows water plus dipeptide

dilute soup, lots of water, by leChatelier's principle equilibrium shifts left to individual amino acids.

concentrated amino acids, equilibrium shifts right to form peptide bonds.   High enough concentrations in the ocean are implausible.

Nor is a uniform concentration and temperature expected (equilibrium).  Nor are prebiotic conditions to be even remotely similar to a dead elephant, hence chemical reactions would be different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if the precursors to a new type of life have ever started to form, only to be devoured by some passing bacterium?
Posted by: Sol3a1 on Feb. 10 2011,17:45

Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2011,17:06)
I wonder if the precursors to a new type of life have ever started to form, only to be devoured by some passing bacterium?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, that would be my contention on (one of the many reasons) why we don't see "new life" forming

The very base material of "new life" would be "lunch" for so many things

Another is the amount of time it would take to go from the pre-biotic, self replicating cell like o-chem bag of chemicals to actual primitive life forms

Any other things that could stop new life, besides being food and time to do so, that can be used?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 10 2011,20:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who said that?
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 10 2011,21:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any other things that could stop new life, besides being food and time to do so, that can be used?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The chemicals that would be most apt to do that are already in use by extant organisms?

Henry
Posted by: rossum on Feb. 11 2011,03:50

Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 10 2011,17:45)
Any other things that could stop new life, besides being food and time to do so, that can be used?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oxygen.  We no longer have a reducing atmosphere.

rossum
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Feb. 11 2011,10:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any other things that could stop new life, besides being food and time to do so, that can be used?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Teh Designer © is having a longer-than-usual poopy time?
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 11 2011,11:12

Quote (rossum @ Feb. 11 2011,02:50)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 10 2011,17:45)
Any other things that could stop new life, besides being food and time to do so, that can be used?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oxygen.  We no longer have a reducing atmosphere.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that why some people have trouble losing weight?
Posted by: Sol3a1 on Feb. 11 2011,13:43

No longer a reducing atmosphere, excellent, forgot that one

The designer/creator taking an extra long dump, that'll work too

I guess then I can say that the male god has been watching too much porn and spilling his seed in front of some computer instead of doing his duty too
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 11 2011,14:00

Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 11 2011,14:43)
No longer a reducing atmosphere, excellent, forgot that one

The designer/creator taking an extra long dump, that'll work too

I guess then I can say that the male god has been watching too much porn and spilling his seed in front of some computer instead of doing his duty too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Short version: doing his doody, not his duty.
Posted by: Raevmo on Feb. 11 2011,16:11

The < crap > Sal is spouting about diffusion equations in population genetics is just so annoyingly wrong.

Oleg, please be a bit harsher on that clown. At least point out that (1) Kimura is not the pioneer of diffusion equations in popgen, but Fisher (1922) and Wright (1931) were, as Kimura of course acknowledges. (2) The (deterministic) selection part of the equation dominates the (random) diffusion part when Ns>>1. (3) He's a lying SOB with wet dreams about Jeebus taking him in the arse.

Did Sal flunk his physics studies at John Hopkins by now? It's hard to imagine that such an idiot would be able to get a degree in physics.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Feb. 11 2011,17:02

Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 12 2011,07:11)
The < crap > Sal is spouting about diffusion equations in population genetics is just so annoyingly wrong.

Oleg, please be a bit harsher on that clown. At least point out that (1) Kimura is not the pioneer of diffusion equations in popgen, but Fisher (1922) and Wright (1931) were, as Kimura of course acknowledges. (2) The (deterministic) selection part of the equation dominates the (random) diffusion part when Ns>>1. (3) He's a lying SOB with wet dreams about Jeebus taking him in the arse.

Did Sal flunk his physics studies at John Hopkins by now? It's hard to imagine that such an idiot would be able to get a degree in physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it is like the lack of sense of humour. I'm sure that he can pass by memorising equations and following procedures but fails miserably when he has to make intuitive leaps.

I think other than pure ignorance, this is the only reason a creationist can remain a creationist
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 11 2011,19:03

Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 11 2011,17:02)
 
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 12 2011,07:11)
The < crap > Sal is spouting about diffusion equations in population genetics is just so annoyingly wrong.

Oleg, please be a bit harsher on that clown. At least point out that (1) Kimura is not the pioneer of diffusion equations in popgen, but Fisher (1922) and Wright (1931) were, as Kimura of course acknowledges. (2) The (deterministic) selection part of the equation dominates the (random) diffusion part when Ns>>1. (3) He's a lying SOB with wet dreams about Jeebus taking him in the arse.

Did Sal flunk his physics studies at John Hopkins by now? It's hard to imagine that such an idiot would be able to get a degree in physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it is like the lack of sense of humour. I'm sure that he can pass by memorising equations and following procedures but fails miserably when he has to make intuitive leaps.

I think other than pure ignorance, this is the only reason a creationist can remain a creationist
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, the ability to create. The fundamental thing that your average creationist is lacking. Regurgitate, sure. Create? Absolutely not.

The thing about Sal is that he's the sort of creationist that equivocates by saying that "all the required information is not yet in to be able to make a decision". He goes on about DNA sequencing improving in the future and that will prove whatever ID talking point he's currently on. But he's been saying that for years (search my comments for Solextra) and so far, well, if it had happened you can be sure we'd know about it.

So Sal. I saw through you on day one. How's university? I hear that some smart people go there. You get on with them much?
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 11 2011,23:23

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2011,19:03)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 11 2011,17:02)
 
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 12 2011,07:11)
The < crap > Sal is spouting about diffusion equations in population genetics is just so annoyingly wrong.

Oleg, please be a bit harsher on that clown. At least point out that (1) Kimura is not the pioneer of diffusion equations in popgen, but Fisher (1922) and Wright (1931) were, as Kimura of course acknowledges. (2) The (deterministic) selection part of the equation dominates the (random) diffusion part when Ns>>1. (3) He's a lying SOB with wet dreams about Jeebus taking him in the arse.

Did Sal flunk his physics studies at John Hopkins by now? It's hard to imagine that such an idiot would be able to get a degree in physics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it is like the lack of sense of humour. I'm sure that he can pass by memorising equations and following procedures but fails miserably when he has to make intuitive leaps.

I think other than pure ignorance, this is the only reason a creationist can remain a creationist
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, the ability to create. The fundamental thing that your average creationist is lacking. Regurgitate, sure. Create? Absolutely not.

The thing about Sal is that he's the sort of creationist that equivocates by saying that "all the required information is not yet in to be able to make a decision". He goes on about DNA sequencing improving in the future and that will prove whatever ID talking point he's currently on. But he's been saying that for years (search my comments for Solextra) and so far, well, if it had happened you can be sure we'd know about it.

So Sal. I saw through you on day one. How's university? I hear that some smart people go there. You get on with them much?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to be fair, only God can create things, dontcha' know!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 14 2011,02:27

Can't help still glancing in on the off chance of an ID breakthrough by the denizens of TT. < This thread > by Bilbo is a cut above the usual. The projection of Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" is rich but I just love Nick Matzke's put-down to Mike Gene!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My argument that Mars has two moons because that idea gives me a warm fuzzy feeling might be correct, in that Mars has two moons, but that argument is not therefore justified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< link >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 14 2011,09:38

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 14 2011,02:27)
Can't help still glancing in on the off chance of an ID breakthrough by the denizens of TT. < This thread > by Bilbo is a cut above the usual. The projection of Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" is rich but I just love Nick Matzke's put-down to Mike Gene!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My argument that Mars has two moons because that idea gives me a warm fuzzy feeling might be correct, in that Mars has two moons, but that argument is not therefore justified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having read that thread - 2 comments.

1) They aren't getting smarter
2) ID Guy certainly isn't Joe G. 0_o
Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 14 2011,10:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2011,09:38)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 14 2011,02:27)
Can't help still glancing in on the off chance of an ID breakthrough by the denizens of TT. < This thread > by Bilbo is a cut above the usual. The projection of Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" is rich but I just love Nick Matzke's put-down to Mike Gene!

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My argument that Mars has two moons because that idea gives me a warm fuzzy feeling might be correct, in that Mars has two moons, but that argument is not therefore justified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having read that thread - 2 comments.

1) They aren't getting smarter
2) ID Guy certainly isn't Joe G. 0_o
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying there are two IDer's who are masters of the "I know you are but what am I?"  style of argumentation? Holy frak.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 17 2011,14:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: ID Guy, At least Oleg(t) is raising interesting challenges to Johnnyb's ideas and not engaging in insults. And Johnny is taking the challenge. Thus we have an interesting discussion taking place. Whereas you are contributing your usual blather. You haven't crossed the line, yet, but I think I'll ban you now and save myself the trouble of needing to constantly check up on you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Though it's easy to sympathize with Bilbo's impatience with ID guy's blathering, it's still best not to silence, but confront. IDers rarely do this, but pretend not to notice when they espouse contradictory views.

Meanwhile,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< KC >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Olegt: So even though we cannot directly observe the formation of our planet, few people outside of YEC circles doubt that the Earth and the Sun formed 4.6 billion years ago. This is settled science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't be ridiculous. As ID Guy astutely points out, until a video camera with a time travel option is invented, all speculation on the formation of the Solar System is equally valid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gotta love that new iPhone app.
Posted by: noncarborundum on Feb. 17 2011,15:30

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 17 2011,14:32)
 
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< KC >:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Olegt: So even though we cannot directly observe the formation of our planet, few people outside of YEC circles doubt that the Earth and the Sun formed 4.6 billion years ago. This is settled science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't be ridiculous. As ID Guy astutely points out, until a video camera with a time travel option is invented, all speculation on the formation of the Solar System is equally valid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gotta love that new iPhone app.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact, the Solar System was created 153 years from now by a guy with a video camera with a time travel option.  On Saturday afternoon.  At about tea-time.

There.  An "equally valid" speculation about the formation of the Solar System, and I didn't even break a sweat.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 17 2011,16:27

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 17 2011,14:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bilbo >: ID Guy, At least Oleg(t) is raising interesting challenges to Johnnyb's ideas and not engaging in insults. And Johnny is taking the challenge. Thus we have an interesting discussion taking place. Whereas you are contributing your usual blather. You haven't crossed the line, yet, but I think I'll ban you now and save myself the trouble of needing to constantly check up on you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Though it's easy to sympathize with Bilbo's impatience with ID guy's blathering, it's still best not to silence, but confront. IDers rarely do this, but pretend not to notice when they espouse contradictory views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*SNIP*

Expect "Jack" aka Design_Dude to soon join Joe and Jim. IOW the same vocabulary and phrases, which will be attributable to sheer dumb luck.
Posted by: dogdidit on Feb. 17 2011,16:33

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2011,16:27)
Expect "Jack" aka Design_Dude to soon join Joe and Jim. IOW the same vocabulary and phrases, which will be attributable to sheer dumb luck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed it for you.
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 18 2011,22:26

Ha! Bradford has banned me from the thread < Origins, Operations Science and God of the Gaps >. What a sore loser. [Hi Bradford!]

The basic idea of the thread is that "origins science" (Thaxton's term) is inherently less reliable than "operations science" (that of regularly observed phenomena) and that this < giant *epistemological* divide > will forever stay with us.

The highlight of the thread is Joe vying for people's attention. About a third of comments are his.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 19 2011,15:14

Does anyone remember how Bradford claimed he didn't lurk here any more?

Well, it appears that somehow Bradford has the impression ID critics have been extra mean to "ID Guy".

So much so, that Bradford has been giving "ID Guy" a pass on commenting on TT.


< link >
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 19 2011,16:39

Zach,

You might be interested in happenings at TT.

I am challenging Bradford to back up his dishonesty charge of you.

Then again, you might NOT be interested.
:p
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 19 2011,17:00

I think it would be a good idea for them to marinate in their own juice for a while.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Feb. 19 2011,19:36

agreed
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 19 2011,21:07

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 19 2011,16:39)
Zach,

You might be interested in happenings at TT.

I am challenging Bradford to back up his dishonesty charge of you.

Then again, you might NOT be interested.
:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not particularly.

Did check in at the Banned Thread, and they have apparently used the patent-pending Design Detector™ to determine that 3rd Commenter was an a.k.a. for Zachriel. Don't know who 3rd Commenter was, but we hardly knew ye.

< http://telicthoughts.com/the-banned-list/ >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 19 2011,23:08

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 19 2011,15:14)
Does anyone remember how Bradford claimed he didn't lurk here any more?

Well, it appears that somehow Bradford has the impression ID critics have been extra mean to "ID Guy".

So much so, that Bradford has been giving "ID Guy" a pass on commenting on TT.


< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That thread is comedy gold - we censor here via hostile commentry but TT is very open with its secret banning votes (not just Bradford of course!) and policing of other websites for comments pertaining to TT.

BB@TT.
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 20 2011,00:34

Just let the place die....like all the rest of 'em.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 20 2011,03:22

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 19 2011,19:34)
Just let the place die....like all the rest of 'em.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seconded!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 22 2011,07:42

Bilbo has left the building:

< http://telicthoughts.com/good-bye/#comments >

Does he post here?
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 22 2011,07:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2011,07:42)
Bilbo has left the building:

< http://telicthoughts.com/good-bye/#comments >

Does he post here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know about that, but he got slimed by Slimey Sal on his way out the door in the comments section.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 22 2011,10:20

So I don't read Telic Tards very much never have.  think it's the font.  but i just read that butthurt thread about why we need critics.  for fuck's sake bradford is a whiny little sop doll aint he.  the tard quotient is too low
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 22 2011,11:07

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 22 2011,07:54)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2011,07:42)
Bilbo has left the building:

< http://telicthoughts.com/good-bye/#comments >

Does he post here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know about that, but he got slimed by Slimey Sal on his way out the door in the comments section.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was a < good comment: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
# Salvador T. Cordova Says:
February 22nd, 2011 at 4:18 am

May the grace of the Intelligent Designer of the Universe and of Life be with you, Bilbo.

Sal

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I like how Sal didn't talk about the grace of God, because, you know, they are all about the science.  It would be in poor form to inject religion into any discussion, even just an exchange of pleasantries.
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 22 2011,16:17

From Bilbo's blog....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only am I an Intelligent Design proponent, but I'm also a 9/11 Truther.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 23 2011,09:12

< http://telicthoughts.com/open-thread-fire-in-the-disco/ >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford Says:
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:00 am

JAD: It still amazes me the “utter hostility and contempt” some of them have “towards anything that even suggests a designing intelligence of any kind.”

It's grounded in arrogance sourced from very seedy motives. I'll post on this when I get some more time.


Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2011 @ 11:00 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shit shit shit. Bradford's found our 'Wedgie document', and our funding from Howard Ahmanson.
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 23 2011,09:24

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2011,17:12)
< http://telicthoughts.com/open-thread-fire-in-the-disco/ >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bradford Says:
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:00 am

JAD: It still amazes me the “utter hostility and contempt” some of them have “towards anything that even suggests a designing intelligence of any kind.”

It's grounded in arrogance sourced from very seedy motives. I'll post on this when I get some more time.


Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2011 @ 11:00 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shit shit shit. Bradford's found our 'Wedgie document', and our funding from Howard Ahmanson.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gawd....... I hope he doesn't find all our experiments are based on a Mentos in a Coke bottle or that mushroom box on Dave Tard's punt.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 25 2011,03:45

Sal:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A specific criticism of CTMU as an ID theory is that it has yet to show itself as an operationally applicable theory to physical reality.

Notions developed by other ID proponents and creationists have led to testable predictions both in the lab and field. CTMU is not there, nor do I expect it to be. It is a philosophical view of reality, not an operational science as far as I can tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Like what Sal? Anybody care to ask?

< http://telicthoughts.com/blast-f....-265789 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 25 2011,08:48

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 25 2011,03:45)
Sal:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A specific criticism of CTMU as an ID theory is that it has yet to show itself as an operationally applicable theory to physical reality.

Notions developed by other ID proponents and creationists have led to testable predictions both in the lab and field. CTMU is not there, nor do I expect it to be. It is a philosophical view of reality, not an operational science as far as I can tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Like what Sal? Anybody care to ask?

< http://telicthoughts.com/blast-f....-265789 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's easy - Geocentrism. Clearly spawned from creationist views - tested - and found wanting. Young Earth also.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 25 2011,08:52

yeah he didn't say those predictions were confirmed.

DARWINIST YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE
Posted by: Badger3k on Feb. 25 2011,11:10

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 25 2011,08:48)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 25 2011,03:45)
Sal:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A specific criticism of CTMU as an ID theory is that it has yet to show itself as an operationally applicable theory to physical reality.

Notions developed by other ID proponents and creationists have led to testable predictions both in the lab and field. CTMU is not there, nor do I expect it to be. It is a philosophical view of reality, not an operational science as far as I can tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Like what Sal? Anybody care to ask?

< http://telicthoughts.com/blast-f....-265789 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's easy - Geocentrism. Clearly spawned from creationist views - tested - and found wanting. Young Earth also.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait a minute - CTMU?  Is this the same thing as in this long (and amusing) < thread >?

The thing with the self-professed genyus who got his IQ rating off an Omni magazine test?

Interesting coincidence, but what a lot of word salad babble.
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 25 2011,11:33

Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 25 2011,09:10)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 25 2011,08:48)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 25 2011,03:45)
Sal:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A specific criticism of CTMU as an ID theory is that it has yet to show itself as an operationally applicable theory to physical reality.

Notions developed by other ID proponents and creationists have led to testable predictions both in the lab and field. CTMU is not there, nor do I expect it to be. It is a philosophical view of reality, not an operational science as far as I can tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Like what Sal? Anybody care to ask?

< http://telicthoughts.com/blast-f....-265789 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's easy - Geocentrism. Clearly spawned from creationist views - tested - and found wanting. Young Earth also.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait a minute - CTMU?  Is this the same thing as in this long (and amusing) < thread >?

The thing with the self-professed genyus who got his IQ rating off an Omni magazine test?

Interesting coincidence, but what a lot of word salad babble.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The very same.  See also Mark Chu-Carroll's piece < here >, with a guest appearance by Teh Supper Genious himself.

On the subject of ID predictions: according to deep thinker batshit77, ID successfully predicted the existence of the universe.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 25 2011,11:43

There's something very sad about a purported super-genius who has done squat with his/her gift. CTMU is pure woo.
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 25 2011,12:09

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 25 2011,09:43)
There's something very sad about a purported super-genius who has done squat with his/her gift. CTMU is pure woo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to < Wikipedia >, he's received one of the highest accolades in the field of pure woo:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 25 2011,12:34

woo woo woo woo!

oh i wouldn't say he hasn't done squat.  i bet that sombitch could squat a guernsey.  explain the snakes in his head, prolly not so much
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 25 2011,17:57

Professor irwin Corey should sue for having his act ripped off.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 28 2011,15:05

Looks liek Telic Tards' server is having issues:

< http://telicthoughts.com/ >

Another evil Darwinist DDOS attack, Frilly Gilly?
Posted by: KCdgw on Mar. 02 2011,05:40

LOL

< ID Guy: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mmmmmmmm, Ann Coulter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< JAD: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't agree with her on alot of things but I just love her wit and humor.
She's also good looking. Is she married?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: noncarborundum on Mar. 02 2011,08:13

Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 02 2011,05:40)
LOL

< ID Guy: >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mmmmmmmm, Ann Coulter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< JAD: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't agree with her on alot of things but I just love her wit and humor.
She's also good looking. Is she married?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ewww.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 02 2011,09:14

Nice Slapdown from Bill:

< http://telicthoughts.com/blind-c....-265838 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reciprocating Bill Says:
March 2nd, 2011 at 8:35 am This finding sits neatly within an orthodox evolutionary framework. Most important, going to the original paper, it is notable that this research was conducted to test a prediction arising out of that framework, as well as previous observations regarding the results of hybridization. That's how science is done.


Comment by Reciprocating Bill — March 2, 2011 @ 8:35 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 02 2011,09:22

IOW SI hasn't changed, IOW you have failed to provide any positive evidence for your position

*



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not driving home some earth-shattering point here, but I leave readers with this suggestion: Just for fun, consider the ability of these cavefish from a design perspective. If you were assured that these cavefish were designs, how would you regard what's been revealed in this article? What would it say to you about selection, about variation, about species?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what's the suggestion, again?  speculate freely unconstrained by material facts? oh, carry on then.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 02 2011,09:35

Bonus (Joe) Tard:

< http://telicthoughts.com/blind-c....-265841 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Good day to you, sir. What orthodox evolutionary framework would that be? This finding fits neatly within baraminology, which is an evolutionary framework. It also fits in neatly with front loaded evolution. So could you please clarify what you are saying?

Also there isn't anything in the theory of evolution that states take two isoate populations, have random effects cause different damage to the same body part, mate the two populations and have that once damaged body part rgain its original functin.

So please, sir, explain yor comment.


Comment by ID guy — March 2, 2011 @ 11:15 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm. Aborigines and Eskimos can't have babies then.

Please, sir, explain why you are so stupid. DO IT STANDING UP!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 02 2011,09:40

MOAR STUPID JOE



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy Says:
March 2nd, 2011 at 11:18 am The next step is to take these hybrids ith sight, place them into a lightless cave- and see how longs it takes to get 100% blind fish. Then see if there are any new changes that caused the damage.


Comment by ID guy — March 2, 2011 @ 11:18 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe would lament the 'damage' that caused him to loose his tail, if he believed in evolution.

Funny how ID_Guy and Joe are both barking up the same stupid tree - mutations only cause harm!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 02 2011,10:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2011,10:40)
MOAR STUPID JOE

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy Sez:
March 2nd, 2011 at 11:18 am The next step is to take these hybrids ith sight, place them into a lightless cave- and see how longs it takes to get 100% blind fish. Then see if there are any new changes that caused the damage.


Comment by ID guy — March 2, 2011 @ 11:18 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe would lament the 'damage' that caused him to loose his tail, if he believed in evolution.

Funny how ID_Guy and Joe are both barking up the same stupid tree - mutations only cause harm!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


fuck give the idiot a break.  he is cargo culting himself into a reinvention of wheels while real ninjas been rollin wit straight laminar flow for many moons.  

ayo add that shit to the "Thout Experiments Joe Dun Did in His Basement" and shit, but word is bond what that muthafuckahs library access card don't show is that this shit done been worked out see Wilkens 2010 Heredity
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 02 2011,10:51

that thread is gold



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
fifth monarchy man Says:
March 2nd, 2011 at 8:20 am
I would not expect the fish to care about or fix the "junk" eyes.
I would expect them to pitch the dead weight and get on with their lives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



These tards don't realize that they have imbued the events of their entire world with a teleology for which they have less than zero evidence.  

Hey fifth monarchy tard, what makes you think these fish care more about what *you* expect them to do, idiot, than the guy who blows my pizza guy?

Fuck do you think there is some kinda tard hotline straight to the derp of the universe or some shit?  you got a red phone to that muthafuckah?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 02 2011,10:55

techne tards thus



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, certain genomes just have the intrinsic natural inclination to produce eyes and sight. This potentiality is not always actualized just like the potentiality for water to turn into ice is not always actualized (it might be changed into hydrogen and oxygen before it ever had the chance to be actualized into ice or whatever).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



oooh potentialities!  woowy!

my emphasis of the really tardy part that is another example of how fundamental the anthropomorphized teleological antiempirical view of the universe is to tards.

now, genomes have "inclinations".  like, you know, water and ice and stuff.  shit gots an "inclination" to stank and be all sticky and shit when you fall back in that shit

now this ninja be answering the OP and shit



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From a teleological perspective* this study just again confirms the presence of intrinsic finality/natural ends/natural inclinations or intrinsic natural ends/inclinations in nature, this time specifically related to the intrinsic finality of genomes naturally inclined to produce eyes and sight. While they have the potential to produce eyes and sight, this might not be always actualized, but sometimes when it is, it might be functionally relevant to the fitness of the organism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*that's where you tracked the shit in on your shoe, right there.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 02 2011,14:07

haven't read any slimy sal lately



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's all that might be going on here with the fish. The had defective eyes, but each population had different sets of information causing the eye failure.

If this were not the case, then each of the separate populations would have had sighted offspring by now!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



because that is what populations *want* to do right?  poor blind sal running around in the dark and blaming it on his jesus glasses



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The take home:

1. the observation does not affirm the power of selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU WILL AFFIRM THE POWER OF SELECTION OR DENY DARWIN!  YOU WILL AFFIRM THE POWER OF SELECTION OR DENY DARWIN!  YOU WILL AFFIRM THE POWER OF SELECTION OR DENY DARWIN!  YOU WILL AFFIRM THE POWER OF SELECTION OR DENY DARWIN!  YOU WILL AFFIRM THE POWER OF SELECTION OR DENY DARWIN!  YOU WILL AFFIRM THE POWER OF SELECTION OR DENY DARWIN!  

fuck who talks like that anyway.  it's content-free



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. it shows that selection doesn't work to arrest decay of eyesight, if it did, the crossing of populations wouldn't have been needed in the first place to effect the change. They would have still been seeing.

Now if they didn't need to cross populations to create sight, it suggests that the eyesight is environmentally stimulated in the pheonotype. We call that developmental plasticity. One example is that grasshoppers change into the locust phenotype even if there was not a change in the genes, it was front loaded plascticity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



who the fuck is "needing" to do what here?  christ that is some convoluted shit.  and then grasshoppers to locusts... anyone know WTF that is about



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The bottom line, this example is not at all favorable to Darwinian evolution and blindness in organisms has been used by Allen Orr to criticize Daniel Dennett on Dennett's view that selection necessarily leads to design. To paraphrase Orr, seleciton can destroy design as much as build it. He used the example of a blind cavefish or crustacean to illustrate his point — specifically gammarus minus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



why should anyone care what some guys wrote in a popular book ? why do these tards find science almost 3 years old to blog about?  fuck at least it aint harry barrington posting newsweek articles from the 70s.

i miss davescot.  these telic tards are a buncha sad sacks i'd rather read topix
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 02 2011,15:53

Joe posts (in bold!)

< http://telicthoughts.com/blind-c....-265859 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy Says:
March 2nd, 2011 at 5:43 pm The article is about convergent evolution – mutations reaching the same (end-point), albeit different, "solution" in indepedent populations.

The theory doesn't predict that. And thereby doesn't predict the mating of two independent populations will restore the loss.


Comment by ID guy — March 2, 2011 @ 5:43 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/convergent_evolution.htm >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Convergent evolution
In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly >

Think sharks and dolphins, Tardboy. Although I guess he's just parroting what he's found in the article summary, so my beef is with the author also.

Of course evolution predicts different, shall we say randomly selected removal paths for useless functionality. And mixing up via sexual selection can easily bring them back.

The question is, why would a designer fuck with 20 populations of the same fish in different ways to remove ability for sight. He sure is moving in mysterious ways!

edited.
Posted by: KCdgw on Mar. 02 2011,16:17

He's desperately trying to salvage his point. The study (and the topic) isn't about convergent evolution. It's about isolation, divergence, and complementation.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 02 2011,17:28

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2011,09:35)
Bonus (Joe) Tard:

< http://telicthoughts.com/blind-c....-265841 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Good day to you, sir. What orthodox evolutionary framework would that be? This finding fits neatly within baraminology, which is an evolutionary framework. It also fits in neatly with front loaded evolution. So could you please clarify what you are saying?

Also there isn't anything in the theory of evolution that states take two isoate populations, have random effects cause different damage to the same body part, mate the two populations and have that once damaged body part rgain its original functin.

So please, sir, explain yor comment.


Comment by ID guy — March 2, 2011 @ 11:15 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm. Aborigines and Eskimos can't have babies then.

Please, sir, explain why you are so stupid. DO IT STANDING UP!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also, explain PYGMIES+DWARFS!!!!!!!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 02 2011,20:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2011,16:53)
The question is, why would a designer fuck with 20 populations of the same fish in different ways to remove ability for sight. He sure is moving in mysterious ways!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perhaps the designer is bored with the internet and making galaxies and shit so he starts fucking punishing fish with blindness and giving fracteria blagellums and shit.  and joe a penchant for mens boners

joe is a real fucking tard.  like, a REAL one.  for real.  and stuff.
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 02 2011,23:13

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 02 2011,20:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2011,16:53)
The question is, why would a designer fuck with 20 populations of the same fish in different ways to remove ability for sight. He sure is moving in mysterious ways!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perhaps the designer is bored with the internet and making galaxies and shit so he starts fucking punishing fish with blindness and giving fracteria blagellums and shit.  and joe a penchant for mens boners

joe is a real fucking tard.  like, a REAL one.  for real.  and stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey did anyone look to see if the fish had hairy palms?  I mean, maybe they just liked to beat the old fish-meat too much, and, you know, went blind.  Maybe they first started to need glasses, and had trouble typing due to unduly hairy hands, then...er...um....anyway.... :D
Posted by: Acipenser on Mar. 02 2011,23:38

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 02 2011,23:13)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 02 2011,20:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2011,16:53)
The question is, why would a designer fuck with 20 populations of the same fish in different ways to remove ability for sight. He sure is moving in mysterious ways!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


perhaps the designer is bored with the internet and making galaxies and shit so he starts fucking punishing fish with blindness and giving fracteria blagellums and shit.  and joe a penchant for mens boners

joe is a real fucking tard.  like, a REAL one.  for real.  and stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey did anyone look to see if the fish had hairy palms?  I mean, maybe they just liked to beat the old fish-meat too much, and, you know, went blind.  Maybe they first started to need glasses, and had trouble typing due to unduly hairy hands, then...er...um....anyway.... :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well...emm..errr...they do have more 'hair' (superficial neuromasts) on their cheeks.......
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 04 2011,22:38

< Chunky > to RB:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I'll also ban you from this thread since twice you were too chicken to answer my simple question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is all it takes to get oneself banned from a Chunkdz thread?

Wotta dipshit.

ETA: It's not even his thread.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 05 2011,00:07

But ..but... they have a Pantheon!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 05 2011,08:11

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 04 2011,23:38)
< Chunky > to RB:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I'll also ban you from this thread since twice you were too chicken to answer my simple question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is all it takes to get oneself banned from a Chunkdz thread?

Wotta dipshit.

ETA: It's not even his thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RB you can always woo that tard with some waxy purple  prose about how much Wes wants to lick Richard Dawkin's chest hair off.  

Chunky is the kind of tard that doesn't believe in love, just grunting pain, shit smeared sweat and a time-delay self-loathing

Too bad Tyler killed his blag that was some world class repressed homo shit.  Don't repress it Chunk baby we'll love you much more long time if you just be yourself there cupcake.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 05 2011,08:41

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 04 2011,17:38)
< Chunky > to RB:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I'll also ban you from this thread since twice you were too chicken to answer my simple question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is all it takes to get oneself banned from a Chunkdz thread?

Wotta dipshit.

ETA: It's not even his thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where you went wrong is you forgot to agree with him.
Posted by: noncarborundum on Mar. 05 2011,15:13

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 04 2011,22:38)
< Chunky > to RB:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I'll also ban you from this thread since twice you were too chicken to answer my simple question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is all it takes to get oneself banned from a Chunkdz thread?

Wotta dipshit.

ETA: It's not even his thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First < this >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Reciprocating Bill wrote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   This finding sits neatly within an orthodox evolutionary framework.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Orthodox? That’s a term usually used in a religious context.

So what does that make people who question the orthodoxy? Heretics?

Notice how Bill doesn’t make an argument here, just a vague appeal to authority.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then < this >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of evolution doesn't make such a prediction. Convergent evolution- either way (destruction nor construction) is a prediction of the theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I love how "this fits right into standard evolutionary theory" is an "appeal to authority", but "no, it doesn't" is perfectly okay.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 05 2011,20:31

Chunky wanted to make the peculiar claim that there is no such animal as mainstream evolutionary biology.

Ultimately, < Angryoldfatman > made my contrary point for me, apparently unawares:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An UNorthodox evolutionary framework would be something like Intelligent Design or Morphogenic Fields. These do not fit in the Theory of Evolution as the term is currently understood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No kidding. And relative to these alternatives (and Baraminology and Front Loading, two further hopeful guesses earnestly discussed upthread) the paper in question fits neatly within the framework of contemporary evolutionary theory, and utilizes that theory to understand its findings, Chunkdz's concrete exertions notwithstanding.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 05 2011,22:05

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 05 2011,20:31)
Chunky wanted to make the peculiar claim that there is no such animal as mainstream evolutionary biology.

Ultimately, < Angryoldfatman > made my contrary point for me, apparently unawares:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An UNorthodox evolutionary framework would be something like Intelligent Design or Morphogenic Fields. These do not fit in the Theory of Evolution as the term is currently understood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No kidding. And relative to these alternatives (and Baraminology and Front Loading, two further hopeful guesses earnestly discussed upthread) the paper in question fits neatly within the framework of contemporary evolutionary theory, and utilizes that theory to understand its findings, Chunkdz's concrete exertions notwithstanding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, someone should tell Chunky that there are products now that will make his exertions less concrete.


Posted by: Gunthernacus on Mar. 07 2011,11:39

What is funny* is that, while they all jumped into < Bilbo's thread about "Why we need critics" > to say "No we don't"; they can't wait to gang up and shout down any new critic that appears.  They ignore any possible ID "debate" that might be had amongst themselves.  See poor Techne as an example in the blind cave fish thread.  He is mentioned by numbdumbass in the OP, and he posts an < interesting* comment >:            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From a teleological perspective this study just again confirms the presence of intrinsic finality/natural ends/natural inclinations or intrinsic natural ends/inclinations in nature, this time specifically related to the intrinsic finality of genomes naturally inclined to produce eyes and sight. While they have the potential to produce eyes and sight, this might not be always actualized, but sometimes when it is, it might be functionally relevant to the fitness of the organism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of the IDers take notice - they are too busy challenging posts from people whose opinions they don't value.  Maybe after the pounding of the ban hammer has subsided, they will get around to some serious ID discussion.


* Funny/interesting here meaning typical ID dumbfuckery.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 07 2011,12:09

whats there to discuss, they just compete for the wooowiest reformwoolation of the same telic horseshit



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
shit gots an "inclination" to stank and be all sticky and shit when you fall back in that shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



please explain how you could test that.  or, please explain how that is different from actualizing the potentialities of cave fish eyeballs, or why the fucking designer picked Key Cave for the Speoplatyrhinus and not any of the neighboring ones?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 07 2011,15:49

Sometimes the eyes have it, and sometimes they don't?
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 07 2011,19:30

It's highly amusing to watch how a bunch of amateurs are trying to pick apart evolutionary biology. < Nullasalus > can't seem to wrap his brain around the idea that a scientific law formulated more than 100 years ago might not be absolute:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think one problem I'm having here comes down to this: We have 'Dollo's law', and then we have 'people who interpret Dollo's law'. When conflicts are found to the 'law' as plainly stated, they get treated either as contradictions (Dollo's law doesn't hold here, violation found) or as exceptions (Dollo's law was never meant to hold here, no violations found.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone should inform him that < real gases > disobey the < Boyle-Mariotte law >.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 07 2011,19:36

KC and Nick,

You really ought to leave these guys to themselves. They produce lots more hilarity in their natural state. No need to poke.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 07 2011,22:48

word up oleg.  dead cats in boxes and shit

the really sad part is that these folks probly think biology does have laws.  or *should* have them.  in that fallacy they are not alone, but they do have better company than their fellow tard travellers
Posted by: KCdgw on Mar. 08 2011,08:27

Aw, c'mon, Oleg. Admit it--you secretly want to see  how angryoldfatman does it with venn diagrams.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 08 2011,13:06

Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 08 2011,03:27)
Aw, c'mon, Oleg. Admit it--you secretly want to see  how angryoldfatman does it with venn diagrams.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, if you weren't such a big softie, they would have banned you by now.

Srsly, I'm with Oleg. You only give the place an undeserved aura of respectability. It's not as if there are any new commenters. Praps it's for the onlookers!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 08 2011,13:41

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 08 2011,13:06)
Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 08 2011,03:27)
Aw, c'mon, Oleg. Admit it--you secretly want to see  how angryoldfatman does it with venn diagrams.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, if you weren't such a big softie, they would have banned you by now.

Srsly, I'm with Oleg. You only give the place an undeserved aura of respectability. It's not as if there are any new commenters. Praps it's for the onlookers!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They do have a pantheon, you know.
Posted by: Thought Provoker on Mar. 09 2011,08:56

KC,

I don't have an opinion either way on your decision to comment on Telic Thoughts.

However, I did enjoy your bringing up "Darwin being wrong about gemmules".

It is a better example than the one I would have chosen...
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity..."
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 09 2011,09:24

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 09 2011,16:56)
KC,

I don't have an opinion either way on your decision to comment on Telic Thoughts.

However, I did enjoy your bringing up "Darwin being wrong about gemmules".

It is a better example than the one I would have chosen...
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity..."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I dunno
Lord Kelvin had a nice turn of phrase

"Thus we have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall 'wax old as doth a garment,' and that this slow progress must gradually, by natural agencies which we see going on under fixed laws, bring about circumstances in which 'the elements shall melt with fervent heat.' With such views forced upon us by the contemplation of dynamical energy and its laws of transformation of dead matter, dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unillumined by that light which reveals 'new heavens and a new earth.'"

But Heaviside takes teh caek wiht Euclid for children is barbarous

As to the need of improvement there can be no question whilst the reign of Euclid continues. My own idea of a useful course is to begin with arithmetic, and then not Euclid but algebra. Next, not Euclid, but practical geometry, solid as well as plane; not demonstration, but to make acquaintance. Then not Euclid, but elementary vectors, conjoined with algebra, and applied to geometry. Addition first; then the scalar product. Elementary calculus should go on simultaneously, and come into vector algebraic geometry after a bit. Euclid might be an extra course for learned men, like Homer. But Euclid for children is barbarous.

He could have said that about the whole ID crowd especially their much vaunted "math" dudes who don't even know what information is. Hint ....it ain't knowledge.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 14 2011,08:58

Two Shot Tard Monday

1. Before you click through - place your bets. Oleg takes Telic Tards to task for basically being exclusively a bitch and moan fest about critics. He says we should stop engaging them as it may be slowing their research.

Is the response:

a) Oleg is right - to the lab, guys!
b) That's what I mean about critics being all down on us and shit...

< http://telicthoughts.com/open-thread-fire-in-the-disco/ >

How did you do?

2. Another thread - those design 'theorists' are looking for support for a global flood. But they're not creationists!

< http://telicthoughts.com/evidence-for-the-flood/#comments >
Posted by: KCdgw on Mar. 14 2011,09:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is the response:

a) Oleg is right - to the lab, guys!
b) That's what I mean about critics being all down on us and shit...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm suprised they don't hit the lab. After all, they could all hang out in Joe's sate-of-theart basement. Besides, science is easy. Don't need to know all that genetics and stuff. All you need is to be able to spell "epigenetics".

It never fails to amaze me how much these guys think they know about biology.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 15 2011,09:20

what happens when you give a complete fucking idiot an abacus?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador T. Cordova Says:
March 11th, 2011 at 2:26 am
One of the best pieces of evidence for a flood is the fossil record.

From
Ohio State Univ

Fossilization
Starts with burying:

The key first step in the process of fossilization is the burying or otherwise entombing of an organism prior to that organism's complete decomposition.

Often this entombment occurs as a corpse is buried under sediment at the bottom of a lake, stream, river, or sea. This may happen, for example, if an organism is swept away in a flood.



But let us consider how long it takes to bury fossils on average if we assume the mainstream view of layers of dirt piling up over millions of years. A reasonable figure for the average rate at which dirt piles up over millions years is taking a representative height of all the layers of dirt involved in the history of life and dividing it by the number of years. If the layers of dirt are 5 miles high ( a reasonable figure, especially in light of the fact the farthes we've ever dug is 14 miles), then the average rate at which dirt accumulated to supposedly create the fossil record is: 0.017 milimeters a year, and 0.017 milimeters a year is 10 times thinner than a sheet of paper!

The calculation is as follows:

5 miles = 8.333333 kilometers = 8333.333 meters = 8,333,333 milimeters.

8,333,333 milimeters/ 500,000,000 years = 0.17 milimeters/ year

So, for a fossil that is 1 meter high, it will take 60,000 years to bury.

The calculation is as follows:

1 meter / (0.17 milimeters/ year)= 60,000 years

Clearly the fossil will likely be decomposed, eaten by scavangers, destroyed, etc. before becoming fossilized if it sits out there for 60,000 years.

One could of course assert that the rate of burial in my calculation is only an average, and that in between there were fast burials, like floods. Fine. I'll accept that there were fast burials like floods.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



one could of course assert anything, couldn't they sal?  I assert that you are a fool.  Fortunately, that's more than just an assertion, i've got proof
Posted by: Woodbine on Mar. 15 2011,20:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
olegt,

You do realize that to stop ID all you have to do is produce positive evidence for your side. Yet you don't. I say that is because you can't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is Joe-Tard still denying he's ID Guy?
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 15 2011,22:15

Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 15 2011,20:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
olegt,

You do realize that to stop ID all you have to do is produce positive evidence for your side. Yet you don't. I say that is because you can't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is Joe-Tard still denying he's ID Guy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is Joe still failing to address how the following two points are related?

1.  Joe claims that ID is not anti-evolution.
2.  Joe claims that only evidence for evolution will discredit ID.

That basement lab must host some wicked cool parties.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Mar. 15 2011,22:33

Salvador sez:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...But let us consider how long it takes to bury fossils on average if we assume the mainstream view of layers of dirt piling up over millions of years. A reasonable figure for the average rate at which dirt piles up over millions years is taking a representative height of all the layers of dirt involved in the history of life and dividing it by the number of years...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations Sal. You've provided justification that, on average, dead bodies don't fossilize.  I'll alert the Nobel committee.
Posted by: Joe G on Mar. 16 2011,08:19

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 15 2011,22:15)
Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 15 2011,20:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
olegt,

You do realize that to stop ID all you have to do is produce positive evidence for your side. Yet you don't. I say that is because you can't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is Joe-Tard still denying he's ID Guy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is Joe still failing to address how the following two points are related?

1.  Joe claims that ID is not anti-evolution.
2.  Joe claims that only evidence for evolution will discredit ID.

That basement lab must host some wicked cool parties.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1- I and many IDists have not only claimed that ID is not anti-evolution, we have supported that claim.

Don't blame us because you are too stupid or too ignorant to understand that.

2- I have never claimed that only evidence for evolution will discredit ID- never. blipey is either very ignorant or just a retarded liar.

Have a good day....
Posted by: Wolfhound on Mar. 16 2011,08:39

Same old, same old.

"Ima shit out some nonsense and demand that you answer questions about universally accepted science.  If you asswipes don't answer to my satisfaction, it means that my version of reality is true. No, really, it does.  I won't explain how but believe me, I'm right. If you don't agree with me, it's because UR stoopid.  

"P.S., nyah-nyah faggit!"

All science so far.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 16 2011,08:39

Ah - the chickenshit!
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 16 2011,08:58

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 16 2011,08:19)
2- I have never claimed that only evidence for evolution will discredit ID- never. blipey is either very ignorant or just a retarded liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, have you scheduled a meet-up for when he is going to be up in your area?   You know, so you can tell him to his face.
Posted by: blipey on Mar. 16 2011,16:04

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 16 2011,08:19)
 
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 15 2011,22:15)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 15 2011,20:17)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
olegt,

You do realize that to stop ID all you have to do is produce positive evidence for your side. Yet you don't. I say that is because you can't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is Joe-Tard still denying he's ID Guy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is Joe still failing to address how the following two points are related?

1.  Joe claims that ID is not anti-evolution.
2.  Joe claims that only evidence for evolution will discredit ID.

That basement lab must host some wicked cool parties.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1- I and many IDists have not only claimed that ID is not anti-evolution, we have supported that claim.

Don't blame us because you are too stupid or too ignorant to understand that.

2- I have never claimed that only evidence for evolution will discredit ID- never. blipey is either very ignorant or just a retarded liar.

Have a good day....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's see what a noted expert on JoeG had to say about this:

< JoeGallien says: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is it you have to attack ID with your ignorance when all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and support your position with POSITIVE evidence?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That wasn't even a month ago, Frisbee, and you've never said anything new in all the time you've been on the interwebs.

Any comment there, Frisbee Boy?

edited to clean up the messy
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2011,14:11

telic Thoughts is now interesting / educational, due to this new cat, 'Reciprocating Bill', who is posting there:

< http://telicthoughts.com/id-the-....2%80%9d >

I can think of lots of problems with dualism.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Mar. 17 2011,16:22

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2011,05:11)
telic Thoughts is now interesting / educational, due to this new cat, 'Reciprocating Bill', who is posting there:

< http://telicthoughts.com/id-the-....2%80%9d >

I can think of lots of problems with dualism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like the knot analogy. It would also suit the UD arguments about information existing outside of a medium and having zero weight etc.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 18 2011,05:29

Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 17 2011,11:22)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2011,05:11)
telic Thoughts is now interesting / educational, due to this new cat, 'Reciprocating Bill', who is posting there:

< http://telicthoughts.com/id-the-....2%80%9d >

I can think of lots of problems with dualism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like the knot analogy. It would also suit the UD arguments about information existing outside of a medium and having zero weight etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't that a typo. Don't you mean "not-analogy" like analogy with notpology?

Sorry, I had a late night...

I'll get me coat!
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 18 2011,06:08

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2011,14:11)
telic Thoughts is now interesting / educational, due to this new cat, 'Reciprocating Bill', who is posting there:

< http://telicthoughts.com/id-the-....2%80%9d >

I can think of lots of problems with dualism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rich, I am surprised you didn't jump all over < this comment >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID guy Says:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:49 am

How about we are not the same, we are updated forms of our former self.

Comment by ID guy — March 17, 2011 @ 9:49 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See, ID Guy != Joe G.  ID Guy is an updated version of Joe G.  The update involves being able to comment on sites where Joey has been banned.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 18 2011,08:36

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 18 2011,05:29)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 17 2011,11:22)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2011,05:11)
telic Thoughts is now interesting / educational, due to this new cat, 'Reciprocating Bill', who is posting there:

< http://telicthoughts.com/id-the-....2%80%9d >

I can think of lots of problems with dualism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like the knot analogy. It would also suit the UD arguments about information existing outside of a medium and having zero weight etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't that a typo. Don't you mean "not-analogy" like analogy with notpology?

Sorry, I had a late night...

I'll get me coat!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No - read Bill's (Excellent) post on Buckminster Fuller's knot analogy.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 18 2011,08:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2011,03:36)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 18 2011,05:29)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 17 2011,11:22)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2011,05:11)
telic Thoughts is now interesting / educational, due to this new cat, 'Reciprocating Bill', who is posting there:

< http://telicthoughts.com/id-the-....2%80%9d >

I can think of lots of problems with dualism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like the knot analogy. It would also suit the UD arguments about information existing outside of a medium and having zero weight etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't that a typo. Don't you mean "not-analogy" like analogy with notpology?

Sorry, I had a late night...

I'll get me coat!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No - read Bill's (Excellent) post on Buckminster Fuller's knot analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did. Excellent, yes! But not aimed at me. Knot being a dualist I don't knot need no steenking knot-analogy.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 18 2011,08:56

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 18 2011,03:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2011,03:36)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 18 2011,05:29)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 17 2011,11:22)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2011,05:11)
telic Thoughts is now interesting / educational, due to this new cat, 'Reciprocating Bill', who is posting there:

< http://telicthoughts.com/id-the-....2%80%9d >

I can think of lots of problems with dualism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like the knot analogy. It would also suit the UD arguments about information existing outside of a medium and having zero weight etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't that a typo. Don't you mean "not-analogy" like analogy with notpology?

Sorry, I had a late night...

I'll get me coat!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No - read Bill's (Excellent) post on Buckminster Fuller's knot analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did. Excellent, yes! But not aimed at me. Knot being a dualist I don't knot need no steenking knot-analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll go quietly now!
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Mar. 28 2011,14:50

< Guts gets battered by the true scientists in the room. >

First, ID Git leads with a couple quick jabs:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are these lineage specific insertions design differences, evolutionary differences or blind watchmaker diffferences?

Would baraminology, in which chimps and humans don't share a common ancestor but do share a common design, also "actually explain those differences"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then Bung lands the haymaker:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would tiny green monkeys jumping around in human dna proove the hypothesis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch!  There is no answering the ID Git, but tiny green monkeys?  Zing!  At first, I thought it was setting up for a good tard fight - but it was just a bloodbath.  Guts showed up alone to a tard team match and I doubt he'll have the stomach to get back in the ring.  Expect instead for some bowing to design or some hasty new topics to push it off the first page.

(Hey Guts, they're just a little testy and defending YEC is low hanging fruit.  You could get back in their good graces, or at least get them to ease up on you, if you would pop over to UD and show them how to calculate CSI.)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 29 2011,05:51

chunkdz


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point is that using teleology as a working assumption appears to be a very fruitful approach.

In other words:

ID is producing results in the lab.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is TT now a pantomime? "Oh no it's not".

< http://telicthoughts.com/systems....-266640 >
Posted by: Thought Provoker on April 05 2011,12:29

Oleg,

I know it is unusual to do anything other than complain but I have to compliment you on < this TT post >.

You sound like a for-real scientist who cares about his work. ;)

Well done
Posted by: Zachriel on April 13 2011,06:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< chunkdz >: Lynn Margulis keeps pissing off Darwinists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Margulis is a self-described Darwinist. Her argument is with Neodarwinism, which she believes proposes an oversimplified model of mutation and selection.

“I am definitely a Darwinist" — Lynn Margulis
< http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/lynn-margulis-d.html >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on April 13 2011,11:09

Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 05 2011,12:29)
Oleg,

I know it is unusual to do anything other than complain but I have to compliment you on < this TT post >.

You sound like a for-real scientist who cares about his work. ;)

Well done
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, I learned two great things in just a few minutes!  Thanks for pointing this out and thanks especially to OlegT for trying to teach a pig to sing, because while the pig doesn't learn anything, the macaw on the fencepost is learning plenty.
Posted by: Zachriel on April 13 2011,11:45

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 13 2011,11:09)
Thanks for pointing this out and thanks especially to OlegT for trying to teach a pig to sing, because while the pig doesn't learn anything, the macaw on the fencepost is learning plenty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's olegt humming another nice tune; on squaring neo-Lorentzianism with Relativity.

< http://telicthoughts.com/harris-vs-craig/#comment-267025 >
Posted by: olegt on April 13 2011,12:21

Thanks for the compliments, guys. Physics is fascinating stuff.
Posted by: sledgehammer on April 16 2011,10:48

Quote (Zachriel @ April 13 2011,09:45)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 13 2011,11:09)
Thanks for pointing this out and thanks especially to OlegT for trying to teach a pig to sing, because while the pig doesn't learn anything, the macaw on the fencepost is learning plenty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's olegt humming another nice tune; on squaring neo-Lorentzianism with Relativity.

< http://telicthoughts.com/harris-vs-craig/#comment-267025 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OlegT on TT:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Although neo-Lorentzians like to claim equivalence between their interpretation and standard special relativity, it's a stretch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

:D
Posted by: Zachriel on April 22 2011,09:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< aiguy >: The references I produced are sufficient to back up my point: simple agents following fixed rules give rise to complex designs and problem-solving behaviors. If you have other references that contradict that point, it behooves you to produce the citation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: Where stigermy comes in the little big bang is the Daubing reflex, but the little big bang is more than just the Daubing reflex. "Stigermy alone is not sufficient for the little big bang, though." The extended organism: the physiology of animal-built structures By J. Scott Turner p. 189
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That doesn't support Guts' position. If you read the text, there is a 2nd simple interaction. The termites send out a chemical alert of a breach to the mound. (Soldiers may use vibratory alerts.) Though slower than the local action of stigmergy, each termite amplifies the chemical alert until large numbers of termites are involved — a swarm. In other words, "simple agents following fixed rules give rise to complex designs and problem-solving behaviors."

As aiguy certainly knows, this sort of emergent complexity is easy to simulate. Of course, that isn't necessary to his point. It's enough to show that mound-building itself, certainly a complex structure, is due to following simple fixed rules by the individual agents.

Aiguy has done a good job of making his point. The discussion of dogs is pretty interesting. (The following comments are snipped out of context, but give the general idea.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< aiguy >: As for dogs, they obviously abstract (e.g. they form an abstraction of "doggy door", and they can identify instances of this abstraction despite significant differences in shape, size, construction, materials, placement etc.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: It's almost as if you determine an animal to be intellegent by what it does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< fifth monarchy man >: The issue is that you claim that you only want a clear definition of intelligence yet demonstrate that what you really want is to put it to the fundies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fifth monarchy man is becoming somewhat frustrated, but his comment demonstrates he understands people as little as he understands dogs. Aiguy is obviously interested in the nature of intelligence, and has thought about it in some detail, and is aware of many of the pitfalls that fifth monarchy man is falling into.
Posted by: Robin on April 22 2011,10:29

I was just reading through some of the comments on the TT discussion. Nice explanation Olegt! I do have a question though, which was actually asked by one of the participants in the thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
# Techne Says:
April 13th, 2011 at 11:12 am

Hello olegt,

What do you think is the relationship between time and change (change as in stuff changing position or from one thing to another etc.)?

A) Time exist as a result of change. Time is an intellectual abstraction and a mathematical expression to quantify change. Without change there is no time sort of like without mass there is no gravity.
Or…
B) Time exists as some distinct entity or dimension that is different or distinct from the process of change. Time exist as a dimension irrespective of whether there are things that are changing or not.

Comment by Techne — April 13, 2011 @ 11:12 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I freely admit that I have difficulty visualizing the concept of relativity. I get the gist, but have difficulty when it gets down to the nitty-gritty as it were.

As such, while I know that time becomes a "real" dimension in relativity, I don't fully understand why and still wonder, as Techne does in question a, why time can't be an illusionary product of change. Can one of you folks elaborate on that?

Keep in mind that my science background is really ecology and some biology. While I took some physics and get it to some extent, it isn't my strong suit. So if you can "dummify" the explanation, that would be most appreciated.  :D
Posted by: Henry J on April 22 2011,22:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
why time can't be an illusionary product of change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My take on that is that time and change are interdependent on each other. Change just means that relative positions along spatial dimensions can be different for different positions on the time dimension, so the two concepts can't be meaningfully separated.

As for special relativity, I figure that if forces are carried by something that travels along a wavefront, then if an object is moving, those waves have to spend part of their time just keeping up with the object, so it takes longer for forces internal to the object to do whatever it is they're doing. From there, length contraction and time dilation follow from the math.

Henry
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on April 23 2011,07:54

Quote (Robin @ April 22 2011,10:29)
I was just reading through some of the comments on the TT discussion. Nice explanation Olegt! I do have a question though, which was actually asked by one of the participants in the thread:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
# Techne Says:
April 13th, 2011 at 11:12 am

Hello olegt,

What do you think is the relationship between time and change (change as in stuff changing position or from one thing to another etc.)?

A) Time exist as a result of change. Time is an intellectual abstraction and a mathematical expression to quantify change. Without change there is no time sort of like without mass there is no gravity.
Or…
B) Time exists as some distinct entity or dimension that is different or distinct from the process of change. Time exist as a dimension irrespective of whether there are things that are changing or not.

Comment by Techne — April 13, 2011 @ 11:12 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I freely admit that I have difficulty visualizing the concept of relativity. I get the gist, but have difficulty when it gets down to the nitty-gritty as it were.

As such, while I know that time becomes a "real" dimension in relativity, I don't fully understand why and still wonder, as Techne does in question a, why time can't be an illusionary product of change. Can one of you folks elaborate on that?

Keep in mind that my science background is really ecology and some biology. While I took some physics and get it to some extent, it isn't my strong suit. So if you can "dummify" the explanation, that would be most appreciated.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't help much, but perception of time is done by observing change of a phenomenon that is time dependent.  A human's own self is  not unchanging (brain is going all the time, changing thoughts etc), so we would perceive time even without an apparent change in the external environment or stimuli (sort of like sensory deprivation).  However, at the quantum level, even the vacuum has fluctuations (change).
Posted by: olegt on April 23 2011,09:55

Quote (Robin @ April 22 2011,10:29)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
# Techne Says:
April 13th, 2011 at 11:12 am

Hello olegt,

What do you think is the relationship between time and change (change as in stuff changing position or from one thing to another etc.)?

A) Time exist as a result of change. Time is an intellectual abstraction and a mathematical expression to quantify change. Without change there is no time sort of like without mass there is no gravity.
Or…
B) Time exists as some distinct entity or dimension that is different or distinct from the process of change. Time exist as a dimension irrespective of whether there are things that are changing or not.

Comment by Techne — April 13, 2011 @ 11:12 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I freely admit that I have difficulty visualizing the concept of relativity. I get the gist, but have difficulty when it gets down to the nitty-gritty as it were.

As such, while I know that time becomes a "real" dimension in relativity, I don't fully understand why and still wonder, as Techne does in question a, why time can't be an illusionary product of change. Can one of you folks elaborate on that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi Robin,

You're getting into an area that overlaps more with philosophy and psychology than physics. Human perception of time makes things too complicated, so physicists prefer to stay away from that and instead concentrate on the behavior of simpler objects such as clocks under various experimental circumstances. In essence, we use an operational definition of time: it is whatever a precise clock measures. We take it from there leaving it to philosophers to debate what exactly time is.

For centuries, it was taken for granted that time is absolute. In practical terms, it was thought that all clocks should agree. This worked fine until physicists discovered that light is electromagnetic waves. Waves need a medium to travel in, so this medium was called the luminiferous aether. Our experience with other waves taught us that waves travel with a fixed speed relative to the medium, so by measuring the time of propagation one could determine how fast and in which direction we are moving relative to the aether.

Unfortunately, all experimental attempts at detecting our motion relative to the aether (such as the < Michelson-Morley experiment >) failed: the measured speed of light did not seem to depend on the speed of the observer. Lorentz and others came up with a theory that explained the null result of Michelson and Morley by suggesting that the physical forces work so that all objects moving relative to the aether contract and all characteristic times dilate by the such amounts that the measured ratios of spatial displacements to time periods give the same speed of light c.

This was a working explanation but it was a bit unsatisfactory. It painted the constancy of the speed of light in different inertial frames as an elaborate illusion: the speed wasn't really the same, but the meter sticks and clocks in moving frame were out of whack. On top of this, the theory relied on the existence of a very special reference frame, in which things were hunky-dory: the meter sticks really were 1 meter long and the clocks ticked exactly once every second. In other frames, things appeared to work in the same way.

Worst of all, this state of affairs made a travesty out of the principle of relativity (all inertial frames are equivalent). The reliance on the aether suggested, on the one hand, that the principle of relativity was wrong in theory: the aether frame is "more equivalent" than the other inertial frames. On the other hand, you couldn't detect the lack of equivalence, so the principle of relativity was right in practice! These things drove physicists nuts.

So Einstein's proposed a radical solution:
(1) the principle of relativity works, all inertial frames are equivalent,
(2) light travels at the same speed in all inertial frames,
(3) but time flows differently in two frames moving relative to each other.
Point 1 is near and dear to a physicist's heart. It is a cornerstone of physics. Point 2 has been confirmed experimentally over and over again. Point 3 sounds extremely radical to a non-physicist, particularly to a philosopher. But to a physicist who uses an operational definition of time (whatever is measured by clocks) this is more or less a restatement of Lorentz's idea. So 1+2 was enough of a sugar coat to let #3 go down.

Incidentally, in Einstein's original theory of special relativity time was not combined with the spatial coordinates to make a four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime was invented by Einstein's math teacher Minkowski. That was quite useful in practical terms because a point moving through space could be visualized as a line in spacetime. Kinematics (dependence of coordinates on time) was reduced to geometry of worldlines and Lorentz transformations became mere rotations in spacetime. In ordinary space, rotations conserve the length of a line. In spacetime, the analog of length is called the < interval >. Its conservation is related to the constancy of the speed of light.

Spacetime might look like a fancy mathematical concept, but it turned out to be extremely useful in physics. It linked special relativity (physics in inertial reference frames) to the geometry of a flat four-dimensional space.* Einstein realized that he could reduce the kinematics in a non-inertial reference frame to the geometry of a curved spacetime. This realization constitutes one half of the general theory of relativity.**

OK, this comment is about 800 words long, or 100 millitorley according to the < latest calibration >. I'd better stop before everyone's eyes glaze over.

*To be sure, the space is a bit weird: the square of the distance in it is not the sum of squares of all coordinates. You add the squares of the spatial coordinates and subtract the square of the time coordinate.

**The other half is the principle of equivalence: gravity can be simulated by accelerated motion. Remember feeling heavier in an elevator starting up? It's not an illusion, that's how gravity works.
Posted by: Seversky on April 23 2011,11:20

And does block time make more sense than alternative concepts?  Not good for free will, though.*

And inertia.  Inertia is weird.

And what was it like inside the primordial singularity?  Like nothing we see here now is the obvious answer, I suppose.

And why did it go "Bang!" at all?

And if we were able to poke around in the "quark soup" that followed the Bang - without being instantly vaporized, of course - would we be able to observe the roots of everything we see around us now?  Was it all somehow 'folded in' there or was something added to the mix after and, if so, where did that all come from?

Being a physicist can't be easy.

Small wonder some people just say it was designed and let it go at that.  Saves you from an awful lot of thinking.

*Any answer should be less than the threshold value of 500 millitorleys as anything longer will take longer than the current age of the Universe to read and comprehend. (Mainly because you keep falling asleep about a quarter of the way in)
Posted by: fnxtr on April 23 2011,11:57

[quote=olegt,April 23 2011,07:55][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(snip) *To be sure, the space is a bit weird: the square of the distance in it is not the sum of squares of all coordinates. You add the squares of the spatial coordinates and subtract the square of the time coordinate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, I always thought that was kinda weird.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
**The other half is the principle of equivalence: gravity can be simulated by accelerated motion. Remember feeling heavier in an elevator starting up? It's not an illusion, that's how gravity works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Meaning gravity is what, acceleration through space time? Inertia against change in 4-d co-ordinates?  Your feet moving more slowly through time than your head? Weird stuff, indeed.
Posted by: Zachriel on April 25 2011,07:00

Guts seems pretty intelligence, so it's rather odd he can't grasp some very basic points about emergence and termite behavior. He says he has computer experience, but for some reason, he has no understanding of the basic theory. A savant, perhaps.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< aiguy >: My argument to you is essentially that social insects provide a good example of how natural, intelligent behavior can be reduced to simple rules, which leads to the conclusion that other simple rules (natural laws in fact) can in principle lead to the production of complex form and function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: If they are based on simple rules, how is it that they can adapt to local conditions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The funny thing about emergence is that it can be difficult to describe in detail. Like the Mandelbrot set, zn+1 = zn2 + c, the rule is very simple, and you just can't see the inherent complexity of the graph. It has to be shown, not explained. If Guts has never seen a simple simulation of swarm intelligence, that might explain his ignorance.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Guts >: What is your evidence that they are simple rule based individuals?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< aiguy >: citation, citation, citation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The other area of confusion has to do with the concept of reduction, and is rather funny. Aiguy says that complex programs can be reduced to a few simple UTM instructions. Guts takes this to mean that there are only a few lines of code rather than a lot of lines comprised of a few types of instructions (in parallel to lots of termites, each following a simple rule set). Nothing seems to get through to him on this.
Posted by: Robin on April 25 2011,08:46

Thanks much for the replies folks! The 800 or so words is a big help to me Olegt. I'll have to digest a bit, but on the first read I kind of understand the point. Interesting stuff.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on April 25 2011,08:55

Quote (Seversky @ April 23 2011,12:20)
"quark soup"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My favorite appetizer at the Big Bang Burger Bar.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on April 25 2011,11:15

Quote (Gunthernacus @ April 25 2011,08:55)
Quote (Seversky @ April 23 2011,12:20)
"quark soup"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My favorite appetizer at the Big Bang Burger Bar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, quark soup is definitely hotter than primordial soup.
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 25 2011,11:48

You have to admire < aiguy's > persistence in teaching a pig to sing. I almost feel sorry for Nelson/guts and his remaining associates. But then they've created their echo chamber and they've chosen to wallow in it.
Posted by: Badger3k on April 26 2011,00:34

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 25 2011,11:15)
Quote (Gunthernacus @ April 25 2011,08:55)
Quote (Seversky @ April 23 2011,12:20)
"quark soup"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My favorite appetizer at the Big Bang Burger Bar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, quark soup is definitely hotter than primordial soup.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quark soup is made of < People! >
Posted by: Alan Fox on April 26 2011,04:45

< I eat my hat! >
Posted by: NonKarl on June 04 2011,20:52

If you know the person who is outing that well-known Telic Thoughts member on that other blog (not TT), please ask him to stop. If you are that person, then please stop.

Seriously, IDists already have a persecution complex. What is the point of strengthening it?

I came here because a poster from the thread in question is also a poster here. I assume there is some overlap in readership.

If you don't know what I'm talking about then please ignore.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 05 2011,07:02

meh
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on June 05 2011,15:13

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 05 2011,13:02)
meh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever happened to your first answer, which was basicaly what I would have answered too?

You got a PM, didn't you? Well, didn't you?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 05 2011,16:55

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 05 2011,15:13)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 05 2011,13:02)
meh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever happened to your first answer, which was basicaly what I would have answered too?

You got a PM, didn't you? Well, didn't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No PM, but I thought better of telling somebody whose first post it was to fuck off. Not that's what I did onlookers!

I just never got around to updating with the more nuanced version of saying the same thing.
Posted by: Blork McGork on June 05 2011,20:41

I saw the outing before it was deleted by a moderator. But Mike Gene was outed at Panda's Thumb long ago, so I wonder why nonKarl thinks this is some kind of noteworthy development. And it's not like Mike Gene is noteworthy.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 06 2011,03:07

Quote (Blork McGork @ June 05 2011,20:41)
I saw the outing before it was deleted by a moderator. But Mike Gene was outed at Panda's Thumb long ago, so I wonder why nonKarl thinks this is some kind of noteworthy development. And it's not like Mike Gene is noteworthy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, is that all. How unexciting.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 06 2011,10:01

I would like to out Chunkdz as Richard Simmons.
Posted by: Badger3k on June 06 2011,11:02

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 06 2011,10:01)
I would like to out Chunkdz as Richard Simmons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A double-outing - it works on so many levels!
Posted by: Blork McGork on June 06 2011,15:26

I don't see a reason to cagey about it, either. < http://biologos.org/blog....beliefs >

Mike Gene's interlocutor has the same name mentioned at Panda's Thumb. It seems that Mike sorta flipped out, but maybe the context is gone due to other deletions.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 06 2011,16:09

Can someone summarize - I've not been following and have AD....oh look! there's a kitteh!
Posted by: Henry J on June 06 2011,23:45

But how would you know there were deletions?

Were you there?  :p
Posted by: Tom Ames on June 07 2011,00:48

Is Mike Gene still alive? The ONLY reason anyone pays attention to that guy is the faux mystery that he cultivates so carefully.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 07 2011,13:18

Well done in making 'the memory hole' the most informative part of Telic Tards, Oleg!

< http://telicthoughts.com/57/ >

Creationists - so predictable.
Posted by: Alan Fox on June 10 2011,15:25

I know I'm a sad git, still prone to glancing in at the train wreck that TT has become. I only check it out for the oleg gems.

But this made my jaw drop:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz Says:
June 10th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Not the visible spectrum from red to violet, dumbasses. The visible spectrum from black to white.

Comment by chunkdz — June 10, 2011 @ 4:03 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



At what frequency in the visible spectrum do we find black light, oh wise one?
Posted by: Gunthernacus on June 10 2011,15:26

Oh dear, chunky is starting to lose it - posts may start disappearing soon.

It started as a typical TT thread - obsessing about Dawkins and drifting into an absolute morality morass.  But it has hotted up recently.

< chunkdz >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If there were no such thing as pure white then gray could not exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there such a thing as pure white?  Uh oh.  Don Provan tells chunks he is silly.  Just like joe g, chunky suspects he has goofed and starts thrashing, snapping off several quick comments without waiting for reply.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is gray if not a corruption of pure white?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is gray without white?  Utter darkness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By what light, Don, do you claim to be able to discern these shades of gray?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One thing for everyone to notice:

Remember days ago when Don assured us that he took Christianity seriously and did not think it was merely a delusion?

Two days later he is declaring it silly and irrational to proclaim that God is absolutely good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only thing anyone has noticed is your desperate thrashing, chunky.  Don says your prattling about pure white is silly, you play the victim card and try to pretend that he's attacking your gawd.  If anyone were concerned that you might not know what you're talking about, you cleared it up in the your next comment.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually there is pure white in the universe – at the extreme end of the visible spectrum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that the red end or the violet end?  No, wait, don't tell me - the tard end.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Bonus tard >:  Atheists and Christians can share the same morals. But as I just said, atheists have no idea where they come from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That has so much tard packed into it that there's barely enough arrogance to contain it all.


ETA:  See Alan Fox above - chunky isn't done yet.  Be careful, chunkerz, you know how sometimes the TT memory hole gets all glitchy and loses comments altogether.
Posted by: KCdgw on June 10 2011,15:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not the visible spectrum from red to violet, dumbasses. The visible spectrum from black to white
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, what color is next to white?
Posted by: Henry J on June 10 2011,16:12

Ultrawhite?
Posted by: khan on June 10 2011,17:53

Quote (Henry J @ June 10 2011,17:12)
Ultrawhite?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Ultra Brite gives your mouth sex appeal."

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Brite >
Posted by: fnxtr on June 10 2011,20:19

Quote (Henry J @ June 10 2011,14:12)
Ultrawhite?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you're going the wrong way. Infrawhite. Or maybe it's the subdominant. Unless you're in the Mixolydian mode. I always get those confused.
Posted by: Zachriel on June 29 2011,18:59

Looks like Telic Thoughts finally died.

Last comment: June 27, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

Not sure anyone was around to notice, though.
Posted by: Woodbine on June 29 2011,19:28

Then please let it die!

Don't succumb to temptation!

Every time someone posts at one of the moribund ID venues William Dembski sends a kitten to Todd Bentley. You don't want that on your conscience.
Posted by: Louis on June 30 2011,04:35

I have just read that thread. I am now stupider. It hurts me but I liked it a little bit. The visible spectrum from black to white? Holy Happy Sacks in a Blender Batman! Please, please, please, PLEASE tell me this buffoon is joking, that this is an elaborate hoax. Otherwise I might just have to either commit suicide or go on a moron killing spree. I'm not sure which yet. After all, it is quite clear that living in a world where stupid of that magnitude exists is simply intolerable.

Louis

Edit: P.S. Behind the hyperbole I'm actually vaguely serious. Perhaps I woke up on the "sensitive flower" side of the bed this morning, but reading that has actually annoyed me. Having to deal with people who repeatedly refuse to make even the barest intellectual effort and who pathologically exist in a state of bad faith in their interactions with others is causing me to be genuinely angry. And I've just READ the damned thing. I don't even talk to Chunky other than to mock the fuckwit. I think I'm off to punch a moron. Catharsis seems like my only outlet....now which of my colleagues has been especially stupid today already.....hmmmm.....

P.P.S. Oh okay, that last bit was comedy hyperbole too. I won't actually punch anyone. But by golly I'll think about it. And there's nothing you can do to stop me...mwah ha...mwah ha ha ha ha! ;-)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 30 2011,06:28

They've been saying the same things over and over just in different ways for a long time.

And Daniel still has not done any religious science!
Posted by: Louis on June 30 2011,07:17

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 30 2011,12:28)
They've been saying the same things over and over just in different ways for a long time.

And Daniel still has not done any religious science!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I know. Perhaps it's because it's Thursday, but it's annoying me today.

I am on "weaponsofmassdestruction.com" buying myself a bloody great big howitzer in case the Jehovah's Witnesses turn up at my door when I get home today. They're in for a tough time.

Hmmmm that reminds me. Call the Jehovah's Witnesses and make sure they turn up....

;-)

Louis
Posted by: Zachriel on June 30 2011,07:29

Quote (Woodbine @ June 29 2011,19:28)
Then please let it die!

Don't succumb to temptation!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somebody kick it to see if it moves.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on June 30 2011,13:13

Quote (Louis @ June 30 2011,05:35)
I have just read that thread. I am now stupider. It hurts me but I liked it a little bit. The visible spectrum from black to white? Holy Happy Sacks in a Blender Batman! Please, please, please, PLEASE tell me this buffoon is joking, that this is an elaborate hoax. Otherwise I might just have to either commit suicide or go on a moron killing spree. I'm not sure which yet. After all, it is quite clear that living in a world where stupid of that magnitude exists is simply intolerable.

Louis

Edit: P.S. Behind the hyperbole I'm actually vaguely serious. Perhaps I woke up on the "sensitive flower" side of the bed this morning, but reading that has actually annoyed me. Having to deal with people who repeatedly refuse to make even the barest intellectual effort and who pathologically exist in a state of bad faith in their interactions with others is causing me to be genuinely angry. And I've just READ the damned thing. I don't even talk to Chunky other than to mock the fuckwit. I think I'm off to punch a moron. Catharsis seems like my only outlet....now which of my colleagues has been especially stupid today already.....hmmmm.....

P.P.S. Oh okay, that last bit was comedy hyperbole too. I won't actually punch anyone. But by golly I'll think about it. And there's nothing you can do to stop me...mwah ha...mwah ha ha ha ha! ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


just the sort of thing we'd expect you godless athiests to run around thinking about!  i'll put you on my prayer list, i will earnestly beseech God that you can save your miserable soul from a just eternal damnation and hellfire.
Posted by: Richardthughes on June 30 2011,13:21

Maybe they're all down the lab?
Posted by: Kristine on June 30 2011,13:25

Quote (Alan Fox @ June 10 2011,15:25)
I know I'm a sad git, still prone to glancing in at the train wreck that TT has become. I only check it out for the oleg gems.

But this made my jaw drop:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
chunkdz Says:
June 10th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Not the visible spectrum from red to violet, dumbasses. The visible spectrum from black to white.

Comment by chunkdz — June 10, 2011 @ 4:03 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



At what frequency in the visible spectrum do we find black light, oh wise one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is my first and probably my last post on this thread. I had this "no black'n'white, no gray" debate with a friend in college. Said friend became really offended when I said that "Black and white are merely abstractions of gray." But I never said that there were not in fact whiter or blacker grays, or that just because these gradations exist on a continuum we can never say this or that is not, for the most part, wrong or right.

This seems to be the same conversation: If no absolute black or white, then all is the same shade of gray, ergo moral relativism! Which is ludicrous.
Posted by: Quack on July 02 2011,03:08

I may be way off, but wouldn't the radiation, or rather lack of, of a black body at 0°K  be absolute black?
OTOH, I can't see any reason why there should be a limit on the strength of 'white' radiation.
Posted by: Henry J on July 02 2011,16:54

As I understand it, the uncertainty principle implies that some radiation will happen, no matter how close to 0?K that black body might happen to get.

Plus, 0?K won't happen, or at least won't stay that way for more than an instant for two or more atoms. (Of course, for one atom by itself temperature is kind of meaningless.)

Henry
Posted by: Kristine on July 02 2011,18:34

Folks (okay, second post - made a liar out of me) this is all about the blackest and whitest crayons in the box, okay? :D
Posted by: fnxtr on July 03 2011,01:29

Okay, let's be fair: maybe Chunkotard just confused spectrum with intensity.

Or maybe he was sick that day in 9th grade physics when the prisms were handed out.
Posted by: Quack on July 03 2011,09:52

Quote (Kristine @ July 02 2011,18:34)
Folks (okay, second post - made a liar out of me) this is all about the blackest and whitest crayons in the box, okay? :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All right. I know I am off topic and I am not very serious about this, but unless we are dealing with a specific box of crayons, my problem is that according to my understanding of the spectrum of radiation, 'black' is just our name for what we perceive as black while in reality the 'color' may be any shade of infrared. Or maybe ultraviolet?

Maybe we'd need < Goethe > to sort it out for us.
Posted by: Kristine on July 03 2011,11:00

Heh. Yes, Goethe.

Crayon-mixing, key-and-fill instead of spotlights... < And it all leads to this >!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Republican New York Senator Comes Out for Gay Marriage with Awesome Quote
“You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing,” McDonald, 64, told reporters. “You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing. “I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I’m trying to do the right thing, and that’s where I’m going with this.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Next stop...

Posted by: fnxtr on July 03 2011,12:50

Quote (Quack @ July 03 2011,07:52)
Quote (Kristine @ July 02 2011,18:34)
Folks (okay, second post - made a liar out of me) this is all about the blackest and whitest crayons in the box, okay? :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All right. I know I am off topic and I am not very serious about this, but unless we are dealing with a specific box of crayons, my problem is that according to my understanding of the spectrum of radiation, 'black' is just our name for what we perceive as black while in reality the 'color' may be any shade of infrared. Or maybe ultraviolet?

Maybe we'd need < Goethe > to sort it out for us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, black is lack of visible light. White is the porridge of all frequencies between infrared and ultraviolet.  Some whites are whiter than others, depending on the constitution of the porridge.
Posted by: KCdgw on July 03 2011,13:31

Quote (fnxtr @ July 03 2011,01:29)
Okay, let's be fair: maybe Chunkotard just confused spectrum with intensity.

Or maybe he was sick that day in 9th grade physics when the prisms were handed out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. It was simply chunk being an intellectually dishonest douche. Redefine "visible spectrum" on the fly, you see, and   you can call your opponents dumbasses for not reading your tiny mind.
Posted by: George on July 03 2011,13:31

Quote (fnxtr @ July 03 2011,12:50)
Quote (Quack @ July 03 2011,07:52)
Quote (Kristine @ July 02 2011,18:34)
Folks (okay, second post - made a liar out of me) this is all about the blackest and whitest crayons in the box, okay? :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All right. I know I am off topic and I am not very serious about this, but unless we are dealing with a specific box of crayons, my problem is that according to my understanding of the spectrum of radiation, 'black' is just our name for what we perceive as black while in reality the 'color' may be any shade of infrared. Or maybe ultraviolet?

Maybe we'd need < Goethe > to sort it out for us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, black is lack of visible light. White is the porridge of all frequencies between infrared and ultraviolet.  Some whites are whiter than others, depending on the constitution of the porridge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find that if you put sultanas in the porridge, the oaty bits in between seem even whiter.

Hope this is a useful submission for the topic at hand.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 11 2011,12:27

Gah! A link to Vox Day is keeping the life support on!
Posted by: Zachriel on July 14 2011,09:37

It's been a week since Telic Thoughts exhibited a heartbeat. We're going to call it.

Telic Thoughts died at 2 o'clock GMT, some 37 minutes ago. The Vice Telic Thinker has left the morgue, but we do not know to where...
Posted by: Raevmo on July 14 2011,09:55

Quote (Zachriel @ July 14 2011,09:37)
It's been a week since Telic Thoughts exhibited a heartbeat. We're going to call it.

Telic Thoughts died at 2 o'clock GMT, some 37 minutes ago. The Vice Telic Thinker has left the morgue, but we do not know to where...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We can thank a certain nasty little blowhard with a hard-on for third rate homo-erotic prose for that.
Posted by: didymos on July 14 2011,21:12

The corpse just < twitched >.
Posted by: olegt on July 14 2011,21:56

Quote (didymos @ July 14 2011,21:12)
The corpse just < twitched >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah. It was poked. So far no reaction.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 18 2011,14:44

Bah. It twitched:

< http://telicthoughts.com/is-jerry-coyne-a-teleologist/#comments >
Posted by: olegt on Aug. 04 2011,18:28

TT is back! Techne < has discovered > the surest way to fight cancer: a healthy dose of bad-ass scholastics.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the emergence of cancer is a causal process and we want to know what causes cancer and we want to design something that causes cancer cells to die, I suppose a good way to start is to have a proper understanding of what a cause is in the first place. Again, what follows is an attempt to briefly lay out a few important Scholastic concepts with regard to causality as it will be relevant before ditching "random variation" and natural selection" as "explanations" or "reasons" or "causes" for the emergence of cancer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Aug. 04 2011,23:27

Say what?

I'm not a medical researcher, but I'd think that what to look for is something that would selectively kill cancerous cells and only those, while leaving other cells unharmed.

Danged if I'd know how to do that, though, especially as different types would likely require entirely different algorithms.

Henry
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2011,06:19

No new threads for a month now, looks like TT has joined the many many ID websites that have finally realized they've said everything that can be said and called it a day.

Funny really because if you believed what they were saying over there the evidence for ID grows every day and if that were true then sites like TT would be growing too.

Except it's not. So it's not.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 25 2011,14:52

So I just popped over and nothing there is moving. This made me laugh though:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On Heresy
Posted in Climate Change, Design Inferences, Eugenics, Hoax, Scandals, Science, Shoddy Science on November 2nd, 2011 by chunkdz
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine

Yes, but certainly no heresy in religion, please, that would be bad.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 25 2011,16:13

Even shoddy science is preferable to what they are offering.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 25 2011,18:32

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,05:19)
No new threads for a month now, looks like TT has joined the many many ID websites that have finally realized they've said everything that can be said and called it a day.

Funny really because if you believed what they were saying over there the evidence for ID grows every day and if that were true then sites like TT would be growing too.

Except it's not. So it's not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Their websites are devolving?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 28 2011,09:27

Slimey Sal Sighting:

< http://telicthoughts.com/fear....omments >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 03 2012,23:05

Homoporn author Chunkdz laments:

< http://telicthoughts.com/can-a-m....-331055 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are just a dumb bigot...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh to be as enlightened as you, Chunk!
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Feb. 21 2012,06:15

Ugh, it < twitched > and lost a chunk:
Dawkin's ancestors were slave traders! 111eleven!!!
Posted by: Zachriel on July 23 2012,18:02

< DaveScot > posted a postscript on Telic Thoughts.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 12 2012,12:38

Chunkdz embarrasses himself at Telic Thoughts (again).

< http://telicthoughts.com/skip-ev....omments >
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 01 2013,17:26

Telic Thoughts hasn't had a new post since Nov 7. There is some interesting news there though. "Guts", the guy who maintains TT, < has changed from being an "ID Creationist" to a "Skeptic". >

Not using scare quotes there, just quoting him exactly because he doesn't really go into any length, at least in that thread, on his uh...evolution. :-)
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 01 2013,23:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not using scare quotes there, just quoting him exactly because he doesn't really go into any length, at least in that thread, on his uh...evolution. :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe it was intelligent design instead of evolution? ;)

Henry
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 05 2013,14:43

Since Gary's so boring and clueless, I thought I'd mention that the exchange on the TT link I gave, between Guts and several other commenters about his newfound skepticism, is pretty interesting. He mentions Newtown, they say the Problem of Evil is no big problem for theism at all, and he goes on to give evidence--some from his critics' own comments--that it's actually a really big fuckin problem for christianity. Worth a gander.
Posted by: Robin on Feb. 05 2013,15:02

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2013,14:43)
Since Gary's so boring and clueless, I thought I'd mention that the exchange on the TT link I gave, between Guts and several other commenters about his newfound skepticism, is pretty interesting. He mentions Newtown, they say the Problem of Evil is no big problem for theism at all, and he goes on to give evidence--some from his critics' own comments--that it's actually a really big fuckin problem for christianity. Worth a gander.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the reference Steve. Quite enjoyable compared with Gary's...uh...lunacy and UD's crickets.

In reading through, this comment from Daniel caught my attention in particular:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Daniel Smith Says:
November 24th, 2012 at 2:48 pm

   As all fundamentalist kids eventually ask “Just exactly who did Cain,Able and Seth marry?”

And any good fundamentalist parent will answer with Genesis 5:4 – "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." (BTW, I don't think Abel married anyone!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Danny-boy there clearly didn't think through his knee-jerk fundy parent response. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that Caine's and Seth's wives must have been several hundred years younger than their husbands.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 05 2013,19:55

Quote (Robin @ Feb. 05 2013,13:02)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2013,14:43)
Since Gary's so boring and clueless, I thought I'd mention that the exchange on the TT link I gave, between Guts and several other commenters about his newfound skepticism, is pretty interesting. He mentions Newtown, they say the Problem of Evil is no big problem for theism at all, and he goes on to give evidence--some from his critics' own comments--that it's actually a really big fuckin problem for christianity. Worth a gander.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the reference Steve. Quite enjoyable compared with Gary's...uh...lunacy and UD's crickets.

In reading through, this comment from Daniel caught my attention in particular:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Daniel Smith Says:
November 24th, 2012 at 2:48 pm

   As all fundamentalist kids eventually ask “Just exactly who did Cain,Able and Seth marry?”

And any good fundamentalist parent will answer with Genesis 5:4 – "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." (BTW, I don't think Abel married anyone!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Danny-boy there clearly didn't think through his knee-jerk fundy parent response. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that Caine's and Seth's wives/sisters must have been several hundred years younger than their husbands/brothers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:-/

Ew.
Posted by: Robin on Feb. 06 2013,13:26

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 05 2013,19:55)
:-/

Ew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eeewww...I missed that secondary squick factor. Thanks...I think...
Posted by: KCdgw on Feb. 07 2013,06:03

Guts:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
February 6th, 2013 at 1:16 am
go fuck yourself Chunkdz
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Har
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 07 2013,10:23

Quote (Robin @ Feb. 06 2013,13:26)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 05 2013,19:55)
:-/

Ew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eeewww...I missed that secondary squick factor. Thanks...I think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ken Ham is at least honest about this. The Creation Museum informs its young patrons that Adam's children married their brothers and sisters.
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 07 2013,10:55

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 07 2013,08:23)
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 06 2013,13:26)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 05 2013,19:55)
:-/

Ew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eeewww...I missed that secondary squick factor. Thanks...I think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ken Ham is at least honest about this. The Creation Museum informs its young patrons that Adam's children married their brothers and sisters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hurrah for the Universal Moral Code!
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 07 2013,11:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Creation Museum informs its young patrons that Adam's children married their brothers and sisters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



These were purportedly the people who passed down the creation myth(s), thus they would have given birth to creationism.

Creationism/ID--tales told by the highly inbred.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 07 2013,11:01

More of a guideline than a code.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 07 2013,15:49

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 07 2013,10:01)
More of a guideline than a code.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unless the keeper of the code is nearby and armed! ;)
Posted by: MichaelJ on Feb. 08 2013,16:54

Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 08 2013,01:55)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 07 2013,08:23)
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 06 2013,13:26)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 05 2013,19:55)
:-/

Ew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eeewww...I missed that secondary squick factor. Thanks...I think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ken Ham is at least honest about this. The Creation Museum informs its young patrons that Adam's children married their brothers and sisters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hurrah for the Universal Moral Code!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fundies say that the genes in those days were more pure in those days so it was okay to interbreed. This purity is why they all lived for hundred of years.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 08 2013,17:27

Well of course! You don't think the Designer would stick a bunch of detrimental recessive alleles in the first draft of the design, so you?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Feb. 08 2013,17:43

Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 08 2013,16:54)
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 08 2013,01:55)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 07 2013,08:23)
 
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 06 2013,13:26)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 05 2013,19:55)
:-/

Ew.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eeewww...I missed that secondary squick factor. Thanks...I think...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ken Ham is at least honest about this. The Creation Museum informs its young patrons that Adam's children married their brothers and sisters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hurrah for the Universal Moral Code!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The fundies say that the genes in those days were more pure in those days so it was okay to interbreed. This purity is why they all lived for hundred of years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But they also say that genomes and genes and stuff started decaying after the fall...who needs consistency when you have Jeebus.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 15 2013,12:08

1 month since the last comment....
Posted by: Principia on Mar. 17 2013,22:21

Fascinating... Guts loses his < religion >.

I always had a feeling I was dealing with someone had not been honest with himself.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 18 2013,01:25

All the "How could you turn your back on God?" pearl-clutching makes me want to throw up.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 11 2013,11:31

Is the "Telic Thoughts" blog drawing a blank?

The page comes back empty. The sole thing in the page source is an HTML comment saying "default".
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 11 2013,11:50

Their last post was in may mocking Mark Perakh's death. now it's



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------
<html>
<body>
<!-- default -->
</body>
</html>
---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



and the specific link to the perakh page is



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not Found
The requested URL /mark-perakh-dead/ was not found on this server.
Apache/2.2.22 Server at telicthoughts.com Port 80
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



so yeah it's probably as dead as PCID, which doesn't even come up in the first 5 pages of google anymore.

What a burgeoning, productive new branch of science!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Nov. 11 2013,11:58

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 11 2013,06:31)
Is the "Telic Thoughts" blog drawing a blank?

The page comes back empty. The sole thing in the page source is an HTML comment saying "default".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I've been wondering if this blog has finally turned up its toes. Nelson Alonzo (guts) had a few terse exchanges with chunkdz a couple of months ago [eta - probably more than a couple], apparently because Nelson had come to accept evolutionary theory. He did claim that, while he wouldn't contribute further, he would keep the web site maintained. Trouble was there was nobody left to write posts apart from chunk, who managed to alienate the last few commenters with his despicable post on the death of Mark Perakh.

The ARN forum has collapsed too, BTW.
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 11 2013,15:03

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 11 2013,11:31)
Is the "Telic Thoughts" blog drawing a blank?

The page comes back empty. The sole thing in the page source is an HTML comment saying "default".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever happened, it must have occurred within the last week. On 4 November 2013, the Internet Archive preserved what looks like < a perfectly normal instance of Telic Thoughts >.
Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 11 2013,17:19

I guess Telic Thoughts didn't get the telos they were shooting for :-p
Posted by: stevestory on June 27 2014,18:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Server not found

Firefox can't find the server at www.telicthoughts.com.

   Check the address for typing errors such as ww.example.com instead of www.example.com
   If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
   If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: didymos on July 01 2014,00:16

Quote (stevestory @ June 27 2014,16:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Server not found

Firefox can't find the server at www.telicthoughts.com.

   Check the address for typing errors such as ww.example.com instead of www.example.com
   If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
   If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....z8z2AGw >
Posted by: KevinB on July 01 2014,05:51

Quote (didymos @ July 01 2014,00:16)
Quote (stevestory @ June 27 2014,16:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Server not found

Firefox can't find the server at www.telicthoughts.com.

   Check the address for typing errors such as ww.example.com instead of www.example.com
   If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
   If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....z8z2AGw >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think I ever visit, but I gather that a rather more appropriate choice would be

< Somewhere on Youtube >
Posted by: AlexK on May 05 2016,11:40

A funny thing happened the other day which sheds some light on the underpinnings of Telic Thoughts and its aftermath.

For some reason I was on Reddit (I hardly ever go there; I don't have an account) and discovered that clicking on the domain link next to a post gives you a list of all posts from that domain. Out of curiosity I tried uncommondescent.com and the first entry was < a post > about an upcoming "webinar" by Michael Behe. Well I couldn't resist; I created an account and added a comment suggesting two of Ken Miller's books that counter Behe's arguments.

Soon after, my comment was deleted along with a bogus rationale that I "insist[ed] that you not read what Behe says" (I didn't). Being puzzled after failing to reason with the moderator, I looked at his < history > and there was something familiar about the rants: the contradictory position of promoting ID while conceding it's not science, the overwrought microanalyses of minor points, etc. Then I noticed that the account frequently promotes shadowtolight.wordpress.com, which turns out to be Mike Gene's religious blog. That changed my suspicion to a certainty.

So after the death of Telic Thoughts, Gene became a very active religious blogger and moderator on a religious forum at reddit. His postings reveal a pretty hardcore right-wing religious stance along with a pretty hardcore contempt for atheists. Not that there's anything wrong with that per se (some atheists are a bit weird, IMO), but it does appear to be yet another confirmation that ID had been buttressed by religious motivations all along.

Oh, and Gene is an avid Trump supporter.
Posted by: stevestory on May 05 2016,14:40

Naturally, I'm guessing, you made disparaging remarks about The Design Matrix on your way out the door....

:p
Posted by: Dr.GH on May 05 2016,20:02

Quote (AlexK @ May 05 2016,09:40)
A funny thing happened the other day which sheds some light on the underpinnings of Telic Thoughts and its aftermath.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor Poor Mike Gene.


Posted by: Starbuck on May 09 2016,20:28

Mike is a long time critic of behe, and he's not a heavy handed mod, search for alan fox on his design matrix site, put up with that guy forever. Doesnt strike me as a trump supporter either and his shadow to light blog is just a botched attempt at turning the mirror back at atheists, color me unconvinced
Posted by: Starbuck on May 09 2016,21:32

Im guessing the bloke u encountered goes by the name crude
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.