ARN Peanut Gallery II [Archive I]

Xeluan

December 3, 2002, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Clutch:
The obvious analogy -- so obvious that someone must already have drawn it -- is to The Emperor's New Clothes.

I think I used this analogy early on in the thread on ARN (I forget the title) now than started the whole mess in regards to Superbrains. Superbrains only response was to try and bait me into a reply that would invoke the wrath of Mod 4. Ignoring him was far more fun.

Martin Garner wrote the following. I'll leave it to gentle reader to work out who this can apply to.

Xeluan

"[M]ost pseudo-scientists have a number of characteristics in
common.

"First and most important of these traits is that cranks work
in almost total isolation . . . in the sense of having no fruitful
contacts with fellow researchers. . . . The modern crank insists
that his isolation is not desired on his part. It is due, he claims,
to the prejudice of established scientific groups against new
ideas. . . .

"The modern pseudo-scientist . . . stands entirely outside
the closely integrated channels through which new ideas are
introduced and evaluated. He works in isolation. He does not
send his findings to the recognized journals, or if he does, they
are rejected for reasons which in the vast majority of cases
are excellent. In most cases, the crank is not well enough
informed to write a paper with even a surface resemblance
to a significant study. As a consequence, he finds himself
excluded the journals and societies, and almost universally
ignored by the competent workers in his field. In fact, the
reputable scientist does not even know of the crank's
existence unless his work is given widespread publicity through
non-academic channels, or unless the scientist makes a hobby
of collecting crank literature. The eccentric is forced, therefore,
to tread a lonely way. He speaks before organizations he
himself has founded, contributes to journals he himself may
edit, and -- until recently -- publishes books only when he
or his followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed
privately.

"A second characteristic of the pseudo scientist, which
greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward
paranoia. . . .

"There are five ways in which the sincere pseudo-
scientist's paranoid tendencies are likely to be exhibited.

"(1) He considers himself a genius.

"(2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as
ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself.
Frequently he insults his opponents by accusing them of
stupidity, dishonesty, or other base motives. If they ignore
him, he takes this to mean his arguments are unanswerable.
If they retaliate in kind, this strengthens his delusion that he
is battling scoundrels. . . .

"(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated
against. . . .

"(4) He has a strong compulsion to focus his attacks on the
greatest scientists and the best established theories. When
Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works
in that science were violently anti Newton. Today, with
Einstein the father symbol of authority, a crank theory of
physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton. . . .

"(5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex
jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he
himself has coined. . . ."

Xeluan

December 3, 2002, 07:01 AM

Principia,

Check your PM's

KC

Principia

December 3, 2002, 10:14 AM

The latest exchange showing the internal strife amongst the Superbrains:
Ian, some things are better discussed in private. For example, you've told me a lot about [redacted] and lamented the fact that as you approach middle age, you're still [redacted]. I think that discussing these things on an open bulletin board is about as appropriate as your trotting out some obscure paper that Chris has never seen, or wanted to see, and demanding that he recognize your "precedence" for his own ideas (and other ideas long since in the public domain), particularly when he was well-known and well-associated with the CTMU long before you even came to our notice.

Chris has already pointed out that you're not really saying anything that can't be trivially inferred from a simplified diagram of any logic lattice. Yet, you refer grandiloquently to your great "model" of "holistic identity" as though it hasn't been presented a thousand times by a thousand different people in a thousand different contexts. It's positively bizarre. But if you really believe that your great logico-theological insights have been ripped off by someone who's been writing about them since the eighties, and whose ideas are far more sophisticated than your own, then why don't you write your congressman? Congress can then hold a national inquiry on your behalf, and we can finally get the straight skinny on who really ripped who off.

Perhaps your confusion becomes a bit more comprehensible when we consider that, having never been a member of any of the groups in whose printed journals Chris published some of his early papers, you haven't seen them. But when it comes right down to it, that's your problem and not ours. If you want to level an accusation, you need to prove your case. After all, Chris already has credit for the CTMU, and you have nothing whatsoever to do with it. (For that matter, why not go after panentheism for "ripping off" your magnificent holistic-identity model? After all, they "ripped you off" a long time before Chris was even born!)

If you have something further to say to Chris, you might just email him privately. As has been pointed out on another thread, Chris has decided to curtail (or at least, severely limit) his time on ARN.
The redacted sections were personal attacks, apparently referring to Ian's various personal problems that were exchanged in private. They are kept out for Ian's benefit. But the post should give a good sense of the extreme double standards employed by Jack Foster. I believe that there were people who were banned from ARN for much less.

Thanks ahead of time to the person who gave me the quote.

EDIT: Apparently, Genie posted this thing twice. First time, the ARN mod erased it. Second time, she edited a few parts out. After that, apparently, the Mod deleted the entire thread. LOL! Damn, she's persistent! :D

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

DrLao

December 3, 2002, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Principia:
EDIT: Apparently, Genie posted this thing twice. First time, the ARN mod erased it. Second time, she edited a few parts out. After that, apparently, the Mod deleted the entire thread. LOL! Damn, she's persistent! :D
I had hoped she had edited it herself, after she had calmed down, realizing she had been hasty with cruel remarks. Guess not. She was just trying to avoid getting caught again. Pure slime.

Clutch

December 3, 2002, 05:56 PM

Oh, man. I went over and read more closely on the CL threads. What a mediocre bullshit artist, enfranchaised with a massive sense of accomplishment. Gardner's list of crackpot attributes fits this guy perfectly.

DNAunion

December 3, 2002, 08:06 PM

DNAUnion: Gee, it's a good thing I'm not still at ARN. Otherwise, Principia would be giving me a hard time!

Principia

December 3, 2002, 08:12 PM

DNAUnion: Gee, it's a good thing I'm not still at ARN. Otherwise, Principia would be giving me a hard time! Who says you aren't? leonard(e) has you all sniffed out. ;)

scigirl

December 3, 2002, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by DNAunion:
DNAUnion: Gee, it's a good thing I'm not still at ARN. Otherwise, Principia would be giving me a hard time!

Aww, you like it, admit it...

;)

scigirl

pangloss

December 4, 2002, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by DNAunion:
DNAUnion: Gee, it's a good thing I'm not still at ARN. Otherwise, Principia would be giving me a hard time!

Rick, you are a humble, unpretentious, gentleman compared to this egomaniac.

;)

Where have you been hiding these days?

Principia

December 4, 2002, 08:31 AM

From here (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000483;p=5):
mb: ID doesn't even address the origin of observed variation. It is about detecting intelligence.
From this thread, mb tells us yet another natural phenomena that ID does not explain. And ID's explanatory power diminishes at the hands of its proponents yet again...

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]

Principia

December 5, 2002, 07:14 AM

Of course, having too much of 'reality Web' starring the incestuous Chris and Gina Langan will get to anyone's nerves. So, let's not forget some of the acts put up by the veteran IDiots (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000509). Here we read V and L dancing away at the good question: "How does ID explain mous tail genes in humans?" The sample dialogue:

E: So how do IDiots explain it?
I: Genes are multipurpose [Aside: an assertion, which BTW, directly (or indirectly??? can't remember) challenges IC]. Maybe there's really no such thing as a "mouse tail" gene. I don't see how this is a problem for ID.
E: Yeah, so? That's an argument from ignorance. Don't think you answered my question.
I: You're a troll.
E: Buzz off.
I: See, you are a troll. Why take it so personally??
E: Still haven't answered my question.
I: Have too...
E: Have not...
I: Mommirator!!!
:D

December 5, 2002, 07:42 AM

This Wheeling fellow is pretty formidable.

Cheers,

KC

pangloss

December 5, 2002, 08:51 AM

Arrrgh..

And to find out that Genie went to/is at my Alma Mater..

From her pubs, one can see where she spends her time...:

LoSasso GL, Rapport LJ, Axelrod BN, Whitman RD. Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

Neurocognitive sequelae of exposure to organic solvents and (meth)acrylates among nail-studio technicians.
Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 2002 Mar;15(1):44-55.
PMID: 11877551 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2: LoSasso GL, Rapport LJ, Axelrod BN. Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

Neuropsychological symptoms associated with low-level exposure to solvents and (meth)acrylates among nail technicians.
Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 2001 Jul-Sep;14(3):183-9.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: pangloss ]

December 6, 2002, 04:45 PM

To see ARN moderation reach new depths, check this out (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000517).

Mod 4 has decided to delete a long and substantive reply on one of their threads by invoking this clause: "If your style, tone, content or frequency starts to annoy the moderator, then Rule #6 will be invoked." In other words, if the moderator doesn't like what you've said for some vague reason, he can censor it.

I guess it is kind of nice to see an example of how not to moderate a forum. I'll keep it in mind.

December 6, 2002, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by pz:
To see ARN moderation reach new depths, check this out.

Mod 4 has decided to delete a long and substantive reply on one of their threads by invoking this clause: "If your style, tone, content or frequency starts to annoy the moderator, then Rule #6 will be invoked." In other words, if the moderator doesn't like what you've said for some vague reason, he can censor it.

I guess it is kind of nice to see an example of how not to moderate a forum. I'll keep it in mind.

Actually, he left out 'or if it annoys Superbrains and his girlfriend", but that goes without saying.

Cheers,

KC

Dr.GH

December 6, 2002, 09:19 PM

Wes' board is a great alternative fo ID discussion

I have not been posting at ARN for some time. The most recent stupidity by JazzRaptor AKA 'mod4' et al lead me to request to be deleted from their registry. (No, I wasn't that polite about it.)

Antievolution.org Discussion Board (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi)

I would also keep II as the all purpose YEC splatter machine.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]

Principia

December 6, 2002, 09:36 PM

Given Mod 4's post, how does one unregister and become a normal citizen (non-arn forum member). I prefer to not simply stop posting. I would like to remove my registration. (Don't worry I won't come back as some new mutant RB, but if I did would I be a random mutant or designed mutant)

I tried to post to Feedback, but it didn't work. Sorry to take space here.

Maybe its time for ID critics to leave ARN to the ID advocates, it is after all an ID site. We can then see what happens after a few months of "Great Paper Dr. Dembski", "tell me about those mutant shrimp again Dr. Wells", "That mouse trap is a perfect example Dr. Behe, oh and don't forget to mention the staples"

After awhile, we can then see how the big tent holds up, will the panentheists get hot under the collar with the YECers or other 'traditional' Christians? Will the Raelians join the board? Will ARN continue to attract renegage Hi IQ society members?

Meanwhile we ID critics can have our own party.
It's about time...

Principia

December 6, 2002, 11:04 PM

From same thread, Vividbleau takes a stand:
And this crusade is not going to change...so one group leaves and I guarantee another will show up because thats the nature of "crusaders". Even all of you over at the new quasi infidels site will come over here and monitor what goes on and comment over at youre site....guaranteed!! And sure as hell if a newbie comes in here asking some questions you will be over here in a heartbeat to set him or her straight ala the student from Colorado University the other day. You practically devoured him. Wouldnt want any minds to be contaminated now would we?
And of course he misses the point. ARN has lost all semblance of reputation as a forum for discussion -- with great helping hand from Jack Foster and the ID cLoWnS. The next step in the purification of ARN will be to disallow anyone to 'devour' enquiring minds. And then after that? Why JR will just have to pick an ID variant to support, I suppose. But, there are plenty of Internet websites that are anti-evolution. Do any of them actually matter, with or without a critics presence? Why no, of course. Take Baptist Board. Does anyone seriously go there to learn from Helen about evolution and creationism? Or perhaps Dr.Dino's site? Or AiG?

In Vivid's attempt to save some face for the site, he forgets that it is the critics who give any sense of scientific discussion and who legitimize the notion of a 'controversy.' Yet, as often with free gifts, the critics go unappreciated. Trolls and debunkers, indeed!

Anyway, Vivid did manage one great suggestion. Critics can maintain a permanent boycott on the site through PMs. Let's see how long they can last, bickering amongst themselves for the title of Supreme IDiot.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

Xeluan

December 7, 2002, 01:58 AM

Latest post by "nobody" sez that us ID critics are "are actually frightened by what science is showing us about the incredible design of life. The implications are obvious...."

I tell ya. The scientific discoveries pouring out from ID research programmes have me quaking in my booties.

Xeluan

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Xeluan ]

December 7, 2002, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Principia:
From same thread, Vividbleau takes a stand:

And of course he misses the point. ARN has lost all semblance of reputation as a forum for discussion -- with great helping hand from Jack Foster and the ID cLoWnS. The next step in the purification of ARN will be to disallow anyone to 'devour' enquiring minds. And then after that? Why JR will just have to pick an ID variant to support, I suppose. But, there are plenty of Internet websites that are anti-evolution. Do any of them actually matter, with or without a critics presence? Why no, of course. Take Baptist Board. Does anyone seriously go there to learn from Helen about evolution and creationism? Or perhaps Dr.Dino's site? Or AiG?

In Vivid's attempt to save some face for the site, he forgets that it is the critics who give any sense of scientific discussion and who legitimize the notion of a 'controversy.' Yet, as often with free gifts, the critics go unappreciated. Trolls and debunkers, indeed!

Anyway, Vivid did manage one great suggestion. Critics can maintain a permanent boycott on the site through PMs. Let's see how long they can last, bickering amongst themselves for the title of Supreme IDiot.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Superbrains weren't behind it. We have seen how ANY questioning of their dogma--even from those sympathetic to the theory-- is crushed. Just look at how old Ian Goddard and others are treated when they even mildly stray away from total obeisance. We know they have been working with ARN management on the 'troll' (ie, anyone who disagrees with them) problem. They want a forum in which all opposiion is suppressed. and they now have it.

Cheers,

KC

Principia

December 7, 2002, 07:12 AM

They want a forum in which all opposiion is suppressed. and they now have it. As Jesse pointed out, the walkout needs to be quick and decisive (I see JF has erased the thread). There are always going to be die-hards (e.g. dayton, aptamer, JP, etc.) who won't want to quit. But they have to realize that there is always the option of answering these IDiots from another board. The difference that matters is that they'd benefit much more from the moderation policies at any other critic-sympathetic board than losing the ability to confront the IDiots directly. In other words, since ID critics already enjoy the majority -- why fight the battle on the IDiots' own turfs? I suggest beginning the PM campaign ASAP. Nothing flashy on the main boards other than a gentle reminder to check them...

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

Jesse

December 7, 2002, 11:45 AM

I've decided to quit ARN as well. If any ID critics who still post there read this thread, here was my post from RB's deleted ARN thread in which I suggested some reasons for quitting:

If we could get all the remaining ID critics behind it, I think leaving en masse might be a good idea. A lot of us aren�t happy with the moderation�I, for one, don�t like the fact that non-insulting posts are often moderated, and I also don�t like the fact that by the moderator�s own admission, ID critics are held to a different standard because they are "guests" (I think he picked up this line of reasoning from Mike Gene, who has said the same thing in the past, but to me this is a flimsy excuse�I�m a moderator on the internet infidels Science&Skepticism forum, but I don�t hold people to different standards depending on their ideology). Also, I�ve heard from a number of IDists that they think that critics and people with a "debunking" attitude contribute nothing positive to ARN, and they�d rather we left them alone. As RB said, it would be interesting to see what people would talk about on ARN if no critics at all were around.

Anyway, many of the most interesting and informed ID critics�nic, Matt Brauer, Myrmecos, Art, etc.�have either left completely or post only rarely. There aren�t actually all that many of us left, so it wouldn�t be that hard to finish off this trickling-out process. What do the rest of you think?

Principia

December 10, 2002, 05:56 PM

The latest 'carrot' (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000260):
Let's add one called the ID Upper Room. This will be an invitation only forum. We will select 5 of our best arnies from both sides (based on expertise and ability to conduct a friendly dialog). We may also invite special guests like Mike Behe, etc. to join in and get a thread going. Perhaps we rotate folks out every 3 months or perhaps we just add people to the upper room as they demonstrate their qualifications over time. We can then keep a more balanced, civil dialogue going in the upper room and have a new carrot to encourage better interaction in the regular, open ID forum.
LOL, they're trying (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000259" target=) hard... all for what??? :D

*2nd linked thread shows Genie's latest victim -- another one of their own!

It should be pointed out that Dennis refers to Dennis Wagner, the ARN webmaster, or some irrelevant role like that.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

December 10, 2002, 07:00 PM

I guess ARN wouldn't be a site good enough for Langan if it didn't degenerate into earnest discussions on who should be allowed to join.

Cheers,

KC

Principia

December 10, 2002, 07:23 PM

ARN's host (http://www.paulrpayne.com/). Of note are the following other 'partnerships' (http://www.paulrpayne.com/partnerships.php) that this guy is hooked up with:
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (http://www.narth.com/)

Campus Crusade for Christ (http://www.campuscrusade.com)

Texans for Life Coalition (http://www.texlife.org)

Probe Ministries (http://www.probe.org/)

Principia

December 11, 2002, 06:06 AM

This thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000259) is absolutely hilarious. It's like some bad parody of a soap opera:

Vivid: This board is now being boycotted by all the IDCs.PMs have been sent out the last one being to aptamer...evidently he or she doesnt read PMs because one of the boycotters ( who I do respect) had to comeback and ask aptamer to please check PMs.
and like good IDiots trying to draw inferences though their paranoia-tainted glasses, he bungles this one up:
I have been informed by someone I respect that this statement I made in another post in factually wrong.

I retract this statement and apologize to any who were offended by it.
Vivid

And here we see jazz playing the peacemaker:
I agree that joy should NOT leave!

And how about Light Panther as another nominee? I would also think Rock would be great; also Mike B? I think we need one critic and one IDist, and we can throw Rock in as a nuetral party. I'm going to step back some. Maybe I'll get more active when ARN Mod 5 comes back. (<cough> bullshit <cough&gt ;)

I only see Mike B as the critic candidate if he wants to do it, Light Panther and Bilboe as potential IDist canditates. Anyone else? [...] I just got down to mturner's post. How disappointing. Come on, people! We need to get it together here! Joy doesn't leave; Chris and Genie lighten up. Hey, we're all on the same side, here. Let's get respectful. ROTLMFAO

Genie defends her man:
Excuse me, Jazz, but Chris isn't even on this thread (!) and I've said absolutely nothing wrong.

How exactly am I supposed to "lighten up"? I think mturner is acting a little strange and I would appreciate it if you'd give him a warning for his bizarre behavior. Thanks. [...] True, but I hate to see the flamee being singled out. Between the flame-throwing and the flame-fanning, I guess I'd better put on my flame-resistant jammies! (Aside: Ugh, what a most distasteful imagery).

The panentheists fighting for the title of Supreme IDiot: mturner: I don't like being told that I'm too stupid to be able to understand some guy's reconstruction of my religion (panentheism), when he is expressing himself in the most tortured, obscurantist prose imaginable. I too, being every bit as busy as any bar bouncer, have no time to waste playing translator for him.

Superbrains: For example, you write that the term �distributed� means �referring to each individual or entity of a group separately rather than collectively, as 'every' in the sentence - Every employee attended the meeting.� That�s correct, at least as far as it goes. But then you seem to have no idea what this means in relation to what I�ve been saying, despite the fact that it's utterly transparent...

mturner: No, I'm not illiterate, and neither are the two or three dozen other people who have referred to CML's convoluted syntax and neologisms as opaque, not transparent.

And finally, the class act himself: Superbrains: When Genie first told me that I was getting knocked down in the basement here, I blew it off. �So what?� I figured. �It can�t be any worse than it is upstairs.� But now that I�ve come down here and witnessed the bellyaching, complete with allusions to the �favored treatment� I�ve supposedly been getting, I gotta tell you, the exact opposite appears to be true. For weeks, the ID critics were saying virtually anything they liked about me with impunity...and yet, in this very thread, jazz tells me to �lighten up� when I haven�t even been here! Thanks, Genie, for pointing that out to jazz (who usually does a great job, by the way). When it gets this noisy, it can be hard to keep track of what�s really going down.

Incidentally, �DrLao�, I wouldn�t exactly call your own contributions �positive�, either in this thread or elsewhere on the board. So how�s about a brief respite from the complaining? I�m sure the mod would appreciate it as much as I would.

There you have it... the IDiot huddle, and their latest chant: "Please... please... please stop me from complaining..." :D

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

December 11, 2002, 06:43 AM

This was interesting:

CML--
"For example, you write that the term �distributed� means �referring to each individual or entity of a group separately rather than collectively, as 'every' in the sentence - Every employee attended the meeting.� That�s correct, at least as far as it goes. But then you seem to have no idea what this means in relation to what I�ve been saying, despite the fact that it's utterly transparent;"

Langan shouldn't be lecturing people on using terms differently, considering how he uses the term 'random', as opposed to evolutionary biologists.

Cheers,

KC

Principia

December 11, 2002, 06:47 AM

mturner: What a dumb thing to say, Langan, when anyone can easily compare your characterization with my actual post!! Keep on shooting yourself in the foot, gunslinger. It's really comical watching you self-destruct.
Oh the irony...

BTW, for whoever is thinking about joining ARN: please don't. There is just so much entertainment value having the IDiots bickering among themselves, that it isn't fair for the rest of us if you ruined it. ;)

EDIT: OOh... the backlash (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000259;p=2) against the Superbrains has begun. First joy, then jazz, mturner...

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

Principia

December 13, 2002, 07:30 AM

Chris Langan's self-analysis (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000267), in a Bawrbwa-Walteresque interview:
BW: [snip kiss-ass stuff ...] Anyway (yeah, what a preamble!) do people treat you differently AFTER they are informed about your high IQ? What about people who knew you way back when (assuming your intelligence wasn't ALWAYS so obvious to casual observers). In short, how do (how have) people react(ed) to you?

If it is too personal then no problem! (I only ask in the open queue because I thought others might be interested in this too!) [snip brown-nosing stuff]
Superbrains: Hi, [interviewer too paranoid to be revealed]. I usually don�t answer questions like this, but in view of your uncommon congeniality (for ARN!), I see no harm in it. I�d say that the way people react to me is very much a reflection of who they are. I guess it�s mainly a matter of security or insecurity � I get along fine with those who don�t feel threatened by me, and sometimes not so well with those who do. Normal people, e.g. those with whom I've worked in the bar biz, have generally remained on friendly terms with me. That�s probably at least partially because they know from experience that I�m not the kind of person who intellectually bludgeons my conversation partners (at least without dire provocation).

On the other hand, people with insecurities, especially of the intellectual variety, tend to feel threatened even when there�s no need for it. One especially problematic group consists of compulsive, opinionated debate aficionados who are sufficiently intelligent to have had little experience with defeat, and find it very hard to handle when it unexpectedly happens. Another is the rich and/or powerful, many of whom seem to infer from their relatively high levels of wealth and/or influence that they�re on an intellectual par with Einstein despite their relatively unexceptional intellects. While society encourages people to equate intelligence with success, status and prestige, it�s common knowledge that above a certain IQ level, these things tend to correlate negatively with intelligence. In fact, they say that too much intelligence makes it very difficult to communicate with normal and even moderately bright people.

By the way, I too liked the movie �Phenomenon�. John Travolta did have a few problems of the kind you mention, but as I recall, he didn�t exactly downplay his newfound intellectual superiority either. I think that if he�d lived longer, most of his friends and acquaintances would have grown comfortable with him again. After all, he was basically a very nice guy!

I hope this helps assuage your curiosity.
LOL

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

December 13, 2002, 08:31 AM

Just a suggestion...

ARN has become a thoroughly uninteresting forum. Most of the insightful and informed contributors there are abandoning the place to the tedious and ignorant crowd that is taking over.

That leaves me wondering why anyone here should care anymore about the noise and personalities at that site. I'd like to suggest that we all just drop this topic altogether and move on to something more constructive.

I'm not yet proposing to do anything about this as moderator, so don't worry, if you want to giggle over the latest insipidity from one of the megabrains, I'm not going to edit posts or close threads. I would like to encourage more thoughtful analysis of actual creationist/IDist claims, though. If you must drag over something from ARN for consideration because the moderator there is censoring criticism, make it an idea rather than a person.

pangloss

December 13, 2002, 09:45 AM

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000237;p=3

Observe more SUperbarins and cheerleader antics (no wonder nobody takes this schmuck seriously!).

I also like the fact that Jazz is no longer squeemish about the fact that he now wears kneepads and carries a box of Kleenex everytime Langan enters the forum....

Sickening, really.

Principia

December 20, 2002, 01:03 PM

It looks like that Superbrains (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000545) may have been banned from ARN. Details to follow?

Gina: Our accounts have been blocked. We received no email from the moderators. I assumed it was a glitch and I created two new accounts and notified the moderators, but those were deleted.

I'm not sure what forum rules we violated but if anyone can clarify the situation, we'd appreciate it.

Genie
(for Chris also)

EDIT: apparently mturner was suspended too!

EDIT2: An ode from a fellow Chris Langan fan (offsite):
Ode to Chris Langan

He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started

Get this party started on a business day, right!
Everyone was waitin' for him to nosedive
Sendin' out the message to all of his friends
They'll be lookin' trashy in the microscope lens
He got lotsa bile, got his prejudice things
He can go for miles if you know what I mean
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started

Pumpin up the volume, breakin down' to the beat
Cruisin' through the website
He'll be checkin' the scene
Messageboard is freakin' as he's reactin' fast
He'll be burnin' rubber, he'll be kissin' your a**
Pull up to the bumper, get out of the car
License plate says HIQ #1 Superstar

He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
Get this party started

Makin' my connection as he exits the room
Everybody's chillin' as we set the new groove
Pumpin' up the volume with this brand new beat
Everybody's dancin' and they're dancin' with glee
He's an operator, you can tell from his whine
He'll be your connection to the banning line

He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
He's getting banned so you better you better get this party started
Get this party started
Get this party started right now
Get this party started
Get this party started
Get this party started right now

EDIT3: I view this latest episode as a slap in the face of ARN Mod 4 (yes, you all know who I am talking about). It took another moderator to do what Mod #4 didn't have the guts to do.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

RufusAtticus

December 20, 2002, 01:22 PM

Like miss manners always says, charm and tact will get you anywhere.

RBH

December 20, 2002, 07:59 PM

Principia wrote It looks like that Superbrains may have been banned from ARN. Details to follow?It appears that thread's been erased. Anyone archive it?

RBH

Principia

December 20, 2002, 08:07 PM

RBH,

The Gina quote was about all that I caught on that thread. Apparently Chris had a last word for the entire board before the moderator erased it.

The word is that they have been suspended. Mturner (also suspended) was given a chance to return in January, so I'm guessing that's about how long a reprieve the ARN people have from Superbrains...

DrLao

December 20, 2002, 08:54 PM

Gina is still trying to post as askfifi, but she is getting deleted. It's kind of funny to hear Langan rant and whine against the pseudonyms used at ARN when his old lady's first(?) handle there was just that.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: DrLao ]

RBH

December 20, 2002, 09:26 PM

Posted by Leonard on the ARN Humo(u)r Forum in a thread titled The Case of the Invisible Couple: (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000406):
"It's elementary my dear Watson! Two people, walking on the moor can't simply vanish into thin aire! On the contrary I suspect foul play!"

"Extraordinary, Holmes! How, ummm, did you deduct THAT?!"

"Grammatical, my dear Watson! We have the footprints of the two walking side by side, correct?"

"Quite so. Go on."

"Then suddenly, where the bog begins, the footsteps end. What do you deduce from that, Watson?"

"Well, that they fell into the bog, I suppose!"

"Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. See those bent reeds?
What do you suppose they were bent by?"

"Dogs?"

"No. A whirlybird. It was the old mod-ex-machina trick. The kidnappers want us to think that they fell into the bog. In reality, they were whisked away to another message---- I mean moor. Do you see?"

"By Jove, you've done it, Holmes! You've solved the Case of the Invisible Couple!"
;)
RBH

December 21, 2002, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by DrLao:
Gina is still trying to post as askfifi, but she is getting deleted. It's kind of funny to hear Langan rant and whine against the pseudonyms used at ARN when his old lady's first(?) handle there was just that.

Actually, he has said he is OK with pseudonyms if there is a good reason to use one, which is how he rationalizes away Mike Gene. Of course, seeing how the Superbrains treat personal information revealed to them (as in poor Ian Goddard's case), why would anyone in their right mind let them know anything like that?

Cheers,

KC

Principia

December 28, 2002, 01:00 PM

A valiant effort to dismiss (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000264) the Christian Reconstructionist movement behind DI, from PLA:
This is old news. Howard and Roberta Ahmanson's funding of the Discovery Institute has been common knowledge in the ID debate circles for years. Why the Cleveland Plain Dealer just learned about it raises questions about the reporting skill of the PD's staff, more than anything else. I guess by that some token, we ought to dismiss the pro-ID articles that showed up on the Plain Dealer (http://www.cleveland.com/debate/) too.

Dr.GH

December 29, 2002, 01:04 AM

It is very odd to me that anyone posts to ARN at all. But, then I recall that I did for quite some time.

What is also hard to understand is why anyone cares. The Wedge Updates etc. are of some interests, but I see no point in the so called discussion.

Bubba

December 29, 2002, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Dr.GH
It is very odd to me that anyone posts to ARN at all. But, then I recall that I did for quite some time.

What is also hard to understand is why anyone cares. The Wedge Updates etc. are of some interests, but I see no point in the so called discussion.

I agree. The ARN discussion is wildly irrational.

Bubba

Principia

December 29, 2002, 10:46 PM

What is also hard to understand is why anyone cares. I advocate, for various reasons, not directly confronting IDiots on their own turfs. But, imo, it pays to keep up to date on the type of arguments that the people at ARN are trying out. I do it particularly to monitor the arguments of the more well-known ID personalities (e.g. Paul Nelson, Philip Johnson, Dembski, etc.), though most of them haven't bothered to post at ARN in months. But occasionally, the internecine skirmishes are good for a laugh.

Dr.GH

December 30, 2002, 12:52 PM

Principia,

I agree that it is worth the effort to keep informed of whatever ID.Creto BS is the flavor of the month.

I have been reading The Creationists by Ronald Numbers (UC Press 1992). It is a book that should be widely read. I find it both facinating, and depressing that none of the creationist arguments are in anyway new. Most date to late 1800 and early 1900s Seventh Day Adventists.

Scientists have been responding to this crap for over a century.

Xeluan

December 30, 2002, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Dr.GH

I have been reading The Creationists by Ronald Numbers (UC Press 1992). It is a book that should be widely read. I find it both facinating, and depressing that none of the creationist arguments are in anyway new. Most date to late 1800 and early 1900s Seventh Day Adventists.

May I second Dr GH's reccomendation. It is a very good account of the history of creationism.

Xeluan

djmullen

December 31, 2002, 11:18 PM

Chris Langan's genius has finally been acknowledged:

http://www.crank.net/new.html

Go about four pages down and you'll see him featured.
It's two articles past the article entitled "Aurora Borealis a Sign of War?"

Note that this article is essentially the same as the lead article in the current issue of PCID Journal, the flagship journal of the Intelligent Design movement. There's reason to believe that William Dembski himself helped pick this article for the journal.

ID has Social Texted itself!

Principia

December 31, 2002, 11:29 PM

Sponsoring Langan has the feel of a PR maneuver, doesn't it? Ain't too shabby to have the "Smartest Man in America" endorsing a philsophical position. In addition to featuring him on PCID, they also invited him to speak at their last ID orgy (http://www.iscid.org/rapid/schedule.html). But, then the irony of being suspended from one of two Internet forums that the IDiots so heavily depend on for their PR...

djmullen

January 1, 2003, 04:37 AM

I think it has the feeling of a genuine, certified PR Disaster. See this thread on ARN: http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000483

This was where I first called Langan as an unintentional Alan Sokal who has Social Texted ISCID. Amazingly, this charge drew a response from none other than William Dembski, himself! His reply included this paragraph:

"The verdict is still not in with Chris Langan's CTMU, but it was clear to me and
the editors at PCID that Chris had thought deeply about some hard problems.
What's more, it was clear that Chris was largely self-taught and working in
isolation over many years. ISCID therefore wanted to provide a forum for Chris
to disseminate his work, gain feedback, and bring his ideas into the
conversational mainstream. Perhaps it will turn out to be not only a wild idea
but also a misguided idea (I don't think so). But at least PCID is providing a
forum for free inquiry that is blocked by most of the mainstream journals."

So Dembski himself seems to have selected that article to appear in the journal of ISCID, which he clearly is trying to make into the premier professional society of the ID movement. (See his talk at RAPID: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_disciplinedscience.htm ) Note also the lameness of the excuse: he wanted to give Chris a forum to gain feedback and bring his ideas into the professional mainstream. So he made it the lead article and provided no cautionary note? Bah! Humbug!

Disaster isn't a strong enough word to describe this situation. This is the worst possible thing that could happen to ID: Chris Langan gave them enough rope and they hanged themselves on it. The undisputed intellectual superstar of the ID movement got taken in by a crank who couldn't be more obvious if he was wearing a Bozo suit and honking a horn.

The three biggest "stars" of the ID movement now appear to be a lawyer, a Moonie and the man who published Chris Langan. Talk about an intellectual implosion!

January 1, 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by djmullen
I think it has the feeling of a genuine, certified PR Disaster. See this thread on ARN: http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000483

I wonder if Dembski will pay out the thousand bucks he offered to you to Chris Langan, instead. Langan does seem to have sort of sokaled ISCID...with the difference that Sokal knew what he was doing, while Langan seems to take himself far too seriously.

Principia

January 3, 2003, 05:54 PM

From this thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000556;p=2):
Joy: "Deal safely and productively" with the world does not actually require being able to calculate the relative masses of planets and/or asteroids unless one is planning on being a rocket scientist or astronomer. Algebra, geometry and trig are not in general use for bookkeeping or household budgeting, or even figuring the interest on one�s credit cards. And a basic understanding of biology is useful to know anatomy and organ system functions, exercise requirements, plan nutritious meals, how sex and reproduction works, how to avoid food poisoning and hopefully some child development and first aid/CPR training. Evolutionary history doesn�t have a whole lot to do with that, at least as it is "safely and productively" dealt with by the vast majority of humans who are not biologists, doctors or even nurses.

If it were evident that public education actually prepared young people for more than digging ditches, flipping burgers or operating an assembly line, there would be more evidence that the things taught last longer than the standardized testing week. But since upwards of 80% of high school graduates can�t find Iraq on a map (half can�t find New York state or the Pacific ocean), and nearly 50% believe God created the Earth and everything in it less than 10,000 years ago, the general effectiveness of education to the contrary is highly questionable.

Those individuals go into business, they farm, work regular jobs, sell cars, have families, drive, vote and do all the normal things normal people do. They know well before kindergarten than if they fall down it will hurt. They know hot stoves are hot. They know clouds can bring rain, plants need water, and that the moon has phases. Most (who don�t live in Buffalo) understand that it gets cold in winter and cold weather mixed with clouds can bring snow. For the vast majority of human beings alive on this planet, the details and minituae of provisional scientific theories doesn�t mean much. If they can read, they can learn what the latest theory is (if they�re interested). If they have the disposable income, they can buy the nifty gadgets offered for sale. But they don�t have to understand any of it to get along just fine in the world, "safely and productively."

Education itself is in dismal shape, but that�s off-topic. Standardized testing of more difficult material has not improved the learning curve, nor has it inspired more young people to go on to technical careers. Advanced biology (with evolution) was an academic elective when I went to school, and I enjoyed it immensely along witih the advanced math and chemistry which were also electives. But only because I was interested. Science taught as a done deal serves no one and is tedious enough to turn a lot of would-be scientists off to the whole idea. No scientific theory needs to be taught as absolute or protected from the shortcomings, holes or alternatives we read about every day in the news. Teach the dominant paradigm, but don�t pretend it�s all there is to it. There�s no reason for that, and I think it�s self-defeating when we are importing engineers and technicians because so few are coming out of our higher institutions.

Just my opinion. No scientific theory is harmed by questions about its adequacy. There would be no advance if there were no questions.

[...]
---------------------
Mike B said: I assume that if you were not trying to be argumentative you could think of applications of Newtonian physics that might have more application to most people's lives than calculating the masses of planets. Driving comes to mind. Algebra is the basis behind all budgeting, even though few people assign variable names to the different factors. Understanding biology, including ToE, gives the reason that THEY, personally, should take the full course of antibiotics when perscribed, and should not take antibiotics for a cold. And all of these subjects, and many others, are needed to make them informed voters.
---------------------

Your basic driver�s education (complete with those gory videos) is far more impressive than extensive diagrams with equations to figure problems of Newtonian mechanics as it applies to cars and trucks, and a lot easier to remember when someone runs a stop sign in front of you. Long pedal = go, short pedal = stop. With a little practice, a 16-year old can get a license, and last I checked, physics wasn�t part of the test (though large, grumpy DMV officers are).

Most budgeting for households and small businesses are basic asset/debit columns complete with income vs. outgo adding and subtracting. Sort of like bank statements. Factory farming and antibiotic resistence bred into genetically engineered crops has done more for bacterial evolution than your last sinus infection, I promise.

We still have punch-cards here in my neck of the woods, so evolution hasn�t arrived at my polling place. If it ever does, it�ll probably be touch-screen computers, which I can likely figure out without too much trouble. I don�t need to know anything about how land mammals became whales in order to choose a new sheriff or tax collector. And if scientific competance in the latest theories were a requirement for political leadership, we would most certainly not be saddled with the leadership we currently have (thanks to the Supremes rather than our votes).

I know this is just plain contrary on my part, but it really is a fact that non-biologists get by in the world pretty well. Even before Darwin came along. What simplistic RM-NS Darwinism tells us is just not all that important outside the basement laboratories of pharmaceutical gigacorps and their underling crop engineers. Dinosaurs make pretty good horror movie fare, but nobody has to know a T-rex from a brachiosaur in order to function in the modern world.
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melott said: Joy, do you favor the teaching of astrology in astronomy classes? Would you support a few sessions on Tarot cards when psychology is treated? These alternatives to the dominant paradigm have many supporters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Melott. I don�t know why my opinion that provisional scientific theories do not need to be taught in public schools as Absolute Truth caused you to ask these canned questions. But since you did ask, I�ll answer.

I think that astronomy classes (are those taught in high school, or just in the Astronomy Club extracurricular activity?) should definitely include the history of astronomy as part of a well-rounded introduction to the subject of human beings� interest in the movements of planets and the positions of stars. Astrology is part of that history, and some of the most noted cosmological paradigm-changers practiced astrology. Including Gallileo. Just like some other noted paradigm-changers practiced alchemy. Including Newton.

And any decent course in psychology should include things like Tarot, I Ching, astrology and any other divination methodologies that are demonstrably dependent upon human psychology for their effectiveness. I personally think some of these systems are rather amazing for their insight (all possible combinations relate directly to human psychological states guaranteed to have meaning to the individual). And the traditional practice of these �arts� were by individuals who were often better at real, personal psychological counseling than many of the degreed charlatans practicing individual or group therapy today - mostly with mind/mood altering drugs.

You should not be so quick to discount the various methodologies erstwhile �science� has embraced in its history, because they can be very informative. About a lot of things.

This is an example of why it's worth monitoring ARN from time to time. Joy seems to be complaining about education standards on the one hand, and then implying that an education in the sciences and mathematics isn't really necessary to get by in life. In other words, according to Joy, the real reason people are so ignorant of these disciplines is because noone was as curious, self-motivated, and interested as she was. But, of course, the solution she advocates is throwing a healthy dose of pseudoscience into the mix to churn up some critical thinking skills. :banghead: LOL

wdog

January 3, 2003, 06:50 PM

As someone from the outside looking in, could I please get your comments on the list of attendees at the RAPID conference? Frank Tipler is certainly competent in certain areas of science, what about the others? Does anyone have a feel for the percentage of evolutionary biologists and scientists in general who buy into the notion of ID?

just trying to get a reality check, thanks

Principia

January 25, 2003, 04:07 PM

But this is hilarious. From the same ARNie above:
Mike B said: Have you perhaps noticed a person or two on the ID side of this issue who is not well versed in the science connected with the topic? Those who used the canned "evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics" come to mind, as well as those who seem unable to grasp that stellar evolution and biological evolution are not related phenomina, no matter what Chick says. Shoot, there are those who keep using the phrase "simplistic RM&NS Darwinianism", apparently unaware or uninterested that there has been some 150 years of advance in the theory of evolution.

joy: Gee, Mike! My beef was very specific. No need to get worked up about it. Have you ever browsed just for kicks over at the Infidels� discussion board? They�ve got whole threads discussing posters, policies and arguments from here at ARN. An entire library of arguments contributed by some of the �great thinkers� (mostly lawyers) who run the secular web and recruit the junior Infidels. Lessons on tips and tactics, a real love of juvenile delinquency... It�s a regular �salvation army� over there, and the religion is evangelical atheism. Evolution is just a crutch used to beat theists over the head with. It�s not the crux of the faith, or even something the acolytes know much of anything about.

So when some gung-ho recruit comes looking for me and doesn�t even know what a straw man is (much less anything about science or evolution), I get disgusted pretty quickly. When I am singled out for censorship because I keep calling the fallacy what it is (while the delinquent gets to keep asserting said scarecrow for another week unchecked), I begin to question the wisdom of bothering.

MikeB: You may also have encountered evangelistic YECs (NOTE: I recognize that not all IDists are YECs who, in addition to having little understanding of science, are not well versed in the details about their own beliefs. I recall one young lady who was witnessing to me. When I told her that I had been raised Roman Catholic, she looked puzzled and said, "Oh, are they Christian?" Further discussion revealed that she had no concept of how her religion got from 1st century Israel to 20th century America.

joy: Evangelistic YECs can be evangelistic YECs all they like, I don�t mind. Heck, evangelistic atheists [EAs] can be EAs too for all I care. But when they spout canned spam at me, they�ll find that I don�t eat canned spam. I�m a vegetarian. There are numerous sites on the net where evangelistic YECs can duke it out with evangelistic atheists all day and all night long, and nothing ever changes. The Infidels hang out here and pick their targets for a reason. Nobody wonders what that reason is. At least, I sure don�t. Why, if we were allowed to call their bluff on ridiculous fallacies without being shut down for it, those great secular thinkers (mostly lawyers) might end up having to do their own dirty work, mightn�t they?

MikeB: So I would have to say that the complaints that you stated about those on the TOE side are equally applicable to those on the ID side. If you had acknowledge that in your OP I think it would have provided a balancing flavor that would have made your beef more palatable.

joy: Since I�m not a beef-eater, I really don�t much care whether it�s cooked to your satisfaction or not. It�s my complaint, lodged about particular and ongoing harrassment, that made me mad enough to hang out here in the nether-regions for awhile. The delinquents will eventually overstay their welcome, go back to II for a quick refresher course, then be back with brand new names this time next week no worse off for wear and tear.

It was nice, though, that Mod3 did manage to re-define the parameters over in the �Quantum Evolution� (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000579) thread, when he officially put �simplistic RM-NS Darwinism� in a religious position. My only complaint about that is that after defining it as an ideological/religious position, he placed its canned spam off limits for rebuttal BECAUSE it�s an ideological/religious position. There�s just something fundamentally unfair if my ideological/religious position can be targeted for canned spam, but the canned spam is untouchable.

Hardly a level playing field, now that we know science isn�t the issue, is it?
Now, wouldn't it be really funny when joy finds out which side of the ideological fence ARN Mod3 sits on... It might make for a really vivid awakening! ;) So which one of you bright young Infidels is over there making trouble for the lil' lady? Ain't me.

PS: Apparently the quote in contention on the QE thread was: joy: Yes, I think it�s entirely evident that simplistic RM-NS Darwinism is wrong. A lot of scientists active in the fields have been aware of this for awhile. It�s just the lay-believers who are stuck with a frozen snapshot of where biology was years ago and can�t accomodate the changing paradigm because they never really understood the process of science in the first place. Ah, another IDiot who has a high opinion of herself!

PS2: wdog: Does anyone have a feel for the percentage of evolutionary biologists and scientists in general who buy into the notion of ID? Approximately 0%. If they do, the title of being "evolutionary biologist" or "scientist" is in serious doubt to begin with. ;)

RufusAtticus

January 25, 2003, 05:00 PM

We're nothing but lawyers? Go figure. I always thought we had a large contention of scientists here. Hmm, the things you learn.

Dr.GH

January 25, 2003, 06:40 PM

Lawyers? As in P. Johnson type people?

I don't think there are many lawyers around here, which is too bad. We need some!

All that the IDCs have is a popular political effort to modify laws with few words, but massive interpretations.

These are head games that scientific training does not prepare one to play.

I forget, is Joy one of the "supper dupper brains" or just a Dupe?

Principia

January 25, 2003, 07:11 PM

These are head games that scientific training does not prepare one to play. I agree, but it might pay to learn how to play the game. ;) In fact, I am constantly surprised by how much an IDiot can disguise the weakness of his argument by the amount of rhetorical devices thrown into the mix. So, I think there is merit for head games in the proper forum. Y'know what they say: If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.
I forget, is Joy one of the "supper dupper brains" or just a Dupe? Joy just wants to belong. She got dissed by the Supes before they were booted out -- all for trying to understand the CTMU, too. Ever since, I think she's just a little bitter. Think mturner, with a tad more education.

pangloss

January 26, 2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Principia
Think mturner, with a tad more education.

You mean Joy has not yet boated of not being able to read, much less understand, the scientific literature?

January 27, 2003, 08:53 AM

joy: Yes, I think it�s entirely evident that simplistic RM-NS Darwinism is wrong. A lot of scientists active in the fields have been aware of this for awhile

So where are they all hiding? Iraq?

Cheers,

KC

pangloss

January 27, 2003, 01:53 PM

My old pals are at it again:

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000577

One making a laughingstock of himself (I wonder if that Chemical Society wishes they could take the award they gave him back?), the other engaging in post hoc aggrandizement (I predited that... after it was discovered....)

It never ends....

Principia

January 31, 2003, 08:30 AM

One making a laughingstock of himself (I wonder if that Chemical Society wishes they could take the award they gave him back?), [...]From this ARN thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000595): The report from this meeting is now available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10560.html
Many leaders in biology (not just proteomics) participated in the meeting and helped write the report. The abstract starts:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research in Proteomics is the next logical step after genomics in understanding life processes at the molecular level. In the largest sense proteomics encompasses knowledge of the structure, function and expression of all proteins in the biochemical or biological contexts of all organisms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is instructive that Darwinian evolution is not a part of the report. It brings home again that evolutionary theory doesn�t play a major role in the life sciences any more. [...] However, where did I mention ID??? Precisely. LOL.

Principia

February 3, 2003, 01:42 PM

From here (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000598):
Apt: If the author thinks that DNA replication = PCR then he may not deserve much futher consideration. This reads like a Popular Science paper.

Nelson: Uhh, PCR is DNA replication. [...] Apt, you're not making any sense. He described PCR as:

"DNA replication can be performed in a cell-free system by adding back just a few components of the replication machinery."

This is PCR. LOL The IDiots now take the word of their "researchers" so literally at its face value that it's pathetic. Let's see how long this is/is not battle will continue before Nelson gets it.

EDIT: Oh, he's getting warmer. Latest question: Nelson: Is PCR DNA replication in a cell-free environment?

EDIT2: Nope, I was too optimistic. He still doesn't get it.

EDIT3: LOL, here's the bio (http://www.masters.edu/academics/profiles.asp?depname=2) of the author in question: Prior to coming to The Master's College, Dr. Francis served one year as a Research Scientist at the University of Michigan Medical School, and taught biology for ten years at Cedarville University. He is a member of the Society for Leukocyte Biology, National Association of Biology Teachers, and the Council of Undergraduate Research. He has served as co-chair and organizer for several conferences including; Discontinuity: Understanding Biology in the Light of Creation; and the Conference on Bioethical Issues sponsored by Cedarville University and Mount Vernon Nazarene College.

Dr. Francis has published numerous scientific articles in medical, biological and creation journals and a widely disseminated booklet entitled "The Biblical Basis for the Sanctity of Life and Inviolability of Man". He has served on several board of directors of Crisis Pregnancy Centers and currently serves on the editorial board for the journal "Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group" a creation journal committed to the literal interpretation of Genesis. He has also published an entire introductory biology course for Christian schools online. His research interests include, microscopy, scientific creationism, cellular immunology, and protein structure.

Dr. Francis and his wife, Rebecca, enjoy teaching their four boys at home and coaching their soccer teams. In his spare time, Dr. Francis enjoys reading history, playing golf, cross country skiing and biking.

pangloss

February 3, 2003, 02:30 PM

It is a shame for Joe Francis that baraminology and discontinuity systematics is a sham...

pangloss

February 3, 2003, 02:35 PM

I did sort of like this:

"A research paper doesn't have to conduct an actual experiment in order to be scientific research."

Looks like Nelson has been taking lessons form the "Book of Gene"...

February 3, 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by pangloss
I did sort of like this:

"A research paper doesn't have to conduct an actual experiment in order to be scientific research."

Looks like Nelson has been taking lessons form the "Book of Gene"...

Or the Book of Wells.

Cheers,

KC

pangloss

February 3, 2003, 02:39 PM

I also find it satisfying that many if not most posters - on both sides - seem to basically ignore Mike Gene (for the most part).

You just know that has to chap his ass....

Principia

February 4, 2003, 09:58 AM

From this ARN thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000596):
joy: Then ignore the science I have used to support my points. I can understand that Darwinism has no adequate response to anything that suggests RM-NS is not explanatory anymore. Genomics is a rather new science. It is the science that will finally unseat RM-NS from its position of theoretical dominance. Scientific theory is provisional and subject to radical change as new information becomes available. Theory is changing as we speak, based on new information. That information points to design, not to random chance.

Those who have invested absolute faith in Darwinism will have to adjust to not having scientific support for their faith. Most of us theists learned to live without scientific support long ago, so it can be done. LOL. As I understand it, theists of joy's stripe don't have much requirement for any knowledge at all, except for that contained in one text.

February 4, 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Principia
From this ARN thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000596):
LOL. As I understand it, theists of joy's stripe don't have much requirement for any knowledge at all, except for that contained in one text.

Joy is obviously unfamiliar with Lewontin. Someone outta recommend his book 'It Ain't Necessarily So' to her. That will cure her genomics love fest right quick.

Cheers,

KC

Principia

February 4, 2003, 09:55 PM

And here we have the pathetic whine (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000596), after being trounced by 3 evos:joy: Evolution as described by the geneticists in the linked article is not something Charles Darwin hypothesized. What�s the point in calling one�s self a �Darwinist� if evolution does not proceed by Darwinian mechanisms?:boohoo: :D

pangloss

February 6, 2003, 03:26 PM

Archive material (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/newreply.php?action=newreply&threadid=39803&)

This stuff is amazing!

"What's your point? Maybe you should try doing what I do--read, (don't skim), "the rest of the article" for it's *meaning*. "

This is the same guy that nearly boasted of not being able to understand scientific papers - on at least two occasions that I recall, asking posters to "interpret" papers for him!

Another:

"Selection is always negative, subtractive. It can never "put in", it can only "take out". "

Hmmm.... Well, how does one consider those NOT "taken out"? Are they not "put in" if nly by default?

My goodness....

February 18, 2003, 12:35 PM

From the ARN Humo(u)r area:

Heard any (anti)FRENCH jokes lately?

Let me get the ball rolling with the following:

Anyone see the French Military Rifle on ebay?
"Never been shot and only dropped once!"
Rumor has it that those French tanks have 6 gears, 5 reverse and 1 forward.
Just in case they're attacked from behind, that's where the forward gear comes in handy.
How many frenchmen does it take to guard Paris?
Nobody knows, it's never been tried before.
What do you call 100,000 Frenchmen with their hands up?
The Army.
Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Elysees?
So the Germans could march in the shade.
Why don't they have fireworks at Euro Disney?
Because every time they shoot them off, the French surrender

Now don't get me wrong, as an Englishman, I'm no particular fan of the French, but I have to shake my head when I see these kinds of jokes. Ask any German WWI veteran of Verdun or the Marne, and he would take great exception to any suggestion that cowardice was a national trait of the French.

::::gets off soapbox::::

KC

Principia

March 5, 2003, 10:46 AM

Arm is in fact Philip Johnson, and by the looks of it, he was back to preach about how scientists were all positivists :banghead:

Anyhoo, the ARN board is dying pretty fast, given the one-two punch of suffocating moderation and ignorant IDiots who are more interested nowadays in the going-ons of Iraq. So, what are we left with? Well, joy (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000630;p=2)! Turns out she's another Mae-Wan Ho fanatic in the same league as bertvan and mturner. Back from her one month ban, she comes up with: Plant virus is used as a promoter. Are you attempting to assert that the CaMV 35S promoter (Cauliflower Mosaic Virus) is not a plant virus, or that it�s �never, ever, ever� been used in the genetic engineering of plants? That�s a heck of a brave and absolute assertion, Art. I just want to know if you mean it before I start supplying the FDA, USDA, EPA and Patent Office data (on all the current and in-process cultivars). "Plant virus is used as a promoter..." hahaha

EDIT: why is it that verbosity and sheer ignorance of science and pigheaded stuborness are always positively correlated for IDiots??

Jesse

March 5, 2003, 01:45 PM

Principia:
Arm is in fact Philip Johnson, and by the looks of it, he was back to preach about how scientists were all positivists

Where are you getting your info? I haven't been at ARN in a while but I remember Arm from some debates about dinosaur feathers, and based on his writing style I doubt that he is Philip Johnson.

Principia

March 5, 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Jesse
Principia:
Arm is in fact Philip Johnson, and by the looks of it, he was back to preach about how scientists were all positivists

Where are you getting your info? I haven't been at ARN in a while but I remember Arm from some debates about dinosaur feathers, and based on his writing style I doubt that he is Philip Johnson. Jesse, I am basing this on what the people at ISCID are saying. A few of them have resorted to referring to him as "PJ," but maybe this info isn't that accurate either. Let me see if I can dig up the threads at ISCID.

EDIT: for instance, here (http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000153). I would say that there are quite a few coincidences that are a little uncanny. But, I'm not a great judge on writing styles... To what are you referring?

March 5, 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Principia
Arm is in fact Philip Johnson, and by the looks of it, he was back to preach about how scientists were all positivists :banghead:

Anyhoo, the ARN board is dying pretty fast, given the one-two punch of suffocating moderation and ignorant IDiots who are more interested nowadays in the going-ons of Iraq. So, what are we left with? Well, joy (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000630;p=2)! Turns out she's another Mae-Wan Ho fanatic in the same league as bertvan and mturner. Back from her one month ban, she comes up with: "Plant virus is used as a promoter..." hahaha

EDIT: why is it that verbosity and sheer ignorance of science and pigheaded stuborness are always positively correlated for IDiots??

One month ban? LOL!

Art and charlie d pretty much mopped the floor with her. She is pathologically incapable of admitting she made an error.

KC

charlie d

March 5, 2003, 03:41 PM

Boy, dealing with joy is truly exhausting!
I used to think positively about people who try to teach themselves about science issues, but after having argued with mturner, bertvan and joy I am starting to think that ignorance is bliss!
:D

I was also flabbergasted by Mae-Wan Ho's site. I always thought she was just a rather annoying, new-agey kind of person, but actually I think some of the stuff she says borders with the scientific misconduct, in the sense that she is being purposefully misleading. In alternative, she is just plain loony. Check this out:The observation in the FSA report [12] that no transgenic DNA was found in the faeces of the �healthy volunteers�, far from being reassuring, raises the worrying possibility that the transgenic DNA has all been taken up into the intestinal cells and/or passed into the bloodstream. This must be the most efficient DNA uptake mechanism ever!
:rolleyes:

At least, now I know what's in those secret, proprietary, super-expensive and super-efficient bacterial transformation reagents: sh*t. LOL.

March 5, 2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by charlie d
Boy, dealing with joy is truly exhausting!
I used to think positively about people who try to teach themselves about science issues, but after having argued with mturner, bertvan and joy I am starting to think that ignorance is bliss!
:D

She seriously thought that injecting genetic material into a fetus and having it absorbed into various tissues (including gonadal tissue) was the same thing as somatic cells infecting germ cells with genetic material. That, or she was simply throwing abstracts out randomly to impress equally ignorant lurkers.

KC

Jesse

March 5, 2003, 05:02 PM

Principia:
But, I'm not a great judge on writing styles... To what are you referring?

Mainly just that Arm had a tendency to CAPITALIZE and bold every other word in his posts...see this (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000820) thread, for example. I don't think a lawyer could get away with that kind of writing style. Of course, this was a while ago, it's possible that someone different has registered under the name "Arm" since then.

edit: nope, just looked at the thread you linked to, and from the overuse of capitalization it seems to be the same guy I remember.

March 5, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Jesse
Principia:
But, I'm not a great judge on writing styles... To what are you referring?

Mainly just that Arm had a tendency to CAPITALIZE and bold every other word in his posts...see this (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000820) thread, for example. I don't think a lawyer could get away with that kind of writing style. Of course, this was a while ago, it's possible that someone different has registered under the name "Arm" since then.

edit: nope, just looked at the thread you linked to, and from the overuse of capitalization it seems to be the same I remember.

I don't recall PJ being as particularly interested in scientific minutae as arm seems to be, judging by your link.

KC

Principia

March 5, 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by KC
I don't recall PJ being as particularly interested in scientific minutae as arm seems to be, judging by your link.

KC Granted, but reading through that link, I don't get the impression that Arm is at all versed in science. At best, he makes a rhetorical case, pointing to pictures and asking incredulous questions. For sure, he is thorough. What makes me suspicious is Arm's tendency to go for philosophical and moral arguments. I remember quite a few (long) threads at ARN about these topics in which he participated.

Then there's the minor stuff like (what used to be Berkeley) CA location; his Churchill quote; his appearance at ARN around the time PJ had his stroke; his "leaving out of town" when PJ is scheduled to give talks. I don't know how much emphasis to put on the way one writes on message boards. His caps and bolds may be a way of carrying over his usual rhetorical style. Anyway, Arm just comes off as "lawyerly" for me.

Principia

March 5, 2003, 05:46 PM

OK, maybe my suspicions are wrong after all. Arm refers to Berkeley as his "alma mater" (which I don't presume a professor would say).
From here (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000907):
Myrmecos, some of your statements and most of your conclusions in this thread have been more than a bit overexaggerated. I think we both should LIMIT ourselves to conclusions that we can validly make from the actual evidence at hand. In my 8/22 post, I made sure to express the opinion that non-human intelligent design is an "alternative explanation" to the totality of the data from the discipline of molecular phylogenetics; I did not say that macroevolutionists who are molecular phylogeneticists (as you claim you are & I have no reason to doubt you) should run for the hills. Your conclusions in here, however, demand a level of EXCLUSIVITY that is not supported by the evidence at hand. For example, you accuse Wells of being either a DISHONEST or INCOMPETENT "CRACKPOT" (your word) because he did not cite one study. That "crackpot" insult was the one crack in your pot of otherwise level-headed & eloquent posts. There is a tendency of macroevolutionists to somewhat arrogantly assume that one cannot be an ID supporter without being either stupid, misinformed, or evil. A Ph.D. in Molecular & Cell Biology from U.C. Berkeley (my alma mater) is not something a stupid or misinformed individual is able to obtain. Are you saying then that Wells is evil? Must we go there? Please do not rely on book "reviews" ("prolonged personal attacks" and "intentional mischaracterizations of the text" are more accurate terms) of the work of ID theorists by folks from thoroughly biased organizations such as the NCSE (e.g. Eugenie Scott); instead, review their work yourself. (Citing to me from biased, offensive websites like the NCSE website carries as much persuasive power as it would to cite to an Israeli from the website of the P.L.O.) I personally have collected a long file or research reports within your field which would throw serious doubts into your conclusions in this thread; this is no great or difficult feat from my part, because practically every issue in journals specifically dealing with the subject discusses new studies showing discrepancies/discordances (some minor, others major) (1)between molecular studies using different genes/proteins and/or (2)between morphology-based and molecular-based phylogenies. However, I would not go around calling you dishonest or incompetent (I certainly would not call you a "crackpot") simply because you did not cite from a single one of these studies; I simply conclude that you are mistaken, and choose not to pronounce judgments on your honesty or competence as a scientist. Although your mistaken assumption that my exposure to molecular phylogenetics is limited to Wells' book is understandable (I am far from being a member of your specialized profession), I am certain that your accusation that Wells went "cherry-picking through the literature for instances of conflict and for cases that he could portray as conflict even if none existed" is very inaccurate and inappropriate. Since you are a molecular phylogeneticist, your burden of modestly LIMITING your pronouncements to what can legitimately be concluded from the actual evidence at hand is higher than the burden by the rest of us mere average Joe's and Jane's, because there are people in this discussion forum like Lizard and niiicholas who will accept wholeheartedly & cheerlead everything you type here (e.g. Lizard's "amen, brother" posts) without checking the matter for themselves in a detailed and objective manner. Because you are a professional scientist, I ask you to please TEMPER DOWN your conclusions when the macroevolutionist case within molecular phylogenetics is far from being conclusive.

pangloss

March 7, 2003, 11:03 AM

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000629

"Ilion, I really wish you'd stay. Bertvan and I get tired of fighting a lonely fight against the forces of Darwinian dogmatism. But everytime we get an ally, like Joy or yourself, they get tired of the 'tag-team' Darwinism, ( very similar, in tone, deportment, and officiating, to tv's, 'professional wrestling') that we get here at ARN, and leave us to carry on alone. Heck, with you and Joy onside, along with our other, non-EAM (Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis), ID supporters, we could mop the floor with these guys."

Interesting, coming from a guy that has admitted on at least 2 occasions that I am aware of that he cannot understand primary scientific literature...

Principia

June 20, 2003, 09:11 AM

OK. I am naturally suspicious of verbose IDiots with arrogant, condescending attitudes and apparent power in IDiot boards. So, previously, I was under the impression that ARM = Philip Johnson, but Jesse and KC were not so sure.

Take a look at this recent ARN thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000510.html) though:
ARN MODERATOR 5 stated:

"... all Mike B did was parrot back to you your own tone. If you find such forms of discussion offensive, I humbly suggest refraining from that sort of dialogue."

ARN MODERATOR 5:

(1) Can you please point exactly where in my opening post I used the tone and the "sort of dialogue" that Mike B used? Did I use sarcasm-filled diatribes against Darwinism like Mike B did with "churches" and young earth creationists? I find your statement above preposterous and, yes, quite biased. Please stick to actually moderating the discussion instead of arguing for one side. Remember that I know who you are (an often contributing member of this forum on one side of the issue); so, if you insist on using your position as moderator improperly, I'll have to seek your removal from that post.
Capital letterings aside, I think a man from CA, who proclaims Berkeley to be his "alma mater," who has coincidental schedules with PJ's speaking tours, who is interested in defeating "positivism," who defends YECs, and who has immense pull at ARN, rather limits the possibilities, don'cha think?

Principia

June 21, 2003, 11:46 PM

From the same thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000771.html):
ARM:
#1: ID supporters neet not present any "POSITIVE" evidence at all.

My reasoning: When the issue/controversy is whether a phenomenon, structure, or pathway can be explained by purely naturalistic causes (chance plus law) OR by some intelligent causation, the requirement of "positive" evidence from ID supporters is a CATEGORY CONFUSION: the erroneous requirement of "predictive" experimentation to find "naturalistic" causes/mechanisms from ID scientists/theorists proposing "detective" methodology to find "intelligent" causation. If, on the other hand, the issue were which of several possible purely naturalistic mechanisms caused such effects, then positive/predictive/naturalistic experimentation/evidence would be appropriate. Darwinists who demand "positive" evidence from ID supporters circularly apply positivist concepts & terminology (e.g. "positive" evidence; falsifiable predictions) when positivist methodology only applies when the causes of effects have been by certainty determined to be exclusively non-teleological, not when the issue at controversy is whether purely naturalistic causes OR intelligent causation produced the observed effects.
In fact, if Darwinists after much lab/field/theoretical work are incapable of finding purely naturalistic causes/mechanisms for certain phenomena, then ipso facto ("by the fact itself") a justifiable retroduction/abduction ("reasoning 'backwards' from effect to cause") can be legitimately made to intelligent design. A thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case will in itself suffice empirically in justifying the retroduction to intelligent causation, because a thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case will in itself empirically (not absolutely or with mathematical certainty, but with strong empirical support) negate the alternate justification for the exclusivity of a purely naturalistic explanation. *Now, I grant you fully that ID scientists/theorists have much more work to do before accomplishing this "thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case"; but when or if they do so, then the retroduction to intelligent causation can be justifiably made without any need for any "positive" evidence from "predictive" experimentation. Summary: In regard to the issue of origins, the TERMINOLOGY and requirement of "positive" evidence from ID supporters should be completely abandoned because that terminology & requirement involve a category mistake, and because a thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case against purely naturalistic causes will in itself suffice to justify a retroduction to intelligent causation.
LOL

Well, what can I say about this masterpiece of rhetorical lawyering? This blurb pretty much concedes the ballgame for IDiots -- according to PJ, one has to make a "thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case" before "intelligent causation can be justifiably made."

Let there never be a CATEGORY CONFUSION that IDiots actually DO SCIENCE. ;)

I think this is perfect material for the Darwin at Trial thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=53023).

Sauron

June 22, 2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Principia
From the same thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000771.html):

ARM:
#1: ID supporters neet not present any "POSITIVE" evidence at all.

(snip)

LOL

Well, what can I say about this masterpiece of rhetorical lawyering? This blurb pretty much concedes the ballgame for IDiots -- according to PJ, one has to make a "thorough establishment of the negative evidentiary case" before "intelligent causation can be justifiably made."

Let there never be a CATEGORY CONFUSION that IDiots actually DO SCIENCE. ;)

I think this is perfect material for the Darwin at Trial thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=53023).

What a bloody zoo. This ARN person sounds like they're on prescription Xanax or something.

1. Start with an unproven assertion
2. Repeat the assertion by tying together a bunch of big words.
3. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along. :rolleyes:

Principia

June 29, 2003, 08:33 PM

From the same thread (http://arn.paulrpayne.net/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000771;p=2) (all emphases retained for the comical effects ;)):
[b]ARM (yup, y'all know who I'm talking about):
VERY IMPORTANT: It is very important that you understand this point, folks; so, please pay close attention. DEDUCTION and INDUCTION are not the sole means of logical inference-making. Only if deduction and induction were the sole means would your conclusions above (that the only way for ID scientists/theorists to establish a thorough negative case against Darwinism is to prove a "universal negative") be correct. All 3 of you have not been apprised of a method of logical inference-making that is today universally acknowledged by logicians: RETRODUCTION (aka ABDUCTION; aka retrodiction). Retroduction is arguing "backwards" from effect to cause and involves a "conclusion to the best alternative explanation." Ignoring retroductive inference-making amounts to sitting on a 2-legged logical stool; you are bound to keel over eventually. Valid/justifiable retroductive inference-making requires the best explanation based on all current knowledge (e.g. all current knowledge of natural mechanisms), not the disproof of a "universal negative." It is this oversight of retroduction that causes ID critics to erroneously charge ID scientists/theorists of making a "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy. Because with retroduction a "universal negative" is unnecessary, a thorough negative case (i.e., a negative case which justifies the making of a retroductive inference) is eminently makable/reachable; all that is needed is the elimination or empirical subjugation of all currently known alternatives. So, the irony is that raising a "god-of-the-gaps" argument against ID theory is itself a logical fallacy! Raising this argument amounts to the fallacy of "arguing from the invisible evidence." In conclusion, please understand that when I propose a "thorough negative case" I refer to the use of retroductive inferences ("conclusion to the best alternative explanation" "from effect to cause"), which does not require such an impossible standard as articulated by djmullen above.

In other words, according to you-know-who, if critics of IDiots reject the notion that "a thorough negative case (i.e., a negative case which justifies the making of a retroductive inference) is eminently makable/reachable; all that is needed is the elimination or empirical subjugation of all currently known alternatives" they are committing a logical fallacy? :confused:

The ID case continues to crumble. "An explanation to the best alternative" which continues to change with our current (he said it, I didn't) knowledge, and where the list of alternatives continues to expand with time, is no explanation at all. But, maybe that's why the IDiots spend most of their time on Internet forums fleshing out their ideas? ;)

RufusAtticus

June 30, 2003, 02:21 AM

Ha ha. An idist is complaining that ID is labeled as deus ex ignoratia. Perhaps he should complain to IDnet which admits openly that it is.

IDnet's response to AAAS (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ResponseToAAAS.htm)
To test whether the apparent design in a biological system is real or just an illusion, ID scientists examine the evidence to determine whether it is more consistent with natural or intelligent causes; they seek to "rule in" or "rule out" natural explanations (i.e., some combination of natural law and chance). If law and chance can adequately explain an apparently specified system, then a design inference is not warranted. However, if natural causes are not adequate to explain the data, then design becomes the best explanation. (emphasis mine)

Principia

July 8, 2003, 04:33 PM

From this delightful thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000787.html)
mturner: I notice that Mr D. is unable to respond, or is afraid to respond, to my posts.
:D

July 8, 2003, 04:40 PM

mturner: I notice that Mr D. is unable to respond, or is afraid to respond, to my posts.

Or maybe he's just ignoring you. Sheesh, what a maroon.

KC

pangloss

July 9, 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Principia
From this delightful thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000787.html)

:D

Is this not the guy that has on at least two occasions (that I have archived :) ) declared that he cannot understand scientific papers?

The guy who has been described as the most consistently rude poster at ARN?

Gee, folks should be falling over themselves to reply to his incoherent posts...

He makes Ilion look like a paragon of virtue...

Principia

July 13, 2003, 07:18 PM

Besides having an obsession with Meyer's demarcation essay (as given on ARN), ARM (yup, y'all know who I'm really talking about) has resorted to citing DI's shameless "bibliography" (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000771-p-2.html) to attack evolutionary theory:
One of the citations RBH completely ignored was the citation of the Meyer bibliography within the post listing several empirical hypotheses and successful observations for ID theory. Before I'm accused of "Pubmed flaming," I will note that every single one of the articles from the Meyer bibliography I discuss below are relevant to RBH's assertion that the test of congruence between morphological and molecular trees "passes with flying colors." The bibliography, the response by the NCSE, and the Discovery Institute's response to the NCSE can be found at the following link:
www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/quesAndAnsNCSECritiqueOfBib.pdf
I recommend you read the whole paper. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular controversy, the Discovery Institute prepared a paper of 40+ refereed papers showing significant weaknesses with the Darwinian Conjecture. In answer, the NCSE sent out a questionnaire to the authors of those papers, inquiring whether they agreed with the characterizations and conclusions of the bibliography. Some of the authors refused to comment, but many did respond; however, (to my knowledge) several of those responses were not made public by the NCSE; namely, the responses from Simon Conway Morris, W. Ford Doolittle, Trisha Gura, Arcady Mushegian, Gavin Naylor, Kensal van Holde, Robert Carroll, George Miklos, Michael Katz, and possibly others in full or in part. QUESTION: Is the NCSE hiding something? Why not make public all the responses in all their entirety?

Some relevant studies/papers from the bibliography are the following: [snip articles, which readers can read for themselves without being biased by PJ's quote-mining techniques]

July 13, 2003, 10:04 PM

"ARM" (on ARN) writes:

Some of the authors refused to comment, but many did respond; however, (to my knowledge) several of those responses were not made public by the NCSE; namely, the responses from Simon Conway Morris, W. Ford Doolittle, Trisha Gura, Arcady Mushegian, Gavin Naylor, Kensal van Holde, Robert Carroll, George Miklos, Michael Katz, and possibly others in full or in part. QUESTION: Is the NCSE hiding something? Why not make public all the responses in all their entirety?

In cheesy courtroom dramas, when the defence is losing badly, they will ty to pin the blame away from their client and on to someone else: 'Plan B'.

KC

Principia

July 16, 2003, 07:43 AM

With the level of discussion about ID resear... <cough> navel-gazing, dropping to record lows over at the IDiot strongholds, atheists -- the mortal enemies of all IDiots -- have recently become quite the subject matter.

Take a look here (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000543.html):
IDiot #1: Did you catch the evangelistic approach? Spread a new meme. Dawkins has given up on reason and has resorted to doing the very thing he accuses the �unsaved� of doing � spreading viruses.

All of this in the name of science, as such preaching always follows with: Richard Dawkins FRS is Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University

I find this fascinating. If even someone like Richard Dawkins can�t stop himself from falling to the religious mold, perhaps we were hard-wired to be religious.

IDiot #2:Yes, and this is a recurrent theme of the last century or so: scarcely was Marx cold in the ground when his writing began (for the faithful of course)to acquire the weight of Scripture. Ditto with Lenin's writings. And we know the mandatory nature of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book of sayings for hundreds of millions of "good Chinese". These writings weren't merely about how to topple the ancient regime but how to "build a new society", one without all the nastiness of the old one. And all with a flavor of a millennial cult about it. And irresistible to a sub-class of "atheists".

IDiot#3: I know that many make light of people like Dawkins and Dennett but they are two very scary individuals IMO. As has been pointed out already somewhere else these two are the most influential propagandists for their cause. Dawkins in particular is very widely read by the masses and disguises quite well HIS hatefull materialistic philosophy ( note to all materialists...I am not saying that materialist philosophy is hateful) under the disguise of science. Dawkins and Dennett write for the masses and have powerfull platforms to change the minds of many.

If religion is a virus of the mind ( a sickness) and this sickness is being transmitted by their parents infecting the minds of children how should one react to this? Do we not need to protect ( quarantine) these children? Do not the people that are sick ( religious parents) need also to be disinfected? This is scary stuff.

IDiot#4: They already do in China, especially the gifted and athletic. Extras (exceeding the allowed two)are terminated in partial birth abortions.

Dewey felt that parents were a hindrance to child development and that they would be better off in state run schools as soon as they could walk and talk.

And then, Dumbski comes along (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000807.html):
Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins seem quite taken with using the term "bright" to designate atheism (see their op/ed pieces below). They advocate the following use of the term: Dennett is "a bright," Dawkins is "a bright," and together they are "brights." What's more, since an atheistic world view is best nourished on Darwinism (it was Dawkins, after all, who said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist), it follows that "brights," sensu Dawkins and Dennett, are necessarily Darwinists.

This coinage of the term "bright" is yet another one of those bright ideas that goes to prove that the academy houses our brightest intellects. Perhaps in the future we shall see articles and books by Darwinists on "Darwin's Bright Idea."

WmAD [Love ur new signoff WAD]
Sounds like to me the Xian sickness/disease/infection is spreading. ;)

Principia

July 18, 2003, 09:27 PM

Aww... and the Dawkins-bashing part backfired. Ms. Joy-be-naughty apparently got too caught up in implicating Dawkins for all of society's ills, that it caught the attention of ARN Mod #3. Now she has this to whine (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000518.html):
I thought this was a forum devoted to examining possible ID directions and theory. This is the �off-topic� board, which I thought was for those not-so specific ID vs. Darwinism issues, like Richard Dawkins making a total ass of himself in public. I read over on the Internet Infidels� forum that the recognizable �regulars� there knew all about my unexplained suspension back in April, and they�ve copy-pasted many of my posts and held court on who/what/why I might be. Perhaps all they have to do is click on the �Report Post� button to get a troublesome opponent banned. I�m guessing at least one of the mods here is closely associated with the Secular Web. And why that should be allowed is frankly way beyond me.

Dawkins - and now Dennett too, in the New York Times - have blown it wide open. To shut down discussion of that public faux pas in a supposedly �public� forum is outrageous. I am beginning to suspect that my leanings toward what might have been a most useful paradigm of design over RM-NS Darwinism is sadly misguided. I am beginning to strongly suspect these folks aren�t serious... and never really were. That�s a shame, because I know some things that might have proved useful.

Ooh. Another Mod conspiracy brewing over at ARN... and looky here, the first to jump on the bandwagon is the veteran Mod-sniffer himself, all excited about the possibility of a non-IDiot mod expressing his bias:
Your point about allowing non Id persons to participate as Moderators has its pros and cons although the pros out weigh the cons IMO. I think it�s a good thing to have Mods on a pro ID board that are anti ID. I do agree however that any anti ID Mod should not be closely associated with the Secular Web nor should any Mod share info with others regarding suspensions etc. Do you know this to be a fact? PM me if you like.

Yet, we ought not forget the last time Mod-sniffer announced an amazing discovery (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-17-t-000015.html) ;):
Jazz in the case of ARN Mod # 4 he or she is to busy closing down threads after allowing an anti IDist to get off one last cheap shot off against me on the �guesss the author� thread. Yes, the �guess the author� thread had to be closed . Like rabid dogs a pack of anti Idst has taken a �game show � thread and turned it into a feedy frenzy against a pro Idst. Never mind that not a one of that rabble has been able to substantiate any of their charges that the words I used of Dawkins in any way shape or form misrepresented or misquoted the man.
[...]
Now ARN#4 I don�t know if you�re a pro ID mod that thinks you have to bend over backwards to make sure you are even handed to the anti ID crowd. Or if you�re a anti ID Mod and PZ is your comrade in arms so to speak. But if you really wanted to perform your job you would have been even handed in the matter and you certainly would not allowed PZ make his or her cheap and dishonest shot, laugh about it, then close the thread. I certainly hope you will exercise better judgement in the future.

This oughta be fun to watch. :D

pangloss

July 19, 2003, 11:34 AM

It is entertaining to see how those on "the side" of the board host - in this case Vivid et al. on the pro-ID side on a pro-ID board - whine to no end when they feel that they were slighted by the mods, yet jump to the mod's defense - or urge the mods to take action - whenever they feel that someone that is not like-minded steps over the line.

Having watched Vivid in action for a while, I can say that he ranks right up there with Nobody and Leonard (and a few others) in the "cheerleader/baiter/nothing-of-substance-tosay" crowd.

faded_Glory

July 19, 2003, 04:57 PM

Actually, what happened is that I got really pissed off with the hysterics about Dawkins and started to take people to task for the character assassination, the insinuations of paedophilia and the outright personal threats. The level of aggression displayed by several of the posters was way off the scale compared to Dawkins remarks (which I do find rather clumsy myself btw).

So I ended up in a fistfight with Joy and Vivid, and the mod stepped in and deleted the posts just a bit quicker than we could mail them in. In hindsight undoubtedly the right thing to do.

It only shows the current level of paranoia on ARN that this gets immediately explained as another proof of the great Darwinian conspiracy stifling the free debate. I guess I must have planned it all carefully in advance ;)

fG

BTW, I am not sure I am allowed to post here because it may well prove that I am not disinterested nor objective. In stark contrast to the other participants in the 'debate', of course.

Principia

July 19, 2003, 05:32 PM

fG: BTW, I am not sure I am allowed to post here because it may well prove that I am not disinterested nor objective. In stark contrast to the other participants in the 'debate', of course. Nah, if the ARNies want to whine about us because they can't maintain the self-discipline to take their eyes off of this forum and its posters, then it's their own damn problem. Frankly, I'd love to see the IDiots continue to immerse themselves in their lovely delusion that winning their respect and trust is high up on everybody's list of priorities.

Principia

July 20, 2003, 08:30 AM

Quoth IDiot#1 to IDiot #2:

The kind of intense participation we see here [at ARN] looks a whole lot more like fear to me. They�re committed to defending the exclusive dominance of Darwinism because they see ID as a real threat. I can think of no other, more reasonable explanation.

Replies IDiot #2 to IDiot #1:

I was wondering about this very thing last night as I perused the infidels site to see who was posting over there that also post here using the same screen names. Personally I have no interest in spending my time on a pro Darwinian board, or a an atheistic board to convince them to my way of thinking. They pose no threat to me. I dont ridicule them, I am not threatened by their different positions, I dont call them names, etc.

Uh huh. So, according to IDiot #1, going over to IDiot strongholds to waste our times and get some entertainment over bashing IDiots is an expression of fear and self-defense. Yet, IDiot #2 has an interest in convincing others to his way of thinking, and that he won't do it any setting that is the least inhospitable to his views is ... a virtue? LOL.

Principia

July 20, 2003, 11:19 PM

From this delightful thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000787-p-2.html):
mturner: An internet infidel is a strong opponenent of ID.
Some of them post both at ARN and at Internet Infidel's. Some of these post under different sigs, depending upon which forum they are posting to, but others don't use aliases, aka 'sockpuppets'. Good for them. At least they're honest about their prejudices.

But coming to mods, the same applies. Any mod who is anti-ID is an Internet Infidel. Whether they post there now, posted there in the past, use sockpuppets or not. If you are pro-darwinist, anti-ID, you are an Internet Infidel, since there is no way to identify you except by your pov. Even if that POV has only, (to anyone's knowledge), been expressed here at ARN, then a darwinist has no business being an ID forum moderator. This is choosing the referee from the ranks of the opposing team. It's ridiculous.

*laugh ... out ... loud*

Would I be too far off to say that this is representative IDiocy at ARN? Nope. ;)

MrDarwin

July 21, 2003, 08:14 AM

Although I do not subscribe to it, I find the concept of ID intriguing and worth discussing and debating (and as an agnostic, I don't dismiss it out of hand although frankly I think it's built on pretty flimsy evidence so far). I have tried to engage some of the more intelligent and thoughtful members at ARN in discussion, but mturner always jumps in to post pages and pages of semi-comprehensible stuff that does not seem to be the least bit representative of (or in many cases, compatible with) ID, challenges me to debates when I try to ignore him, then taunts me when I point out that I have neither the time nor the desire to debate his ideas. mturner and his yes-men are among the reasons why I am rapidly tiring of participating at ARN.

Principia

July 21, 2003, 08:44 AM

Well let's simply look at the recent track record...

1) A critic asks about whether or not ID is falsifiable (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000787.html). The thread immediately gets side-tracked.

Last post by an IDiot was about evolutionary applications in the social sciences???:
As I�ve mentioned before, I�m not concerned with evolutionary biology. So I don�t read the research. I am concerned with evolution as it is used in the social sciences, as I think this has a greater impact on the science/theology (or whatever you want to name it) question which is really beneath or above all of this other discussion that goes on at this forum. If you want to send me to Futuyama, however, do I really have to read all of those pages to know that some Evolutionary Biological Scientists speak for far more things than their specialized knowledges would seem fit?
This thread is locked.

2) A critic asks about whether or not there is any utility to ID after labelling a phenomena as designed. (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000809.html) This thread never gets off the ground at ARN.

Last post by an IDiot (Paul Nelson, if my sources are correct) is about whether or not one knows what supernatural really entails:
This sounds like you know what "supernatural causes" are, and that their effect, if admitted into science, will be bad. How can you make that judgment, however, if you don't know what such causes are?

If I say, "Hey, there's a zebra on my lawn," I should be able to say what a zebra is, or at least to describe it.

The views of Phil Johnson don't matter. You're the poster in this thread who thinks that "supernatural causes" will have a corrosive effect on science. So say what such causes are, and why this bad consequence will follow.
The ARN thread is dead, but the corresponding thread on ISCID is locked.

3) An ID critic asks about whether or not ID can provide us with a positive view of the world rather than a negative one (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000806.html). Thread continues to extol the "logic" of asserting IS NOT as opposed to IS.

Last comment by an IDiot (who apparently won't even be back to finish the discussion) is about not taking naturalistic assumptions for granted -- paying, of course, the obligatory homage to Mike Gene along the way:
If one adopts a naturalistic assumption, one will tend to take evolvability for granted. IDists should strive to reverse engineer evolvability! Why does life possess the feature in such great quantity, while man-designed evolutionary systems are so limited?

I think if Darwin were alive today, he would be an IDist! It's the interesting perspective; the one that I believe will ultimately produce the most fruit.

Check out Mike's website: [snip]
This thread is pending J. Foster's return, but dying.

4) Question is asked about whether or not ID has common grounds with mainstream evolutionary theory (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000793.html) so as to begin a productive dialogue. By the second post after the OP, the topic has migrated to evolutionary scientists' not agreeing amongst themselves.

Last post by an IDiot complains about uncertainty in current prebiotic theories about cellular structures:
The cell membrane is not the cell wall. And proteins embedded within the membranes are much more that �doodads.� They only happen to be central to the essential feature of membranes � selective, controlled, semi-permeability.
This thread is probably dead.

Need I go on? As I argued earlier in the thread, participating in ARN for serious dialogue is a waste of time. Hell even the IDiots know that there is a split between ISCID and ARN -- if you want to talk trash, take it to the latter. My criteria has always been -- do you, with the weight of scientific evidence and training backing you, think you are having a better time over there than the scientific illiterates? If not then your participation is unnecessary.

After all, these are not open-minded objectives individuals. Never have been. Never will. Consider the current active membership. Most of these people are die-hards that have been on for 2-3 years since the ARN forum's inception:

Mike Gene -- Feb 2000
bertvan -- Feb 2000
Jack -- Mar 2000
Vividbleau -- Aug 2000
Douglas -- Nov 2000
PLA -- May 2000
ARM -- Jul 2001
mturner -- Jul 2001
leonard -- Aug 2001

You think you can learn anything from them, much less show them something new that they haven't digested and vomited back out??? And they're still recycling the same crap over there. Better yet, some of them have gone so far as to build a compedium of their favorite IDiot word for word and just cut and paste snippets as posts. You might as well be reading their archives. ;)

July 21, 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Principia
As I argued earlier in the thread, participating in ARN for serious dialogue is a waste of time. So? Don't. I gave up on ARN as a nest of ignorami a long time ago.

MrDarwin

July 21, 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Principia
You think you can learn anything from them, much less show them something new that they haven't digested and vomited back out??? And they're still recycling the same crap over there. Better yet, some of them have gone so far as to build a compedium of their favorite IDiot word for word and just cut and paste snippets as posts. You might as well be reading their archives. ;)

Yes, I'm rapidly reaching the point of frustration.

I was finding things awfully slow in the "intelligent design" discussion forum, then figured out that everybody's off posting in the "off-topic" forums. In fact, the "intelligent design" forum seems to be the least popular and least active forum at ARN! For some reason, Mike Gene is spending all his time and energy on ridiculing Dawkins, I suppose because he's already said everything he has to say about ID, so he can simply point to his website and past postings rather than engage new participants in actual discussion.

Principia

July 21, 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by pz
So? Don't. I gave up on ARN as a nest of ignorami a long time ago.

Ah, but there might be reasons to post at ARN other than having "serious discussions." ;)

pangloss

July 21, 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by MrDarwin
Yes, I'm rapidly reaching the point of frustration.

For some reason, Mike Gene is spending all his time and energy on ridiculing Dawkins, I suppose because he's already said everything he has to say about ID, so he can simply point to his website and past postings rather than engage new participants in actual discussion.

Have you actually read any of the fluff on Gene's site?

Some links to ARN/ISCID discussions, a couple of essays, and a couple of postdictions, using "telelogic" to "predict" things that had already been discovered/explained not using "telelogic."

Sophism at its finest.

MrDarwin

July 21, 2003, 01:09 PM

Uh-oh, now they're talking about circumcision and I fear I may not be able to stay out of it...

djmullen

July 23, 2003, 11:57 PM

"The World's Smartest Man"(tm) has returned to ISCID. Unfortunately, only Russell E. Rierson has responded so far, which severely limits the humor possibilities.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000397.html

Chimp

July 24, 2003, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by djmullen
"The World's Smartest Man"(tm) has returned to ISCID. Unfortunately, only Russell E. Rierson has responded so far, which severely limits the humor possibilities.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000397.html

:boohoo: :notworthy :boohoo:

Being the happy go lucky primate that I am, I have deleted the posts in question. :D

Would someone else care to step up to the plate and take a swing at bat? :eek:

Chimp

djmullen

July 25, 2003, 06:51 AM

His posts are perfect just as they are. They can't possibly be improved upon.

July 25, 2003, 02:21 PM

From a discussion on The Selfish Gene:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't recall saying that 'if you only read the book' you'd come to believe, or even agree with its conclusions. So if you are insulted, you will have to find somebody else to blame. My position is, you would be better off reading the book before coming to your conclusion, whatever that is. As for your reluctance to pay Dawkins for the privilege of reading his book, are there no public libraries in your area?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My position is that I don�t have to read the book to know I disagree with its conclusion, which is very clearly stated in the title, promo and intro.

KC

pangloss

July 25, 2003, 05:43 PM

Classic mturner:

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000412

As is mtruner's habit, he posts snippets form an article claiming it is, as he alsways does, anothe rblow to Darwinism, and support for EAM.

Sadly, it is quite the opposite, and this leaves turner in a huff, changing his tune, and claiming it as darwin damning anyway...

DrKat

July 25, 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Principia
Ah, but there might be reasons to post at ARN other than having "serious discussions." ;)

;)

Doubting Didymus

July 26, 2003, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by KC
From a discussion on The Selfish Gene........

I know this isn't quite the same thing as your referenced antagonist has done, but I must confess that not only have I never read the selfish gene, I don't think I have to any time soon. This is because the ideas he explores in that book are not only re-explored in nearly every one of his other books (which I have read), but have also been the subject of the most public debate in the entire field of evolutionary biology since their origin. (This last is to the consternation of many, I might add; it's coming to the point where every dissertation on the topic from either camp is being prefaced with "This issue should have been resolved long ago, as the points I am / we are about to make are widely known to be correct, BUT...".)

July 26, 2003, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
I know this isn't quite the same thing as your referenced antagonist has done, but I must confess that not only have I never read the selfish gene, I don't think I have to any time soon. This is because the ideas he explores in that book are not only re-explored in nearly every one of his other books (which I have read), but have also been the subject of the most public debate in the entire field of evolutionary biology since their origin. (This last is to the consternation of many, I might add; it's coming to the point where every dissertation on the topic from either camp is being prefaced with "This issue should have been resolved long ago, as the points I am / we are about to make are widely known to be correct, BUT...".)

:::laughing:::

Indeed. But can you imagine if one in either camp wrote, "I don't have to read the arguments in the paper, or scrutinize its method. I read the abstract, and I know it's bunk!" ?

Now that I think about it, I'm sure that there are some who do that, but are savvy enough to at least do it privately... ;)

KC

pangloss

July 27, 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by KC
:::laughing:::

Indeed. But can you imagine if one in either camp wrote, "I don't have to read the arguments in the paper, or scrutinize its method. I read the abstract, and I know it's bunk!" ?

Now that I think about it, I'm sure that there are some who do that, but are savvy enough to at least do it privately... ;)

KC

Well, I have encountered creatonists who have insisted - insisted - that a paper's abstract contains information utterly unrelated to the paper itself...

But you are right - that thread is pretty funny. The combination of Vivid and Joy make the fool's arguments, Ilion and Nobody yammer in with their inane back-patting....

The Keystone Kops of science...

It is amazing to see how ignorance - if not stupidity (vivid, ilion, nobody) - drives these "anti-orthodoxy" zealots to actually become so confident of their all-encompassing knowledge on all topics. And then to see them label others as 'arrogant'.

Someone will have to undertake a study one day...

pangloss

July 27, 2003, 09:20 AM

Oops - haden't reead the part where mturner drops in with his dictionary...

Whatup?

July 29, 2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Chimp

Would someone else care to step up to the plate and take a swing at bat? :eek:
Some responces to him were posted in this thread

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395.html

Apparently science is highly flawed, but not to worry, Smartest Man in the World � to the rescue! Here's a couple samples....

Christopher M. Langan

The CTMU is the theory that allows the discovery of "scientific truth" because, when science is defined strictly on the scientific method, there is no such thing as a "scientific truth". There are only directly apprehended truths, logically derived truths, and in contradistinction to these, tentatively-confirmed scientific hypotheses. This is why my answer "implies that science has discovered no (certified) scientific truths."

Now, that's a stone cold fact. Science may have accidentally happened upon truths of one sort or another, but sadly, it can't certify that this is what they are. "Fantastic" or not, "semantic" or not, that's how it is. If you can show that this is not in fact the case, then be my guest. Otherwise, please address your criticisms to somebody else. When you come right down to it, this is Models & Formalized Theories 101 we're talking about here; if you haven't yet taken these courses, please fill the gaps in your knowledge before attempting to engage me in further discussion on this topic.

[...]

This leads directly to a burning question: why not simply accept the tautology and embrace the theory which acknowledges and explains it, namely the CTMU? After all, it's not as though the CTMU doesn't have a defensible lock on scientific truth and verification (as explained above and elsewhere).

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

djmullen

July 30, 2003, 03:53 AM

Micah, could you bring back those Russell E. Rierson posts? Anything to dilute The World's Smartest Man.

Bebbo

July 30, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by djmullen
Micah, could you bring back those Russell E. Rierson posts? Anything to dilute The World's Smartest Man.

Despite the massive chip Langan has on his shoulder about the CTMU, and his amazing certainty about it, I reckon that in 20 years time it'll still be nothing more than another crank theory of everything. Though I guess by then he'll be polluting the web with several more semi-incoherent websites dedicated to it.

--
Dene

djmullen

July 31, 2003, 12:18 AM

Langan's post actually attracted a reply - and he asked a question about the CTMU! This guy is probably new and doesn't know Langan.

Whatup?

July 31, 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by djmullen
Langan's post actually attracted a reply - and he asked a question about the CTMU! This guy is probably new and doesn't know Langan.
Actually Garrett seems to be a Langan supporter. He's posted several defenses of Langan at ISCID, like one on page 2 of this thread.....

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395.html

Whatup?

August 1, 2003, 12:52 PM

If this latest from Langan doesn't take the cake, what does? At the least the guy's got balls to claim his theory is the "absolute truth", assuming that's what it takes.

Christopher M. Langan wrote....

"Absolute truth" - what you've been calling Truth with a capital T - denotes inclusion in an inferential language. That is, it denotes generation by the syntax, in particular the generative grammar, of the language in which inclusion is asserted. Absolute truth is claimed for the CTMU because the CTMU is identified by definition with cognitive-perceptual syntax and the relationship of that syntax to the language thereby generated, i.e. cognitive-perceptual (rational-empirical) reality. Regarding Euclidean geometry, the syntax status and absolute truth of which seems to be precluded by the putative independence of the parallel postulate, it is still syntactic in the sense that at the level on which it is formulated, it is the "local default geometry" of human cognition and perception. (Since even the spacetime manifold of General Relativity is flat in the microscopic limit, we cannot say that elliptical and hyperbolic geometry are vying with flat Euclidean geometry for conceptual priority. Geometrically, they can only be defined by reference to a flat tangent space representing their "average".)
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395-p-2.html :banghead:

Bebbo

August 1, 2003, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Whatup?
If this latest from Langan doesn't take the cake, what does? At the least the guy's got balls to claim his theory is the "absolute truth", assuming that's what it takes.

Christopher M. Langan wrote....

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395-p-2.html :banghead:

I've spent a little time looking at his CTMU paper and it seems that he asserts a lot without actually demonstrating it. Look for the actual syntax of SCSPL and you won't find it. For someone who's so sure that he's explained life/universe/everything he's remarkably coy on details.

--
Dene

Chimp

August 2, 2003, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by djmullen
Micah, could you bring back those Russell E. Rierson posts? Anything to dilute The World's Smartest Man.

The Equation:

Chimp = Russell E. Rierson :eek:

Chimp

August 2, 2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Bebbo
I've spent a little time looking at his CTMU paper and it seems that he asserts a lot without actually demonstrating it. Look for the actual syntax of SCSPL and you won't find it. For someone who's so sure that he's explained life/universe/everything he's remarkably coy on details.

--
Dene

Yes, Mr. Langan appears to be onto something but does not give all of the details. For example, SCSPL is an algebraic language that requires many valued logic, as well as the good ol' Aristotelian "classical logic" that we all know and love ;) :banghead:

Perhaps CML is crazy like a fox?

Who knows?

Chimp :eek: :confused: :eek:

djmullen

August 2, 2003, 06:24 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by djmullen
Micah, could you bring back those Russell E. Rierson posts? Anything to dilute The World's Smartest Man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Equation:

Chimp = Russell E. Rierson

djm: Well, maybe in a few million years...

Whatup?

August 18, 2003, 07:24 PM

Here's a solid critique from ISCID (http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395-p-2.html) of CHRISTopher Langan, one of the "intellectuals" to be featured in Dembski's upcoming book "Uncommon Dissent (http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/mythsofdarwinism080103.htm)".

Jacob Aliet wrote:

Langan says we need logic to ascertain scientific truth. Dont scientists use logic in assessing scientific findings? The argument that has been made implicitly is that empiricism is mutually exclusive with logic, or that experiments can be carried out without logicomathematical methodology. RBH can confirm whether that is the case.

Question for Langan - when something has been put through "empirical confirmation" - what else does it need to be taken through before it qualifies as truth? And under what situations is it necessary - when things are complex and ambiguous?

One scientific truth is the earths rotation around the sun. Is that a truth or a Truth? How can CTMU help in increasing our certainty about this scientific fact? And in the absence of CTMU, what happens to the level of certainty about that scientific fact?

Going to the basics, what is CTMU? is it valid to juxtapose it with scientific methodology and compare its vaunted "ability" with the ability of science? Is it warranted?

AFAIK, CTMU is a reality theory that is supposed to be able to "provide new models and new paradigms in terms which reality can be understood". To be more exact, CTMU does not concern itself with the study of natural phenomena (which science does), it instead "wants" to explain why scientific observations appear as they do. Sadly, CTMU itself fails to explain why the universe is self-selecting and self-multiplexing and as much as its supposedly a logicomathematical model, it has no clear mathematical model that can explain for example how and why SCSPL actually self-refines from the UBT. Being a supertautological, reality-theoretic extension of logic it fails to explain its importance and its relevance in the understanding of our world. Its like some fellow knocking your door and claiming he is there to save you yet there is no evidence such salvation is required.

It's my observation that sciences' problem of induction alone does not justify letting in this huge animal called the CTMU into our backyards. Langan is making bold claims and yet the utility of CTMU is neither here nor there. It has not improved anything and its still unclear how it can. Langan says we lack a model of causation without which we cannot determine the truth between ID and Evolution. He does not explain how we can test this model of causation, why it is indispensable, and how we can determine its reliability and correctness.

A question for Langan, if someone came and said "hey, you can't determine the truth of scientific findings without God - the source of and reality" and he proceeds to explain how his God theory is logically consistent with a heavy dose of neologisms and demonstrates the circularity of science and its inadequacy in providing explanatory model. He can throw in fine tuning and other teleological arguments and give a spin to the anthropic principle then use the set theory heavily while establishing "reasonable doubt" concerning the reliability of the scientific enterprise.

Between the theory this person would give us and yours which are both not falsifiable or testable, how would we determine the valid and the useful one? What methodology would we use? How do we determine the utility and correctness of a reality model?

Langan says materially-minded instrumentalists have no business in the debate at all - why is this so? Has empiricism been found completely useless? How can one studying nature or reality for that matter ant material be not materially minded? And what does materially-minded mean? Does it mean this discussion is for philosphers and theorists alone?

Langan claims that he and "others" are working hard to come up with a new experimental methodology. He admits that he has none at the moment - doesnt it appear a bit premature to rush out and make these bold claims and attack a well established methodology that has survived - what did Parallel call it - the test of experience?

In response to RBHs question of how we would determine the truth between two different ideas on some matter, Langan says we use SCSPL then says in effect that RBHs hypothetical situation would be impossible because we are all united in an objective manifold of common perception. Langan doesnt answer the question because the question asks for a methodology or method for verifying truth. Langan answers by subverting the question and says its an impossible scenario. He says the truth is self-evident (self-spoken language of reality). Let me refine RBH's question. If one person said that God exists and another said God doesnt, how can CTMU help us decide who is right and who is wrong?

Langan says CTMU locks metaphysical and methodological naturalism into compliance using logic. He however has not demonstrated that they are not compliant with anything. Nor how the "locking" is actually done and whether and how it has been done and how we can determine that it has been done.

AFAIK, ANYTHING is compliant with the CTMU - religion, evolution, archaeology, maths ...you name it. The CTMU is so broad that it has engulfed everything in the field of knowledge today. A recent discussion we had with Langan concerning Tegmarkian parallel universes and whether they are a threat to ID is a case in point. CTMU has raised itself above all else and is, in essence, a philosophical model based on abstract set theory and logic without any empirical support.

The CTMU's fomulation is logically correct. But is that enough? David Garrett says any empirical data must be explainable within a model - why? Because Langan says so? Why do we suddenly need a reality model? Has science been able to progress without CTMU? Yes. Can it reach greater heights without the CTMU? Yes. What negative consequences arise from explaining empirical data without CTMU? none whatsoever.

Do we need the CTMU?

Langan says we need CTMU to explain the nature of reality - which science has been incapable of doing (dont scientific laws explain the nature of reality?). Assuming science hasnt explained the nature of reality, are scientists incapable of explaining the nature of reality? (RBH - please help). Its my contention that scientists can explain the nature of reality even in a metalogic and metascientific manner that Chris does - but why havent they done it?

Because its futile. It adds absolutely nothing to the scientific enterprise.

After all that critical thinking I just don't get the part where Aliet suddenly allows that "The CTMU's formulation is logically correct". Really? How is that determined? Where has Langan published any rigorous proofs? The CTMU seems to be based on "cus I says so". What does Dembski see in this guy that djmullen aptly described as "a crank who couldn't be more obvious if he was wearing a Bozo suit and honking a horn"?

pangloss

August 19, 2003, 07:18 AM

What I find interesting about Langan and his ultra-smart cronies is that NOBODy has ever heard of them.

They have done NOTHING. They engage in lots and lots of mental masturbation but none of it has any impact on anything.

I had never heard of him until he showed up at ARN.

Folks like him prove that old adage about being too smart for your own good.

or in this case, anyones.

Bebbo

August 19, 2003, 05:06 PM

The amusing thing about Langan is the number of times he says something which amounts to this: I'm fed up of wasting my time on schmucks who can't or won't understand and accept the CTMU for the brilliance it is.

I suppose he must be suffering from a severe case of telic recursion.

--
Dene

Principia

September 1, 2003, 08:42 AM

Three amusing threads...

(1) WB accuses scientists of fraud and being deliberately misleading. RBH and others call him out ( with a little help from P... <cough> Mod 3 ;) ). Latest reply as WB squirms in the barrel (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000873.html): As I understand it, a statement is considered intentionally misleading if 1)the statement is misleading and 2)the person making the statement can reasonably be expected to understand that the statement is misleading. There is no requirement that �a statement to be misleading must be recognized as misleading in the literature�. The performance differences between RM&NS and RM&NS PLUS systems are known to be huge. Suggesting RM&NS PLUS performance is a measure of RM&NS performance is clearly misleading. Anyone claiming even a moderate level of scientific knowledge can be reasonably expected to know that such a claim is misleading. My my. So what would WB call the standard run of the mill IDiots like himself? :D

(2) Many a IDiot at ARN are still trying to figure out what is science... the hard way. Here (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000874.html) the troll(e) whines:
I'm sorry. I've read this paragraph six times and I cannot follow it. 'Proof is not a useful concept in science' ? It doesn't MATTER whether ID is claimed to be a scientific fact or not?????? Why not??? I have read many times that the standard evolutionary theory isn't merely a hypothesis/theory but an established fact. And that proposition was adduced by those dismissive of ID. And on similar grounds: ie one (ID) is a mere cockamamie theory/idea, the other (standard evolutionary theory) is an establised fact. Yeah, the word "proven" comes up a lot in that context.
[...]
Don't think it's quite that way: I went to high school in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Big Bang, to my recollection was not taught. That's not because it hadn't been disproven yet but because it hadn't been PROVEN yet (at least to the extent that such stuff can ever be proven). If you merely taught stuff that hadn't been DISPROVEN yet then you would end up with lots of stuff (a la "cold fusion" in the late 1980s) that was too recently hypothesized to be "disproven". It's an unworkable schema. Maybe he forgot to read the contents of this intellectually stimulating thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000865.html).

(3) A manufactured controversy (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-14-t-000453-p-7.html) extended by 270 posts (!), with a recent guest appearance by our favorite know-nothing-with-an-attitude: jon_e. Enough said.

Principia

September 1, 2003, 09:00 AM

Ooh, I just missed this litte gem (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000865.html) from the little lady: joy (speaking in reference to Ron Okimoto) I have to wonder if this person is new to the forum, or is yet another recycled pseud from II who changes his name every time he gets banned for bad behavior.

If you are new to the forum Ron, you should try to avoid ad hominem arguments or merely ad hominems in general. You�ll last longer. LOL This is like Martha Stewart giving pointers on the etiquettes of insider trading. :D

RufusAtticus

September 1, 2003, 10:04 AM

Is Ron even on II?

Principia

September 6, 2003, 06:48 PM

Nelson Alonso (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-14-t-000487.html) follows up our own 'Guts' (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=57800&perpage=25&pagenumber=3) in putting up more inane defenses of Dr. Raymond Bohlin and his fellow Creato-IDiots at the DI:
NA: So? Are people who run ministries not allowed to be scientists? He has also published the following papers:

Bohlin, Raymond G. and Beitinger, Thomas L., 1979. Heat exchange in the aquatic salamander, Amphiuma means. J. Thermal Biology 4:63-67.

Bohlin, Raymond G. and Zimmerman, Earl G. 1982. Genic differentiation of two chromosome races of the Geomys bursarius complex. Journal of Mammalogy 63:218-228.

Bohlin, Raymond G. 1991. Complementation of a defect in complex I of the electron transport chain by DNA-mediated gene transfer. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Dallas.

He seems to be a creationist, but that doesn't mean he is not a practicing scientist.

Is that so... :D

NA: Bohlin seems to be doing more work centered on ID-related issues and creationism. So is Trotter. The major point of the list is that scientists exist that disagree with Darwinism. LOL. "Teach the controversy!"' ;)

Principia

September 10, 2003, 06:23 PM

Amusing thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000895-p-2.html), if anything for the following exchange:

RBH says:
RBH: You should have been at the local school board meetings I attended last spring and summer when IDNet was trying to cram ID creationism into the local district's science curriculum, and listened to the speeches by religionists (a number of them preachers) in support of it. It's not a stereotype.

I am less amused by the obfuscations of people like William (intermittent divine interventions through deep time) Dembski, Michael (ur-cell preloaded with all the information necessary for common descent) Behe, and Philip (we'll have a grand time debating the age of the earth) Johnson when they fudge all over the place on what they really mean by ID so as to keep the YECs in the pews inside the ID big tent for political support.

Mike Gene whines:
MG: Sure it�s a stereotype. My suspicions are not rooted in indoctrination nor a need to justify faith. Even among the religious people you encountered, what makes you think, for them, it boils down to indoctrination and a hope to justify their faith by finding some sort of confirmation?

And in the *very next post*, Dougie Bender provides MG the example:
Dougie: The "Biblical Equations" should have put an end to all argument as to the existence of a Designer, and the identity of the Designer, a long time ago. It's as if a bloodhound went sniffing for the trail, and ignored the victim's boot right in front of him.

I guess some stereotypes are more accurate than others. LOL :D

September 11, 2003, 12:23 PM

From mturner:

Fourthly, "populations" are collective nouns, sets. If "NS" is to said to operate on a "population", then it must be shown to have the same effect on every single member of that "population", or set, otherwise it is only operating on distinct individuals.

:banghead:

KC

pangloss

September 11, 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by KC
From mturner:

:banghead:

KC

Pardon my language, but what a fucking retard.

You'd think that the admin would have banned him (and Bergerson) to avoid tuhe contiual embarrassment to their 'big tent'....

Principia

September 12, 2003, 07:48 AM

Another hilarious exchange (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000863-p-4.html) in the making:
J. Davison: Lamarckism is totally without foundation. There is no known mechanism by which meaningful information can enter the genome of higher organisms. There remains only one reasonable conclusion. The information was there all along and derepressed during evolution in a manner similar to the way in which the obviously preformed information contained in the fertilized egg is derepressed during the development of the individual. Viewed in this way ontogeny and phylogeny become closely related components of the same biological continuum. This, with the understanding that evolution beyond the subspecies is no longer in progress. Evolution, like many other biological processes, has proven to be a self-limiting process and has apparently terminated with the production of Homo sapiens.
mturner:
Have you never heard of 'acquired immunity'? How do you explain that without neo-Lamarckian mechanisms?

J. Davison: I do not know but transmission via mother's milk comes to mind
LOL. The blind leading the blind...

Tom Ames

September 12, 2003, 08:25 AM

More like the blind leading the lobotomized.

Mturner's concept of microbiology is hilarious. He sounds SO sure of himself, too.

pangloss

September 12, 2003, 08:45 AM

Of course, Davison's claim to fame is that his "semi-meiosis" bunk has been published in Rivista di Biologia, the journal with the IDist editor...

He is something of an idiot, who, like ReMine, will as a first resort, when asked specific questions about his ideas, will refer to his 'published work' instead of just answering the questions...

His 'hypothesis' is more reliant upon chance than is "Darwinism".

Anyway, he wrote a"paper" about ontogeny and information. He claims that the paper shows where information comes form.

But when one reads the paper, all it says is that the information was already there.

Of course, Davison, like most creationists, forgets that Kimura demonstrated in 1961 that mutation and selection can add information in adaptive evolution.

pangloss

September 12, 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Tom Ames
More like the blind leading the lobotomized.

Mturner's concept of microbiology is hilarious. He sounds SO sure of himself, too.

Oh, didn't you know?

What evolutionists refer to as evolution is really just ecology, so therefore evolution does not occur...

Principia

September 13, 2003, 02:46 PM

that IDiots (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000649.html) just can't seem to get enough of this thread:
Irrelevant ARNie: Oh, but your own "empty-headed cheerleading and endless streams of disparaging remarks" are much too interesting to let them *all* pass uncommented upon.

Or is it perhaps that it offends you that I comment upon your remarks to your (virtual) face here in the kindergarten (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?postid=730884#post730884) where they are made, rather than behind your (virtual) back at some other site, as is the wont of the "grownups" at II?
Stay tuned for more of your favorite ARN inanities, right here... ;)

pangloss

September 13, 2003, 05:19 PM

Well, Ilion is dumb enough to think that his treatment of chromosome fusion was sufficient to 'poke a hole' in Darwinism and 'disprove' human-chimp ancestry...

Too bad he is too ignorant to know the real story - oh, wait - he was told the real story several times by several people, but, being a typical undereducated pontificaet, he refused to acknowledge his errors...

Principia

September 24, 2003, 08:14 AM

As expected Dumbski posted his latest polemics at ARN (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000924), hoping as usual to get the CreatoIDiots all fired up. But, strangely enough, the response was rather lackluster. Why? Sample the conversation:
IDiotic point #1: Yes, Dembski does use the word "amateur" to characterize a few critics but it is to draw attention to criticism from more highly-qualified critics. It is that latter criticism that is surely going to be the acid test of Dembski's ideas....

Hard hitting counterpoint: He also includes Jason Rosenhouse in the list of amateurs, even though Rosenhouse has a PhD in Mathematics and is a postdoc doing research. That makes me wonder what meaning Dembski has in mind when using the word "amateur". An acid test of Dembski's ideas would surely be to show that specified complexity is to be found in biology. So far he has been unable to do that according to the rigorous criteria set out in "The Design Inference".

IDiotic point #2: ID hasn't proved applicability. Hey, it took Darwin time! Ultimately, I believe it will be recognized that nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of Design.

Hard hitting counterpoint: Where is all the "ID-guided" lab research? Instead of simply putting their money where their mouths are, we see the movers of the ID camp writing essays, self-publishing books targeted at lay audiences, lobbying school boards and politicans, etc. Shrill 'defenses' and personal vendettas are not convincing to the skeptic.
IDiotic point #3: What about the Law of Conservation of Information? Gross claims that it is a new law of nature, that I've introduced it, and that introducing a new law of nature is the mark of a crank science. Each of these claims is false. Certainly if the mere introduction of a new law of nature signified a crank science, then genuine scientists could never discover and introduce any new laws at all. But the more important point for this discussion is that I'm not introducing anything fundamentally new. The very phrase "Law of Conservation of Information" is due not to me but to the biologist Peter Medawar (see his The Limits of Science, 1984). What's more, he used it, albeit in a restricted sense, in the same way I use it.

I also identify this law with a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics. But again, I'm not claiming to introduce anything fundamentally new. If Gross had read my book No Free Lunch, where I give a history of this law, he would realize that it goes back at least to the mid 1970s to some speculations by Victor Weisskopf and that more recently it has received careful attention from Stuart Kauffman (see his most recent book with Oxford titled Investigations). Kauffman and I are conversation partners. We have debated publicly at the University of New Mexico and spent several days together at a symposium in Santa Fe. He even graciously consented to do an online chat through a professional organization I helped found <snip irrelevant link>

Hard hitting counterpoint(s): Leaving aside the appeal to 'ordinary experience' as evidence, and leaving aside the question-begging nature of that appeal, Dembski's "Law" is about something quite different than Medawar's. Medawar's "Law" is a statement about what one can or cannot do with logic given a set of premises. Dembski's "Law" is a statement about what can or cannot happen in the world. Medawar's Law is about closed formal logical systems; Dembski's "Law" is an empirical claim about phenomena in the world.

Therefore, Dembski's claim that Medawar used the term "Law of Conservation of Information" ... in a restricted sense, in the same way I use it" is false; Medawar did not so use it. Medawar used the term to refer to what one gets by applying logic to premises; Dembski uses it to refer to an empirical claim about the natural world, a claim about what "natural causes" cannot do. They are very different domains of discourse. So Dembski cannot appeal to Medawar as an intellectual predecessor in proposing a "Law of Conservation of Information" as a statetment about nature.
[...]
Stuart Kauffmann: Hello. In brief, my own books explore self organization in complex systems and the implications for the origins of life and evolution and ontogeny. I am, however, a Darwinian in the broad sense and hold to the view that mutations are random with respect to prospective adaptive signficance. Hence I hold no truck with intelligent design. It is fine with me if you publicize my response. We have to fight creationism everywhere it pops up.

But y'know... like all circus animals, maybe all the ARNies need is a little prodding ;)

Principia

September 24, 2003, 08:21 AM

While we're on the subject... let's not forget our favorite know-nothing trying to tackle the mountain of scientific evidence (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000884;p=3). Once again, he gets bitch-slapped: Ron Okimoto:
It isn't worth my time to try and go over and over the same things with you. Mainly because you seem to be willfully ignorant. Just admit that you don't understand the data and I will try and explain the Naylor and Brown paper to you. It is a short paper and I won't waste too much time trying to get you to understand it. I'll even go over the SINE paper if you think that is neccessary after the Naylor paper, but I won't waste anymore time for one simple reason. Only crackpots do not think that the molecular evidence supports biological evolution. Even guys like Behe, and Dembski acknowledge this. You know that, that must have been like pulling teeth to have someone like Dembski (who thinks that everything should be evaluated from a Christian perspective) to admit that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. If you want to believe the crackpots that is OK, but I won't waste too much time with someone like that.

The pitiful response?

IDiot:
And we're still humans and they're still chimpanzees. Or am I missing something here? The point you make is exactly the point I would like to ask you about - How much information about inter-species relationships can be gained by looking only at single-gene sequences? If more polymorphisms are occurring within our species than between the human and chimp species, and that's all you look at, it doesn't tell you diddly-squat about relationships between the species. If that's all you look at, you could arrive at the less-than-accurate conclusion that humans are more closely related to chimps than to each other. But it's that 98.5%-99% number that is constantly bandied about, not only in the popular press, but in published scientific papers (or at least their abstracts). And to think that immunology was the only thing jon_e had trouble grasping. He's apparently even more Creato than an IDiot.

Principia

September 26, 2003, 08:47 AM

As predicted, it only took a little prodding to get the zoo back into action pronto. Remembering the CreatoIDiot playbook, I expected the ensuing discussion after the embarrassing first 15 posts to become an exercise in spin doctoring. In the following 63 posts the ARNies covered:

1) "Parsing" Dumbski's supposed alignment with Kauffman:
IDiot #1: No. No. No. Dembski is saying that the critique of the Darwinian mechanism is 'essentially the same'. This dayton transmutes into 'Dembski says that his WORK is essentially the same'. Those statements are NOT THE SAME THING. And one doesn't have to be a scientist to know that. Just a parser of English prose.
IDiot #2: But with Dayton�s latest reply, we see that he was simply citing Kauffman as someone who was questioning the Darwinian mechanism. He could have cited Shapiro. Or Margulis. So what�s the problem? Dayton seems to be justifying his characterization with some type of legalistic nit-picking. The issue would seem to revolve around this. Did Kauffman attempt to show �that the Darwinian mechanism when you reproduce it mathematically cannot produce the sorts of complexities that we see in biological systems?�
IDiot #3: Unless we see the actual e mail we don't know what was asked of Kaufaman do we? As for the question "what else can Kaufman say" can any scientist like Kaufman align themselves with the "evil" creaionists? [Aside: *laugh out loud* "Please, please, Dr. Dembski, don't ruin our professional relationship by taking my words out of context. I'm free anytime you want to discuss Intelligent Design with me, as it is so relevant to my own work. Here, jot down my number, 555..." Right. :rolleyes:]
2) Questioning motives of evilutionists
IDiot #1: You still have not explained how you, on the first page of this thread, misascribed to me a comment about Medawar (or Dembski's comments about Medawar, to be more precise). It's true, you apologized for it. But that doesn't really explain how you could misread my post(s) so badly. And it bodes ill for those reading your comments on Medawar (since most of us don't have Medawar in front of us).

IDiot #2: [Aside: Oh what the hell. IDiot #2 is Mike Gene. Anything whining he has to do belongs here. ;)]

IDiot #3: Dayton what is a person from Kansas doing listening to a radio show in Texas? You some kind of stalker of Dembski? Sheesh [Aside: And keeping tabs about where an internet poster is from isn't "stalking?" ;)]

IDiot #3 again: Yeh I think I was around for that. These people are viscious. Of course these same people want you to reveal your real name.

more IDiot #3: Oh my! That certainly enhances his credibility in my eyes!

another IDiot #1: In my eyes this is a non-sequitur: you've just given a definition of an IDist (ie someone who thinks in principle natural processes are insufficient ----note insufficient, not 'incapable' --- on their own of having produced all aspects of life) and then you've given this the label of "creationist". After what, 3 years on this board????? So by your definition, Mike Gene and Douglas are BOTH creationists. Nice to know where you are coming from.

3) A brief aside on whether Dumbski and Mike Gene are creationists... eh, the exchange is pointless. They are.

4) And of course, I can't close without sharing the following statement that is so definitive of an ARNie's debate style: So you don't want to discuss Kauffman UNTIL you've read the 3 books you referenced?? That's going to slow this thread down quite a bit.

Well, now it's time to recap. Actually, what was the OP of the ARN thread? Hard to remember, ain't it?

Let me remind you: Compare

http://www.nas.org/publications/sci_newslist/7_4/sci_insght74.pdf

with

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.Gross_Response.pdf

--------------------
Bill DembskiNow, despite the nearly 50% of the thread content on Kauffman, here's the only paragraph in which Dembski talks about him: I also identify this law with a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics. But again, I�m not claiming to introduce anything fundamentally new. If Gross had read my book No Free Lunch, where I give a history of this law, he would realize that it goes back at least to the mid 1970s to some speculations by Victor Weisskopf and that more recently it has received careful attention from Stuart Kauffman (see his most recent book with Oxford titled Investigations). Kauffman and I are conversation partners. We have debated publicly at the University of New Mexico and spent several days together at a symposium in Santa Fe. He even graciously consented to do an online chat through a professional organization I helped found (the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design�for the chat transcript, go to (http://www.iscid.org/stuartkauffman-chat.php>).
Doing a simple word count reveals that this is merely 5% of Dumbski's original document. And after all the bitter polemics, what did the CreatoIDiots conclude? That Kauffman has given "essentially" the same "critique of Darwinian evolution" as Dembski. Interesting conclusion, considering that *none* of them seem to have read Kauffman's work.

Well, now why would they do that and slow down the thread?? ;)

pangloss

September 26, 2003, 03:00 PM

What I find MOST interesting about that thread is the fact that not one - not one - of the IDiot cheerleading squad simply presented the fruits of Dembski's filter....

Because there aren't any, so they engaged in the usual pseudopsychoanalysis, minutiae-mongering bullshit that they usually do.

And I agree that Gene is a creationist. Closeted, but a creationisty. I followed some of the 'off-topic' threads a while back and he made several, shall I say, interesting statements in the threads on parenting and such that pointed me in that direction...

Principia

September 27, 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by pangloss
Well, Ilion is dumb enough to think that his treatment of chromosome fusion was sufficient to 'poke a hole' in Darwinism and 'disprove' human-chimp ancestry...

Too bad he is too ignorant to know the real story - oh, wait - he was told the real story several times by several people, but, being a typical undereducated pontificaet, he refused to acknowledge his errors...

Indeed. In point of fact, read Monsieur Idiot's latest incoherent babbling here (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000884-p-4.html): Just as Jon declines your invitation to "stop using these quotes," so do I. I see "these quotes" as a very necessary thing when making the sort of arguments being made in this thread. If an argument is based purely on reason and logic, or even if it depends on fact that everyone knows, I see no valid reason to demand "citations" of the arguer; and when I make such an argument I generally decline such demands, since I view them as a thinly veiled attempt to sidetrack the discussion. However, if an argument depends on fact that isn't reasonably expected to be known by everyone, it most certainly is valid to expect and demand, if necessary, that the fact be not merely asserted but also 'proven' by appropriate citations. Moreover, the citation is likely to contain extra information about the fact, further enhancing understanding of the person(s) who didn't previously know the fact.

But I suppose that what I just said isn't suitably subtle to be understood by certain persons (or personae) at ARN and elsewhere. And, oddly enough, it may be too subtle to be grasped by other persons (or personae). So, I will attempt to illustrate what I mean with an example that I hope is both suitably subtle and concrete --

to wit -- If you were to state that "the Declaration of Independence was officially signed on July 4, 1776" and I were to challenge you to "prove it," then by my reasoning as explained above, you would be fully justified in regarding my demand as "not worth your time." But on the other hand, if you were to state that "George Washington was not the first President of the US" and I were to challenge you to "prove it," then by my reasoning as explained above, you would not be justified in regarding my demand as "not worth your time," or at any rate, not if you wish to be taken seriously.

Or, to look at this from a different vantage, you have stated that you "got involved in this thread as an educational thread, but it turned into exposing ignorance instead of giving the standard explanations for the data." And, we have it on Good Authority that 'people like me' are "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked�)," which sentiment you have echoed at least a couple of times in this thread alone. So, whether you see yourself as educating me or as exposing my ignorance, I expect you to support your factual assertions, just as I know you will expect that of me should I make factual assertions.
It's the ol' teach-me-but-spank-me-gently routine, revealing a failed education, and one too many encounters where he thought he deserved a passing grade because of his impeccable reasoning and logic, but the teach flunked him because his examinations demonstrate no mastery of the fundamentals.

PS: I admit being too ignorant of CreatoIDiotic "subtleties," but who can explain to me the difference between Monsieur Idiot's 1776 and George Washington example? :confused: ;)

PPS: Oh nevermind. I had to put on my ignoramus hat, and pretend to think like a dumbass... and finally saw the attempted point. :D

Principia

October 16, 2003, 08:50 PM

You know things are getting pretty bad for CreatoIDiots when they have to warn their most prominent proponents not to post at their own forums. In this continuing saga (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000924-p-10.html), the cheerleader opines:
As I mentioned back on page 1, the immediate reaction to the 2 articles posted in the OP was so unbalanced, so one-sided, so partisan, so warped, that it led me to conclude that no serious Origins writer should participate in a back-and-forth here. The subsequent 8 pages have confirmed me in that conclusion: anything Dembski posted here would be twisted by the same persons who have twisted his remarks in the linked article and the radio interview of which we saw a partial transcript.....Please, Dr Dembski, don't waste your time here!
Indeed. ;)

MrDarwin

October 16, 2003, 08:58 PM

I thought I'd drop in with the example of Haikouella as an example of evolutionary theory in action (see The predictive power of evolutionary hypotheses (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000971.html)) but as usual, when confronted with actual data from the real world, they don't quite seem to know what to do with it (all the more surprising because it seems relevant to discussions in several recent threads over there).

Ted Hoffman

October 17, 2003, 06:27 AM

While combing the archives for more info on uncommon Dissent, I encountered RBH's post (borrowed from ARN) about the Case of the Invisible couple.

Originally posted by RBH
"It's elementary my dear Watson! Two people, walking on the moor can't simply vanish into thin aire! On the contrary I suspect foul play!"

"Extraordinary, Holmes! How, ummm, did you deduct THAT?!"

"Grammatical, my dear Watson! We have the footprints of the two walking side by side, correct?"

"Quite so. Go on."

"Then suddenly, where the bog begins, the footsteps end. What do you deduce from that, Watson?"

"Well, that they fell into the bog, I suppose!"

"Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. See those bent reeds?
What do you suppose they were bent by?"

"Dogs?"

"No. A whirlybird. It was the old mod-ex-machina trick. The kidnappers want us to think that they fell into the bog. In reality, they were whisked away to another message---- I mean moor. Do you see?"

"By Jove, you've done it, Holmes! You've solved the Case of the Invisible Couple!"

;)
RBH
I laughed so hard, the desk rattled :D

Ted Hoffman

October 17, 2003, 06:42 AM

My workmates had to scamper for safety.

October 19, 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by MrDarwin
I thought I'd drop in with the example of Haikouella as an example of evolutionary theory in action (see The predictive power of evolutionary hypotheses (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000971.html)) but as usual, when confronted with actual data from the real world, they don't quite seem to know what to do with it (all the more surprising because it seems relevant to discussions in several recent threads over there).

Yes. The lack of response was surprising, considering the 'Darwinian Predictions' thread.

KC

Principia

October 24, 2003, 07:27 PM

When IDiots write embarrassing things, we can always count on ARN's Mod 4 to pacify the scene (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000703.html). ;)
THE NUMERICAL SIGNATURE OF GOD* By Edward Aguirre
Copyright 2003
American Victory Enterprises
Americanvictory3@aol.com
541-282-0610

Science - Knowledge gained through observation or experience...

God has stamped His numerical signature throughout the world of nature. The marvels of nature attest to the existence of God and declare to mankind that "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power..."(Romans 1:20).

What is the numerical signature of God? The numerical signature of God is the number three as used throughout the Sacred Volume of Biblical Scripture. God is revealed in the Holy Bible as a triune being commonly known as the Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, therefore, the number 3 is God's special number. God uses the number 3 as a witness of Himself, "For there are three that bear record in heaven...And there are three that bear witness in earth..."(1 John 5: 7,8).

The following partial list of facts demonstrate the numerical signature of God and the harmony of true science and Scripture:

1. God made man in His image as a triune being: 1. Body(shell) 2. Soul(emotions, intellect, will) 3. Spirit(life)

2. The fingerprints of God are found throughout human anatomy as seen in the many pages which list the groups of three within its design. For example, skin is the largest organ of the body and consists of three layers: 1. Epidermis 2. Dermis 3. Hypodermis

3. The Bible states that "God is light"( 1 John 1:5). There are three properties of light: 1. Actinic 2. Calorific 3. Luminiferous

4. There are three phases of matter: 1. Solids 2. Liquids 3. Gases

5. Water, the greatest quantity of the phases of matter on earth, has three molecules.

6. There are three basic dimensions: 1. Length 2. Width 3. Depth

7. There are three primary colors: 1. Yellow 2. Red 3. Blue

8 .The divisions of time are in groups of three's: 1. Years 2. Months 3. Days 1. Hours 2. Minutes 3. Seconds

9. There are three realms in nature: 1. Mineral 2. Vegetable 3. Animal

10. The smallest particle of matter, the atom, has three basic components: 1. Electrons 2. Protons 3. Neutrons

11. The earth is composed of three concentric layers: 1. Crust 2. Mantle 3. Core

12. The earth has a big 3 stamped on it as it were, since it is the 3rd planet from the sun.

13. In deep space, in the Eagle Nebula, there are three immense pillars six trillion miles long consisting of interstellar hydrogen gas and dust.

14. Multiples of three exist also throughout the world of nature without coincidence as noted in the following examples: 1. The nine planets of the solar system 2. Pulsars(spin 30 times per second) 3. Hexagonal honeycombs 4. Snowflakes(demonstrate God's infinite diversity since there are no two alike with the same design, but all have six points.

15. The geometric configurations of the Earth and other planets(their circular shapes), which move in mathematical pecision, predictability and remarkable speed, further reveal the existence of God, the Great Geometrician.

The facts concerning God's numerical signature not only demonstrate His existence, they also expose the theory of evolution. "The fool hath said there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).

Almighty God, the architect of the universe, is the controller of time, matter and space. Unfortunately, the only things He doesn't control are the lives of men who refuse to repent and believe the gospel.

The theory of evolution with its random chance and mindless causes is a hopeless philosophy. The propagation of the evolutionary theory was one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century because of its faith-destroying tenets and its "survival of the fittest" mentality.

The scientific evidence for creation and the existence of a personal God is now overwhelming in the light of God's numerical signature. The orderliness and the intelligent design of the Creator can be traced and scientifically verified by His numerical signature as seen everywhere.

Therefore, the Bible is a trustworthy science book for all students of inquiring minds who also will find in it advanced scientific and medical statements. For example, thousands of years ago it was recorded in Sacred Scripture the importance of blood(See Leviticus 17:11), and that the earth is round and poised in space(See Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7). In his book entitled "The Book of Prophecies," Christopher Columbus noted that reading in the Book of Isaiah helped him discover the New World.

God's design, majesty and power are not only seen in the earth but also 7,000 light years away. The Bible says, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork"(Psalm 19:1). The way God accomplished His mighty feats is also revealed in Scripture: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things that are seen were not made of things which do appear"(Hebrews 11:3). God spoke and the heavenly bodies were created, including all the solids, liquids, gases and energy in the universe.

A further revelation of God's power is found in Psalm 147:4, "He tells the number of stars; He calls them all by their names." There are an estimated seventy-six sextillion stars in the universe, a number said to be greater than all the grains of sand on earth. In consideration of all these things, we have to agree with the words of Psalm 48:1, "Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised."

*This article is an excerpt from the book, "The Woman, the Dragon and the Eagle.

PS: Check earlier in this thread for other jazzraptor comedy.

Ted Hoffman

October 25, 2003, 02:41 AM

Oh man. These IDiots are unstoppable! You can count on them to conjure loony theories every day.
Every day.

monkenstick

October 25, 2003, 05:31 AM

that is some hilarious mumbo jumbo

Lobstrosity

October 25, 2003, 07:06 AM

Wow, that's both pretty silly and mostly wrong. Erroneous statements include 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 (has this guy ever heard of "weeks"?), and 9 (so, are bacteria to be classified as animals, plants, or minerals?).

Other things this author might wish to note: The most abundant and perhaps most important element in the universe (a.k.a. hydrogen) is comprised of two particles (proton and electron).
Electrons have two possible spin states (spin up or spin down).
Photons are the alternating oscillations of two fields (electric and magnetic).
Pi is not three.
God's cosmic tribute to the number three (a.k.a. the Eagle Nebula) is 7000 light-years from Earth (not 3000 or 6000) and doesn't actually exist (since the photons we're receiving from the nebula depict the it as it was 7000 years ago, and we all know from Genesis that the universe did not exist 7000 years ago).
We have only one moon...you'd naively think we'd have two more than that if three were so cosmically important, wouldn't you?
There are seven days in a week (a.k.a there is no multiple of three present in the lunar cycle).
There are 364.75 days in a year (once again, three is conspicuous in its absence).
There are four seasons.
Musical notes are divided into octaves (i.e. eight, not three or six or nine or twelve)
There are seven seas, supposedly.
There are seven continents.
Humans have two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, two lungs, two kidneys, two gonads, five fingers per hand, and five toes per foot. It would seem that the "fingerprints of God" do not pervade anatomy as thoroughly as Eddie would have us believe.
There are only two sexes and as such people group in pairs.
According to legend, Christ rose from the dead two days after he died.
There are ten commandments.
There are seven deadly sins.
There were ten plagues visited upon Egypt.
Multiples of three are not extraordinarily special. 33.3333% of all integers are multiples of three.
Most astronomers would probably now not classify Pluto as a planet. As such, there are really only eight planets in our solar system. Does this prove that God doesn't exist?
Pulsars do not spin "30 times a second." Each has its own rate of rotation and these rates are decaying slowly over time.

Principia

October 26, 2003, 08:49 AM

News flash: More intriguing ID results (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000987.html) that an IDiot says he may or may not have but ... shh... he won't share anyway... because, y'know, there's a big bad conspiracy of closed-minded scientists out there. ;)
IDiot: Excellent site! [in reference to his own pet project]

What�s that?

Oh, it�s mine.

Oops.

Seriously though, I hope that most people can recognize one thing about the site - it is quite unique. If the site disappeared tomorrow, where would one go to get the same interpretations?

[...]

I have already spelled out several testable hypotheses on my web page (the stuff I give away freely). And suffice it to say, if I had preliminary results from an intriguing hypothesis/experiment, I wouldn�t blurt it out in this barroom.

Now compare and contrast this to:
Dumbski: I met with Douglas Axe at the recent RAPID conference and I've had a preview of where his research is going for some time (at least since the summer of 2000), so in reading his JMB paper, I'm anticipating where's he's going. I agree that the JMB paper does not resolve the issues we are debating. That's why I put it in terms of "preliminary indications."
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000212#000008
more:
By the way, you may be wondering why I don't here simply provide a list of peer-reviewed articles by design theorists from the biological literature that support intelligent design. The reason is that I want to spare these authors the harassment they would receive if I listed their work. Overzealous critics of intelligent design regard it as their moral duty to keep biology free from intelligent design, even if that means taking extreme measures. I've known such critics to contact design theorists' employers and notify them of the "heretics" in their midst. Once "outed," the design theorists themselves get harassed and harangued with emails. Next, the press does a story mentioning their unsavory intelligent design associations (the day one such story appeared, a close friend and colleague of mine mentioned in the story was dismissed from his research position at a prestigious molecular biology laboratory -- he had worked in that lab for ten years). Hereafter, the first thing that an Internet search of their names reveals is their connection with intelligent design.... Welcome to the inquisition.
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000386#000000

Sound familiar? ;)

pangloss

October 26, 2003, 09:30 AM

This molecular biologist that was fired after 10 years of service when it was discovered he was an IDer -

more bullshit...

The old anonymous apocryphal anecdote. The IDiots seem to have a special penchant for not only telling them, but for believing them.

pangloss

October 26, 2003, 09:34 AM

Mike the IDiot:
I have already spelled out several testable hypotheses on my web page (the stuff I give away freely). And suffice it to say, if I had preliminary results from an intriguing hypothesis/experiment, I wouldn�t blurt it out in this barroom.

Could this be the same pseudopsychoanalizer that at one time claimed that boards like ARN were actually better than peer-review because more people read it?

What a fucking hypocritical egomaniac. And he wonders why only morons like Jack Foster take him seriously.

RufusAtticus

October 26, 2003, 01:24 PM

Once "outed," the design theorists themselves get harassed and harangued with emails.

This reminds me of what happened to two of my professors. Since they are the top two evolutionary geneticists in the state, they were quoted in an AJC article about the Cobb County debate. They both ended up getting hundreds of bible-verse ladden emails.

Xeluan

October 28, 2003, 07:24 PM

Over the years I have seen some outlandish claims by creationists but I must admit this (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000966;p=5#000163) is a new one and a real doozy.

Can jon_e really believe that whales fossils are actually misindentified crocodile fossils and a hoax? My suspicion is that he is trolling to provoke a few people in being booted.

Principia

October 28, 2003, 07:48 PM

I must admit that it's fun prete... uh ... being a YEC. ;)

Think about it -- it's mindless, noneducational, and completely wholesome. Plus, you get other Christians to label you a complete dumbass. :D

October 28, 2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Xeluan
Over the years I have seen some outlandish claims by creationists but I must admit this (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000966;p=5#000163) is a new one and a real doozy.

Can jon_e really believe that whales fossils are actually misindentified crocodile fossils and a hoax? My suspicion is that he is trolling to provoke a few people in being booted.

I'm not sure if he's serious or not. He may have no idea about the basic differences between mammalian and reptilian skeletons.

KC

Xeluan

October 28, 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by KC
I'm not sure if he's serious or not. He may have no idea about the basic differences between mammalian and reptilian skeletons.

Even in that thread with Ron Okimoto regards chromosone fusions, jon_e showed some ability to understand basic concepts. I have never seen a YEC or any evolution denier to posit something as extreme what he is regarding whales and crocodiles. I find it hard to believe that he is serious.

And this discussion brings to mind my father, who one night at dinner, for no apparent reason, startled the table with "I like whales. Can't stand crocodiles though." I suppose you had to be there but it did come out of nowhere.

Principia

October 29, 2003, 06:16 AM

From the only YEC moderator (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000966-p-4.html) at ARN: Once again, lets clarify that we moderators are not here to pass judgement on the standard of intellectual content in contributor's posts. That would be a subjective and slippery slope for arbiters of the forum. Whether someone's argument is strong or weak has no direct bearing on the forum rules. In contrast, insults and ad hominems directed at other contributors are in direct violation of forum rules. Such posts will be deleted and their authors at risk. I hope this is sufficient clarification for anyone who may be hazy on the issue. Thanks. Why, of course you can't judge the intellectual content of a post like jon_e's. ;)

pangloss

October 29, 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Xeluan
Over the years I have seen some outlandish claims by creationists but I must admit this (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000966;p=5#000163) is a new one and a real doozy.

Can jon_e really believe that whales fossils are actually misindentified crocodile fossils and a hoax? My suspicion is that he is trolling to provoke a few people in being booted.

provoke people so that their moderaters will ban them? Would creationists really do that?

Come now, I think you are stretching things a bit...

:rolleyes:

Xeluan

October 29, 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by pangloss
provoke people so that their moderaters will ban them? Would creationists really do that?

Come now, I think you are stretching things a bit...

Yeah I know. Creationists never would stoop to such behaviour. They are paragons of virtue.

It seems that the closed thread has spawned a new thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000995;p=1#000032). I am still thinking that jon_e is trolling and doesn't seriously believe the position he has taken. Yet each post from him erodes that belief.

Principia

November 1, 2003, 02:41 PM

An amusing thread, on a supposedly taboo subject at ARN: Why would you want ID to be true? (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000999.html) ;)

November 1, 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Principia
An amusing thread, on a supposedly taboo subject at ARN: Why would you want ID to be true? (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000999.html) ;) What's really enlightening is all the people who are saying that they would see it as an affirmation of their beliefs in a cosmic consciousness or a god or a spiritual side to life. I don't see it. I thought ID was supposed to be a scientific idea that was independent of superstition, and don't see how discovery of an intelligent designer would give their life greater meaning. If it does, that just means their conception of their life was awfully pathetic to begin with.

It's clear what they want: scientific support for creationism. And that's what they expect to get from the pseudo-scientific claptrap of ID.

Mike Gene just confirms all over again that he's an idiot. His joy will come from seeing his authority figures, Wells and Johnson, being proved right. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case. If JHWH the God of the Hebrews himself manifested himself on Earth and threw lightning bolts, made prophecies that we then saw come true, and testified with no possibility of argument that every word of the bible was literally true, it would not make the illogic and bumbling, baseless proclamations of those two any more valid, and I'd still consider the denizens of the Discovery Institute to be poisonous clowns who are destructive to the growth of knowledge. That stopped clocks hold the correct time twice a day does NOT mean that their mechanisms actually work. Gene seems to think that magical revelations would legitimize bad science. They wouldn't.

Principia

November 1, 2003, 06:02 PM

MG (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000999.html):
The only reason I would �want� ID to be true is because it would be extremely interesting to see people like Gross, Dennett, Dawkins et al. react to this truth. It would be truly fascinating to watch how Dawkins, for example, would verbalize the following: �Wells and Johnson were right after all and we were wrong,� as I�m not sure that is even possible.

MG (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000924;p=8):
Sure, and your bias has always been evident to me. Can you point to a single example on my web page where you think I make a good point? The irony. If Wells and Johnson were right, then there wouldn't be anything at all about MG's FLE that'd be worth perusing. After all, if Wells and Johnson were right, then evolutionary theory in any form, whether "front-loaded" or not, would be "destroyed," and materialistic, naturalistic, positivistic scientific methodology would be thrown out of the window in favor of prayers for science. If Wells and Johnson were right, then MG would have to be sent to a Christian theocratic gov't to stand trial for arguing against teaching ID to children.

pz: It's clear what they want: scientific support for creationism. And that's what they expect to get from the pseudo-scientific claptrap of ID. Indeed. Even MG himself (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000385;p=1) agrees:
The problem, however, is twofold. First, it is probably true that most ID proponents have and do used ID more as an apologetic device, being mostly interested in "proving" that God has created the world.

Principia

November 2, 2003, 02:54 PM

Once again, just for my own personal amusement (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000995-p-2.html):
Ms. Joy B. Naughty: Pish-posh, wildlifer. It's a Tag Team (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=39803&perpage=25&pagenumber=7).

Principia - I must admit that it's fun prete... uh ... being a YEC. // Think about it -- it's mindless, noneducational, and completely wholesome. Plus, you get other Christians to label you a complete dumbass.

Ron's just playing his part. The puppeteer runs the show.
Man, it must be so incredibly confusing for the IDiots. Is Ron Okimoto Principia? Or is Ron the "puppeteer"? Or am I jon_e, and Ron Okimoto is the puppet? Aaahhh... the connections are simply mind-boggling. :D

Stay tuned next time for the breath-taking revelation. ;)

PS: apologies beforehand to R. Okimoto for having to play this IDiotic game.

November 2, 2003, 03:06 PM

I feel so used.

KC

Principia

November 2, 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by KC
I feel so used.

KC Nah, at ARN, nothing is ever what it seems.

Ron Okimoto: This just proves my point. Where are the ID proponents telling Jon_e that he is out to lunch? This is true for any forum that I have participated in. The creationists don't care about the errors their peers are making and ignore them, but the guys on the science side will point out factual errors or other errors to science supporters and creationists alike. The difference is that in nearly all cases the proscience person will check out his errors and acknowledge them and it doesn't turn into a 50 post scamble of creationist denial, so you just don't notice it. Exactly. This is the point anyone who debates on a board run by YEC moderators/admins eventually comes to. Y'see, in order to "level the playing field," to give the CreatoIDiots a chance to voice their "balanced" opinions, and to spin all scientific knowledge to some fucked up viewpoint, a CreatoIDiot can always count on some help from the moderation. We've seen it all before, at TheologyWeb, at BaptistBoard, at ISCID, etc. ad nauseam. What I don't get is why, upon this realization, anybody bothers to duke it out with these morons on their own terms and turfs? Look, the membership of ARN hasn't changed in years. These are the same people arguing the same points over and over again -- to them, close-minded tenacity is a virtue. With each year, the level of paranoia of these people grows with every post -- from the perceived persecution by mainstream scientists, to Rapture Ready idiots, to these periodic purging of "sockpuppets." I mean, how much clearer does it have to get that these people want to be left alone to discuss things by themselves? ;)

Principia

November 9, 2003, 10:30 AM

Another hilarious thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001017.html) at ARN, where the IDiots end up psychologizing themselves, shall we say, rather intelligently. The following post by dayton (not to be confused w/ the Dayton from CF) is a keeper -- just in case, y'know, if some Mod/Admin decides to pacify the scence. ;)
==========================================
dayton:

Hmmm - I wonder why?

Maybe these will help explain:

Phillip Johnson

The second goal was to establish a position which would tend to unify the religious world. ...

It would involve the simple question of creation - do you need a Creator to do the creating, or don�t you.

In the beginning was the Word - in the beginning God created: true or false.

State of the Wedge address, DDD2

It's a great time to be a young Christian who is excited about using his or her mind in the service of the Lord because we will discover that "in the beginning was the Word" is fact not fantasy. It's as true scientifically as it is spiritually or Biblically or whatever....

And it�s through this spiritual understanding, I think, ... it�s the right entry into the whole Biblical system of thinking.

Northshore Church, 2002

William Dembski

Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.

The world is a mirror representing the divine life... Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John�s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

"Since Darwin, we can no longer believe that a benevolent God created us in His image,�Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God.�The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ.,�And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.�It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."

Jonathan Wells

He [Reverend Moon] also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. ...

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.

John Calvert

�God is using this [debate] to bring people to know Him better,� commented IDN�s John Calvert, citing Romans 1:18-32. This passage teaches that God is revealed in nature, but those who reject Him and worship the �creature� instead are given over to unrighteousness.

Article in Family Voice

Robert Lattimer

"If you want to say something about the designer, that's religion and not science," Lattimer says. "It's God, sure," he answers when pressed for his own belief. "But everyone doesn't have to say that. I suppose it goes back to the status of the legal situation, that if they can pin down [who ID proponents think the designer is], it might affect" whether the courts view ID as an attempt to endorse a religious belief.

Nancy Pearcey

Our view of origins shapes our understanding of ethics, law, education- and yes, even sexuality. If life on earth is a product of blind, purposeless natural causes, then our own lives are cosmic accidents. There's no source of transcendent moral guidelines, no unique dignity for human life. On the other hand, if life is the product of foresight and design, then you and I were meant to be here. In God's revelation we have a solid basis for morality, purpose, and dignity.

Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is a Christian apologetics ministry that equips the church to uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse.

Institute of Creation Research

Our world, our church, our schools, our society, need the truth of creation more than ever. We see the wrong thinking of evolution having produced devastating results in every realm. Our passion at the Institute for Creation Research is to see science return to its rightful God-glorifying position, and see creation recognized as a strength by the body of Christ; supporting Scripture, answering questions, satisfying doubts and removing road blocks to the Gospel. The Institute for Creation research Graduate School exists to train students in scientific research and teaching skills, preparing effective warriors for the faith. We are delighted that you are considering honing your skills in creation thinking, and trust that God will lead you. We look forward to hearing from you.

John D. Morris, Ph.D., President
Institute for Creation Research
=========================================

All this was, of course, in response to why educated individuals tend to associate CreatoIDiots with Xian motivations -- an association which naturally makes the ARNies rather uncomfortable. Hell, to dismiss it, some of them had this to say: Who said it was an issue of wondering why? In this case, effect is far more interesting (and relevant) than cause.
;) The effect (i.e. the association of ID with Xians) is more interesting than the cause (i.e. the documented words of IDiots expressing their Xian motivations). *laugh*

More:
... problem is not motivation it is when these motivations are used as propaganda against programmes like ID.

Aside: yet in the very next line of the post, this IDiot has as a tagline:

"Only a God can save us"

Heidegger ;)

More:
The evolutionists argue that one can observe changes in organisms within certain parameters therefore any kind of change is possible given enough time. Time is the magic wand, chant it and voila not only can big dogs become small dogs but dogs can become something all together different. However we have no evidence that this is the case, this type of thinking is pure conjecture. In all our experiments with fruit flys, bacteria, etc no one has been able to get anything than morphed fruit flys and different strains of bacteria. This is the empirical evidence the rest as I said is pure speculation. (Obviously had one too many Hovinds at night)

Principia

November 12, 2003, 12:16 PM

An amusing exchange (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001004-p-4.html) highlighting the illogical bigotry of Vividbleau:
fG: Hm. If you say 'there are certain things that I, Vividbleau, consider absolutely immoral or wrong' I have absolutely no problem with it. I too consider certain things absolutely immoral or wrong.

However, matters become interesting if Vivid's and mine ideas of what these things are do not fully overlap. Who then is absolutely, objectively correct, and why?

Vividbleau: Seriously, even if we cannot agree this does not mean that someone is not absolutely objectively correct. If we have exact opposite positions certainly we can agree that someones standards are absolutely incorrect. Unless one would like to argue that A and non A can can be the same at the same time in the same relationship. Anyone who would argue for this position I have no interest in engaging since rational discourse then becomes impossible.

So in answer to your question as to who is absolutely objectively correct it is either you or me but not both of us.

fG: But here you are ignoring the fourth option: neither of us is objectively correct because this is a matter where objectivity does not exist.

In your case, where one of us is objectively correct, how do we determine which one of us that is? Surely we then first need to agree on the objective standard? How do we do that if the objective standard is a matter of belief, rather than a matter of fact?

Vividbleau:
I addressed the fourth option. The fourth option is only possible if one wants to argue that A and non A can be the same thing at the same time and in the same relationship.Did you miss that part? This would be in violation of the logical law on non contradiction. Anyone staking out this position is arguing for non rationality and thus further discourse is futile.
:banghead:
Somewhere, somehow, the IDer screwed up with Vividbleau.

faded_Glory

November 15, 2003, 06:41 PM

They should rename this the Statler & Waldorf thread.

Like this. (http://www.muppets.com/profiles/statlerwaldorf.htm)

fG

Principia

December 11, 2003, 08:06 AM

On average, I can count the regular posters on ARN with my fingers (look Ma, no toes!). Now the ranks of the IDiots diminish by one more (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-14-t-000587.html), for a month at least:
Mturner reports that he is unable to post on ARN. If he is banned, he wasn�t notified. If mturner is sometimes sarcastic, others on the board are equally guilty. We can all be grateful to mturner for the many links and scientific articles he supplies. We hope he will be able to rejoin the discussions soon. Following in another article, thanks to mturner: <irrelevant link snipped> LOL. Hey mturner' an Infidels member (well, an ex- anyway, but who's keeping track?). Yeah, that must explain it. :D

I believe that's strike 2 for mturner ( the other for getting involved in a duel with the Supes, as reported earlier in this thread ). Let's see how long the IDiots can rationalize away mturner's behavior as they did DNAunion's. ;)

http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

Whatup?

December 12, 2003, 11:45 AM

From Principia's post

William Dembski

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.
That's obviously based on faulty reasoning. Rational analysis leads inexorably to the conclusion that any view of the sciences that leaves Gumby (http://www.gumbyworld.com/memorylane/imagearchive/gumby_60s.JPG) out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient. Gumby totally rocks! His divinity is even confirmed by its miraculous appearance on Venusian (http://ftp.seds.org/pub/images/planets/venus/gumby.gif) soil. That alone blows the doors off all competing divinities any day of the week! Gumby's funnier too and makes kids giggle. Beat that Christ.

Give Thanks and Praise until thine Gumby (http://www.gumbyworld.com/memorylane/imagearchive/gumby_60s.JPG).

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Principia

December 14, 2003, 12:53 PM

Well, it didn't take long to find mturner's replacement. Check out the new guy's MO, here (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-14-t-000590.html) or from his home site: the Millenium Board (http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/philosophy/pages/millennium.htm), and his grand entrance (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001079.html) posturing as an open-minded IDiot, along with the cheerleading party.

http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

pangloss

December 14, 2003, 01:55 PM

Actually, I think he is an old-old timer that just came back and is making it appear that he is 'new.' That, or someone else is using an old-old timers handle.

Either way, they are all the same...

ADDED IN EDIT:

Oops - I see you were referring to 'Nachtwolf'. You are right - HE is an idiot....

Principia

January 9, 2004, 10:30 AM

This thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001094-p-5.html) is hilarious, but the following post was simply over the top. From the Creato with the sig "Facts are friendly":
fG,

No, I am NOT accusing an entire scientific community of fraud. I am getting my information from this very scientific community. I think the scientific community, as a whole, is doing a fine job. It is those who are telling me that Darwinism has been scientifically confirmed that I doubt. Can someone please reference a peer-reviewed journal that says Darwinism has been scientifically confirmed? I seriously doubt this sort of comment exists in the journals.

Bard
The response:
You will find it in the Journal of the Bleeding Obvious. It is the next paper after the one that scientifically proves that the Earth is round. :notworthy:

So let's see. It has often been invoked as a rhetorical reply that ARN IDiots are predominantly non-YEC, open-minded, intelligent people. Let's keep track of them AiG types, shall we?

Bard
Dougie Bender
Salvador T. Cordova
nobody
mb
PLA
Ilion
jon_e

Did I miss anyone? ;) By my estimate, that's, what, roughly 1/2 of the active posters on that board?
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

Principia

January 9, 2004, 10:36 AM

Meet Gregory the Grey (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=recent_user_posts;u=00001250), the latest in incoherent babbling CreatoIDs. Sample the following: Someone�s got to ask why Demski gives such predominance, such single-handed-ness, such wholeness of support, even outside his own (specialist - 5) domains in that he pre-determines the door-to-freedom from Darwinism or Evolution-ism is to be found in Biological Theory alone, and not in other academic disciplines or fields of study. How exclusive-istic! On the other hand, the standard-typical materialist is lost-confused anyway when the chimes of the information bell ring in this new age of knowledge and wisdom, communicated (ratio) via electronic media. And we are witnessing how the physicalist voice now fades under the burst of electronic speakers. Farewell Latin; evolutio, evolvere! Naturalist enigma (cogito) shall re-appear. Jaw-dropping, aint it? ;) If you can't get high on this one, try:
These are all things that lead me to ask if the title of your thread is legitimate, or what it could actually prove or conclude. So scientists are liable to accept the theory of one of the most celebrated natural-scientists of the last two centuries?

However, if you�ve no available counter-evidence (that is, whether or not you are taking an IDt-ist perspective) to Darwinism or counter-methodology against Darwinism�s hold, then please remember that negative evidence only takes you so far.

Ron�s thawking to Rock: �Remember we�re talking about biology�

Is this your view also Geoff � �But why?� (Leo) Do you think biology or even genetics is what this (great) discourse is all about; one aspect of reality, and only one or a few scientific disciplines? Do you think that�s why people come here with their pants on fire and their tongues ready to cock and crow if their sacred theoretical ground is boundary-crossed?

By connecting yourself to the fields mentioned, this justifies all of the criticism that comes against your position of observed hegemony, from within those very fields themselves. Perhaps you are multi-disciplinarily capable, I don't know. But that is one way this discussion gets controlled by the prevailing conceptions of (non-relativistic) evolution and its effects on the academy/university.
My head hurts... :D
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

Principia

January 9, 2004, 10:53 AM

Another keeper (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001103.html):
Wildlifer: So you advocate rejecting known reality for psychological comfort?

MG: It seems rational to favor psychological comfort over known reality if there is no good reason to embrace the latter over the former. <Click> And that would be a perfect snapshot of the religious, fundamentalist rejection of science. <stuffs in pocket>
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

Principia

January 13, 2004, 10:34 PM

Hmm... this (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001111.html) is beginning to sound familiar. Why, mturner even posted in the whining section (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-17.html): I believe that, due to capricious and tendentious behaviour, mod 3 is a disgrace to his/her position and should be immediately relieved of those responsibilities.

mturner

I'm putting money down that this ARN mod 3 doesn't have the ... guts ... to ban mturner for the token IDiot that he is. :D

http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

Principia

January 20, 2004, 08:29 AM

As I predicted, Hugh G. Rection (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39885&perpage=40&pagenumber=6) couldn't take the heat of being portrayed as a small man, and fizzled at the last moment, "to take a long vacation" as it were. But that hasn't stopped the cheerleaders:
ARN obviously has a much more important place in the ID/evolution debate than I had ever imagined.
Mike's statement mirrors my own experience with this board, except I came here more for the humo(u)r than to fight a war with anyone. You guys are trying to make it a war of personalities because you haven't got a prayer with your continued illogical denial of the intelligent design of life.
Oh, please! I love ARN (well, when there's something new being disputed, and disputed honestly that is ;) ) but I never for a single split-second mistook it (here I mean the message board)for an authoritative source on anything.
Take all the time in the world! And even more when a housefire breaks out!
Man, I feel pumped... such arousing cheerleading. :D
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

PS: Don't despair... reports show that Hugh has signed a contract "to play lots" upon his return. Stay tuned!

Principia

January 21, 2004, 10:48 PM

IDiot: When Mike predicted proofreading during transcription he did so by using teleological reasoning but he never said proofreading was supernatural.

Critic: Mike predicted proofreading?? When??

IDiot: I don't remember exactly. A couple of years ago as I recall. But I deleted this from my post as it's not needed to make my point.

Critic: Mm.. proofreading during replication was first described in 1972. Proofreading during transcription was first mentioned in the literature in 1986. Was this a case of postdiction?

IDiot: Mm.. Mike never claimed to be the discoverer of proofreading during transcription, only that he used teleological reasoning to infer its existence prior to finding it mentioned in the literature. You don't want to believe this? Who cares?

LOL
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

Principia

February 7, 2004, 10:57 AM

Another thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-14-t-000682.html) demonstrating the nature of IDiocy. mturner, bertvan, and LP try to figure out the answer to a simple question: "where along the way from the bottles to the virus did "intelligence" appear?" in a discussion of this article (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/26/15440).
mturner: If it is alive, it is intelligent. if it behaves intelligently, it is alive ... You knew perfectly well that I am not a molecular biologist. This is just your usual snotty way of putting people down for not being in the same line of work that you are in. I've already said that I know nothing of virus research, and not the least esoteric part of that research would be the jargon it's couched in ... Equivocation is your middle name ... I have tons of questions for you, since you spent years in school learning all about this stuff. See some questions, above. But since I've made it clear that I know nothing about about viruses ... I never offered any opinion without labeling it clearly as speculative and uninformed. It is not my fault if you don't pay attention to such statements in your trollish rush to attack me personally ... Apparently you have no more idea about what that abstract is about, in detail, than I do. Despite your vaunted expertise in your own livelihood. Just another poseur, apparently, trolling ARN ... As to your question to me, namely, "The question is, where along the way from the bottles to the virus did "intelligence" appear?", I would have to suppose--with the bacteria. <Laugh out loud>
bertvan: It's put into bacteria who will think that they are infected by a real virus and will replicate them
... What Venter created was not alive. Whatever the chemically-treated bacterial created might be alive, but only if it has the capacity to devise straegies to perpetuate itself. Devising straegies is a definition of intelligence.
Light Panther: Yes, but to be serious here for a moment, it wasn't "synthesised" by humans, it was merely instantiated by humans using structures pre-"synthesised" by viral evolution. And therein lies the answer to the question ... Well, a human being walking down to the shops to buy a newspaper is a "set of chemicals" on this rubric. The intelligence (in this case) resides with the virus whose DNA embodies the specification for further viral material, and as mturner said, in the bacteria that are hijacked by the virus (although I would be inclined to put the intelligence mainly a la virus in this instance). The whole bottle thing is all but irrelevant. You could have it in a slush puppy or a soda fountain, if you like So apparently, chemicals become intelligent whenever they come in contact with humans or bacteria ... sort of like a Midas touch for intelligence. :D

Stay tuned while the EAMer and IDiots sort this out...
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

PS: oops i linked to the wrong Venter article (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/26/15440) above.

pangloss

February 7, 2004, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Principia
LOL

Oh yeah - 'Mike Gene's' big "prediction."

I remember it well.

Seems Gene used his 'teleologic' to "predict" transcriptional proofreading. His little 'look how smart I am and how great ID is' post, however, let the cat out of the bag.
He wrote about how he had just finished an article on translational proofreding and he 'predicted' that a Designer would
have put proofreading in transcription, as well. Voila! He does some 'research' (keeping in mind that to the IDiot, doing a pubmed search is "research") and sicovered that some non-teleologists had already discovered this.

Problem is, when I did a pubmed search on "translational proofreading", "proofreading" , and several other relevant keyword searchs, the article Gene cited as vindication for his ID-worldview - which he claimed not to have known about prior to doing asearch fro transcriptional proofreading - came up EVERY TIME.

So he didn't predict a damn thing. He, at best, post-dicted something he had read about earlier and tried to fool the creaIDiots. Which of course he did. when I pointed out what I just did - that the paper he cited showed up doing a search for his previous topic - Nelson and pals accosted me and formed a wall of idiocy around their now nude Emperor.

Pretty sad, but that is how those people seem to operate.

pangloss

February 9, 2004, 10:19 AM

The comedy never stops, courtesy of EAM (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000682)

Originally posted by charlie d:
He replicated the genome of an existant virus with raw chemicals, out of a bottle (well, many bottles). As the abstract i linked to clearly says:
"...we have established conditions for the rapid (14-day) assembly of the complete infectious genome of bacteriophage X174 (5,386 bp) from a single pool of chemically synthesized oligonucleotides."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**
Oh, gee, yeah, that's clearly stated , alright. Who in the world wouldn't know exactly what he's talking about!?![/quote]

I would think anyone presenting themself as being able to discuss the material?

:banghead: :rolleyes: :p

pangloss

February 9, 2004, 10:21 AM

The comedy never stops, courtesy of EAM (http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000682)

Originally posted by charlie d:
He replicated the genome of an existant virus with raw chemicals, out of a bottle (well, many bottles). As the abstract i linked to clearly says:
"...we have established conditions for the rapid (14-day) assembly of the complete infectious genome of bacteriophage X174 (5,386 bp) from a single pool of chemically synthesized oligonucleotides."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**
Oh, gee, yeah, that's clearly stated , alright. Who in the world wouldn't know exactly what he's talking about!?!

I would think anyone presenting themself as being able to discuss the material?

:banghead: :rolleyes: :p

added in edit - oops, that thread was already linked ot, but my gosh, re-linking to a great thread must be OK!

Principia

February 21, 2004, 07:20 PM

ARN recently posted the following article about Ron Numbers' appraisal of IDism, here (http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Madison021904.htm). Look in particular at the following paragraph: This argument, says Numbers, ups the antievolution ante by arguing that science itself must change to accommodate the things it cannot explain.

"They are claiming this is a scientific discovery, so it should be taught with other scientific claims in the schools," Numbers explains. "They are saying science should change its most fundamental rule, that science admits only naturalistic explanations.

[The most fundamental rule of science is NOT "Be honest," but rather, "Stick to naturalism."]

"The intelligent design people are saying that if the goal of science is to discover the truth, why should scientists, a priori, reject the theory of intelligent design? There must be intelligent design in the face of irreducible complexity.

"They have made a tremendous splash," says Numbers. "They want to change the way science is done, but so far as I know, there has yet to appear an article in a scientific journal that makes this broader claim."

Being suspicious of the content of that paragraph, I compared that paragraph with the following original source (which, incidentally, was not cited in the ARN link above): http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/9450.html?month=02&year=2004 Notice anything different?

So, I guess IDiots are now editing the articles that they put up at ARN, ISCID, and DI without warning readers beforehand? Hmm... I guess that would illustrate how dishonesty is the fundamental rule of ID, eh? ;)
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

February 21, 2004, 11:23 PM

They cited the source at the top of the article ("University of Wisconsin - Madison News February 19, 2004").

The editorial remark -- [The most fundamental rule of science is NOT "Be honest," but rather, "Stick to naturalism."] -- was enclosed in square brackets, in a separate paragraph, to set it off from the text, a common practice.

Nothing dishonest in the ARN posting. The attempt to impute dishonesty, on the other hand...

Principia

February 21, 2004, 11:49 PM

Compare and contrast the treatment to the above article with the following one by Albert Mohler (http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Mohler013004.htm), described as "Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary" on the site crosswalk.com. Notice that this ARN copy, unlike the one I cited above, had a URL at the top instead of a mere textual reference. In fact, the majority of copied articles at ARN cited on their homepage have given the original link. Notice also that this article contained several [ ] commentary. If one is interested, he can check out the original here (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?cal=go&adate=1%2F30%2F2004). So clearly, even the true author of an article can make parentheticals. So, I guess someone reading the article had to have the presence of mind to (a) dig out the original article as I did, and then (b) realize that the [ ] commentary about science not requiring a fundamental rule of honesty was in fact not the original author's... I guess ARN thought most readers wouldn't care about honest reporting (even if it's just copying). ;)

What I am curious about is: now we know ARNies like our friend MB and leonarde have read this... How long it's going to take for this editorializing to be clarified on the actual ARN link?

Principia

February 22, 2004, 12:34 PM

For any of you who still think that experts/academics should be educating the masses by directly holding dialogues with them, read this thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001148.html).

leonarde

February 22, 2004, 01:55 PM

Yeah, it's so much better to let "ambassadors of science" like Principia do it, get banned from ARN (twice in one year!). They're really convincing......;)

February 22, 2004, 03:05 PM

This thread is on a short leash. If it descends into bickering between participants, it will be closed.

Principia

February 22, 2004, 04:39 PM

ID has finally made it into college level courses... uh, English courses that is. And the IDiots are thrilled about it (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-14-t-000707.html), naturally. :D

Read the spin:
Even though this is not a science class, Behe and Johnson's work, and even Henry Morris's work is getting attention at the University Level. The tide is turning. I will be interested to hear the outcome of the class.

[...]

What is peculiar is: don't the biology courses teach enough Dennett and Gould and Darwin these at GMU such that an English Teacher has to take up the Darwinian cause? Isn't it embarassing for the Darwinian cause that at a school with a good Bioinformatics department the science faculty practically rolled out the red carpet for Behe when he visited?

Isn't it rather intersting an eminent Chemical Evolutionist Harold Morowitz is now accepting research grants from the Templeton Foundation of religion? Is it just possible the ID paradigm has a bit of life in it?

I suppose it's a bit of an embarassment that two PhD's in the biological sciences who graduated from GMU recently are professed creationists--YECs on top of that! A creationist classmate of mine is on his way to a PhD in Physics (at another college), graduated close to the top of his class.

[...]

I did an informal poll of students at another university (not GMU). 100% said they would absolutely sign up for a religion course that taught Intelligent Design theory. The class, like Mocosko's, would likely be filled in a snap. A religion course would be the perfect place to teach ID, but the irony is it will probably have stronger scientific content than Darwin's Origin of Species.

[...]

Bertvan, you called it in another thread. These are indications the end of the Darwinian monopoly is in sight.

I have a feeling the battles in the high school will rage on, while ID religion courses on college campuses will take off like wild fire. It's only a matter of time.

Sample the curriculum (http://mason.gmu.edu/%7edtaciuch/2004/spring04/302/302syll.html): In this course, you will not be gathering new data first hand; rather you are conducting secondary research by reading and analyzing the writings of others, forming your own opinion (a preliminary thesis, or hypothesis), then gathering more information via research to support or modify that thesis. Aside from the distinction between primary and secondary research, the research method in this course is the scientific method: you develop an idea based on the material you find, and you modify your ideas as you uncover new information.

The act of interpretation is key; theses, hypotheses, and theories are all based on facts, but theories are not facts themselves. Facts are raw data. In the course of constructing a thesis, you must discriminate relevant from irrelevant data; you must analyze, select, and conscientiously try to avoid bias. Bias, however, is practically unavoidable. The very act of gathering information and presenting it requires you to make decisions as to the importance of certain details. As we shall see in the summary-writing exercise, even a "simple" task such as summarizing a difficult passage introduces bias. In other words, "teach the controversy" !!! Notice how the English prof's take on the scientific method (i.e. ignoring the distinction btwn. primary and secondary research, and no gathering data firsthand :D) resonates so well with the IDiots who are gaga over this course. Check out the required reading (http://mason.gmu.edu/%7edtaciuch/2004/spring04/302/n11sched.html), of course.

http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

pangloss

February 22, 2004, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Principia
[B]ID has finally made it into college level courses... uh, English courses that is. And the IDiots are thrilled about it (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-14-t-000707.html), naturally. :D

I wonder how many ARNies actually realize that GMU is a well known conservative school?
:rolleyes:

Roland98

February 22, 2004, 11:51 PM

Temporarily locked to split.

Edit: I have split out the recent off-topic posts into a locked thread. You've been warned already to avoid this; I'm leaving this open for the time being while I consult with the other moderators.

Roland98

Principia

March 13, 2004, 10:00 AM

They did it to Nic...

Now they're doing it to charlie d (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001197.html):
WAD: Charlie D. (or is it [redacted]?):

The reason I phrased the challenge as I did is that many critics keep repeating the same tired charges without giving any evidence of taking my counterarguments into account. To my mind I've adequately addressed my critics, and not just in a line or two. My article "The Flagellum Revisited," for instance, was in large measure a response to Matzke's flagellum piece, and it was almost as long.

Is it that I'm not listening to my critics or that my critics are not listening to me? Waah... :boohoo:

From ARN's forum rules:
This is a public discussion forum. Optional information that you provide in your user profile is available to all forum users. Any other information you provide when registering or communicating with ARN is considered private and in general not provided to other individuals or organizations. However, we at this BB also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.

Must be a big legal action in the works.

charlie d

March 13, 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Principia
They did it to Nic...

Now they're doing it to charlie d (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001197.html) I know... I'm so BUSTED! :D
They must have used nobody's patented Darwinist Troll Identification System! (Or was it leonard's?)

I wonder whether he meant it as an intimidation tool ("We know who you are, we know where you live.."), or as a slight ("You ain't nothing but a girl!"). Either way, that's grade school-level stuff. Pretty funny, coming from Dembski himself!

[edited for typos]

Principia

March 13, 2004, 01:47 PM

:D

You know you've made it big in ID land when they're investigating you.

In the next essay, WAD might even start with the following preamble:

Before reviewing and critiquing Charlie D's article, I want to offer a few remarks about Charlie D herself and my past interactions with her. Charlie D's day job is acting like a girl and doing God knows what at some University. Nonetheless, she is also one of the most active participants in online discussions concerning evolution and intelligent design (the sheer volume of text that she is able to generate is remarkable). In such forums, she tends to go by various pseudonyms. Her main one until a year or two ago, when she blew her cover by publicly attacking me at ARN, was "charlie d." On the ISCID bulletin board (www.iscid.org), through which I know her best, she goes by "charlie d." She uses still other pseudonyms in other forums (as in the notorious atheist website Internet Infidels, where she goes by "charlie d").

http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

PS: BiLl, or whoever the Darwinist Troll Monitor is over there in la-la land, I'll give you a clue: charlie d's not me. ;)

RufusAtticus

March 13, 2004, 01:53 PM

Perhaps someone should ask WAD why he was ignorant of the following paper when he stated in his WSJ response (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76220), " in fact the best molecular evidence these days points to the microsyringe evolving from the flagellum rather than into it."

Gophna et al. 2003 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12909351&dopt=Abstract)

Our analysis indicates that the TTSS and the flagellar export mechanism share a common ancestor, but have evolved independently from one another. The suggestion that TTSS genes have evolved from genes encoding flagellar proteins is effectively refuted.

RufusAtticus

March 13, 2004, 02:02 PM

Speaking of challenges, I noticed that no one has responded to mine.

Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77320)

Principia

March 14, 2004, 11:40 AM

Mark Perakh's response to WAD's whining:
Hi, XX: Thanks for letting me see Dembski’s (sort of) response to my latest post to Talk Reason. Of course, for those of us who have been following Dembski’s activities there is little surprising in his epistle. I have been criticizing his work since 1999, in a number of web postings and in print, but he consistently avoided even acknowledging the existence of my critique. Naturally, writing about his newest book, where he continued that trend, I mentioned this fact. Now he asserts:

“Quite frankly, I've been less than impressed with the refrain that I've not adequately addressed my critics. Mark Perakh seems to be leading the pack ((see, for instance, his latest posting at Talk Reason). He seems especially put out that I've not engaged him directly in print.�?

If Dembski thinks I am “especially put out�? that he did not so far respond to a single of my arguments, this is just one more display of his inflated self-confidence. Dembski wants to be viewed a scientist. In the tradition of scientific disputes, when there is no response to critique, this is construed as a sign that the criticized author has no good counter-arguments. Therefore I have had no reasons to be “put out�? by his silence in response to my critique. His silence, from my standpoint, indicated that he simply could not offer an adequate response. Recall that he never answered to some other critics as well. Notably, he never acknowledged the critique of his work by David Wolpert and Del Ratzsch. Are they also (I am quoting from Dembski) “recycling other criticisms, and doing a poor job in the process�??

Since my critique of Dembski’s work has shown serious deficiencies and plain errors in his output, and given both his well documented self-admiration and the exaggerated praise of his work by his cohorts, it is not surprising that in his opinion I did a “poor job.�? Apparently only those who compare him to Isaac Newton (as Rob Koons did) or acclaim his “formidable intellect�? (as Andrew Ruys did) have, in his opinion, done a good job.

Dembski’s assertion that in my critique I just “recycled�? the arguments of others, shows that either he did not read my critique or that he deliberately distorts what he did read.

Recall that, when replying to the critique by Matt Young, Dembski accused Young of borrowing arguments from me. This seems to be a boilerplate notion used by Dembski in attempts to denigrate his opponents by accusing them of “recycling�? arguments of others thus making it unnecessary for him to reply. Who allegedly borrows arguments from whom, seems to be chosen by Dembski according to the needs of the moment.

None of those who took time to refer to my critique of Dembski, including those who have had disagreements with me, has ever suggested (as Dembski does) that I “recycled�? the arguments of others. In fact, a good part of my critique of Dembski’s work was written before I even had a chance to read the critique by other authors. Here is just one example: in my post to Talk Reason titled A Consistent Inconsistency dated July 2001 (which to a large extent corresponds to chapter 1 in my book) I analyzed the faults in Dembski’s explanatory filter using argument that not only have not been offered by any other critics, but still stand alone and have not been repeated by anybody else (but pointed out to in some reviews of my book). For example, one of these arguments shows the lack of elementary logic in Dembski’s scheme – he suggests estimating the probability of events without referring to their causal history. This is impossible – in fact he has it backwards. For example, we assign to the event high probability because this event is due to a law, not the other way around, as Dembski’s schema prescribes. This argument is completely my own – and this is equally true for many of my other arguments, related to his treatment of probabilities, of information, of complexity, etc.

Although my article in question was dated July 2001, my critique of Dembski initially appeared already in September 1999, in an article about Behe’s book (posted on Talk Reason under the title Irreducible Contradiction) which was before most of the other critiques of Dembski became available.

However, even if some of my arguments happened to be similar to arguments of others, this would only show that more than one critic noticed the same faults in Dembski’s discourse, and this hardly could justify Dembski’s dodging replies to such arguments.

To my mind, my arguments, regardless of whether they were allegedly “recycled�? or completely original, show that it was Dembski who did a poor job. There is whole list of authors who share such a view. If, though, Dembski is so sure that my arguments were poor, it would be an easy task for him to demonstrate it. He did not.

A few words about his challenge to publicly debate him. Here is a copy of my letter to Craig Nishimoto, the organizer of the Veritas forum at UCLA, who invited me to debate Dembski:

“To Craig Nishimoto, Veritas forum at UCLA

From Mark Perakh

January 10, 2004

Dear Craig: I appreciate your effort aimed at arranging a debate between myself and Dr. William Dembski. I also appreciate your offer regarding honorarium and reimbursement of travel expenses.

Having thought about your suggestions in regard to the debate in question, I have formed a quite firm opinion that I have to decline your invitation. Although there are a number of reasons for that decision, I’ll be brief in my explanation of them. Essentially, it would suffice to point to three items which, to my mind, make my participation in a public debate with William Dembski senseless, to wit:

(1) Discussing controversial issues in a public debate is, generally speaking, the least productive way to come to a reasonable conclusion. A public debate does not allow for an in-depth analysis of the arguments and more often than not boils down to a competition in sound bites and superficial charisma of the debaters. On the other hand, an exchange of written essays and responses to them offers time for reflection and thought in contrast to the fleeting character of an oral debate.

(2) A debate conducted in writing can reach a much wider audience of both laypersons and experts.

(3) I have consulted with my doctor who, although leaving the decision to me, is of the opinion that a trip to UCLA with the concomitant physical and mental exertion entails certain risks to my health. I cannot drive 150 miles one way, so to partake of the debate I’ll have to take a commuter plane from Palomar airport to either LAX or Burbank, to be met there and driven to UCLA; due to the late hour of the planned debate, I’ll need to stay overnight in a hotel, and to be taken back to the airport in the morning. Besides the not unsubstantial expenses involved (and I appreciate your kind offer to cover them) it simply does not make sense to go to such lengths in order to take part in an event whose usefulness seems to be so uncertain.

All this said, and besides the sufficiency of the above three reasons, I may add that, thinking of the prospects of a debate with William Dembski, I feel that I simply am not interested enough to debate him at this time. I have spent considerable time and effort on debunking Dr. Dembski’s ideas, and I feel that at this time a further effort in that direction is hardly warranted. Judging from Dr. Dembski’s responses to other critics, a chance that in the course of the suggested debate I will hear anything new or interesting from Dr. Dembski is very slim. Until now, Dr. Dembski has been ceaselessly repeating his mantras on specified complexity, the law of conservation of information, the alleged impossibility of evolution because of the NFL theorems, and other similar topics, wherein his arguments, to my mind, lack any substance. In his responses to critics he largely avoided the essence of the disputed points indulging instead in discussing such irrelevant matters as the degrees or pen names of his opponents, or comparing his opponents to Lysenko, etc. Such behavior by Dr. Dembski is not conducive to invoking an interest in debating him. Of course, if Dr. Dembski chooses to reply to my critique in writing (something he has so far avoided) or if in his forthcoming publications he will offer new ideas, possibly I will feel that an additional contribution to the dispute on my part is warranted, but it is not yet so.

Please feel free to share this message with Dr. Dembski.

Best wishes. Mark Perakh�?

I may add to the above letter a few more words. My doctor turned to be right. I am going to have a serious surgery next week. I am almost 80 and it shows. Then, even if I were in excellent health, I hardly would be interested in engaging in public debates the people of Dembski’s ilk. It is one thing to rebuff arguments that appeared in print via an exchange of essays and articles – such rebuttals do not imply that the object of critical remarks is necessarily viewed as a legitimate opponent. Indeed, when, say, Skeptical Inquirer pounces upon quacks it does not mean the status of quacks is acknowledged as the same as of legitimate physicians. A public debate is a different story – it implies the acceptance of a legitimate status of one’s opponent as of a genuine scientist.

I have had many discussions and disputes in my long career but all of them with serious scientists about questions which were of professional interests within a purely scientific realm. Now the situation is different.

As Dembski recently stated in a lecture at a church in Texas, he believes we are in a culture war here, and he admits that his primary motivation is his belief that attributing evolution to materialistic mechanisms robs God of his glory. I have no desire to taint my record by a public debate with a gentleman who, in my view, rather than being a serious scientist, is using the appearance of “science�? as a vehicle for his apologetics.

Cheers, Mark
Well put. Very well put.

PS: I assume that dayton at ARN wouldn't mind my reproduction of the letter here at II. If there is an issue, please let me know.

Principia

March 14, 2004, 05:48 PM

Perfect. WAD whines about not getting serious debate challenges from his critics. In Christ Dougie seriously offers to step up to the plate (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001197.html): Here is a debate idea for Dr. Dembski (and I don't present this in any other than a civil, friendly, fleshing-out of ideas and such, manner):

In what way (or ways) does (or do) "The Biblical Equations" fail to qualify as an instance of "Complex Specified Information" (using, for the moment, the less restrictive probability bound of, say, 10^50)?

I am genuinely and seriously interested to hear a reasoned answer to this question.
Inquiring minds want to know... ;)
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

Principia

March 16, 2004, 10:55 AM

Note to self: IDiots hate being called frauds (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-14-t-000736-p-2.html). :D

http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

pangloss

March 24, 2004, 07:36 AM

Another amazing bit of intellectual superstar pontification:

positive selection". What a meaningless crock!

Guess the author?

Principia

March 24, 2004, 08:00 AM

This wacko (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000907.html) needs you to post: Hi, I hope I am not violating any rules here.
I am the manager of the Gynne Joynte and I desperately need some liberals to offset all the semi-conservatives on my board. Please no college-age people, because I need liberals who have a sense of past history.
Why not join. It's free and you can post there and maybe get into an interesting conversation!!
We like intelligent and informed posters who are liberal!!!! We need this type!!! Please, no swearing and no personal attacks on members!!
No hassling is allowed. You might enjoy this for once. Why not try???==Julbon

Here's an example of what the wacko means by an "interesting conversation" (http://pub17.ezboard.com/fquestempfrm25.showMessageRange?topicID=2.topic&start=1&stop=20).

Heh, it's even got posts by the troll(e) whining about you pangloss and pz. :D

Alright, Plognark, what in the world are you doing posting there... :confused:

http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

Principia

March 24, 2004, 08:13 AM

Beckwith, apparently when he's not busy directing his grad students to do ID apologetics, has this to say in his defense about purposefully conflacting MN and PN (i.e. methodological and philosophical naturalism) (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001123-p-2.html):
Maybe I'm just not clear in my writing, and so I take partial blame for the misunderstanding. But it seems to me that I did make the distinction between PN and MN. What I believe is troubling you is that I make the argument that MN
entails PN. Now, I certainly could be wrong about that relation, but I'm not saying that MN is PN, which is the thesis you are attributing to me. Perhaps an example will help. Suppose I said that being a sister entails being a female. I would not be saying that being female is being a sister, for one can be female and an only child. An entailment relation is not an identity relation. What I'm saying is this: if the criterion of what counts as knowledge--or what may count against what we presently think is knowledge--excludes claims of X (let X be anything you want, e.g., immaterial agents, souls, substances, intrinsic purposes, etc.), then it is not surprising that claims of X are dismissed out of hand prior to assessing the evidence (or arguments) for them. Now it could be that we have good reason to exclude X's a priori. That's an option. But if someone offers an argument for X's, the argument is not refuted by saying "X's can't be part of knowledge because those are the rules we, the community, have chosen." That's just crass question-beginning. (Are you reading this, SEF?)

http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

Dr.GH

March 24, 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Principia
This wacko (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000907.html) needs you to post:

Here's an example of what the wacko means by an "interesting conversation" (http://pub17.ezboard.com/fquestempfrm25.showMessageRange?topicID=2.topic&start=1&stop=20).

Sheesh. I found it interesting that "rose???" somebody was complaining that creationists are cencered, and "trolls" abound here at the "swamp (cute nickname)." I don't actually look at any fora here other than the E/C, so I can't agrue with authority, but I have never seen the sort of weird moderation that is par for creationists' web site BBs.

pangloss

March 24, 2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Principia

Heh, it's even got posts by the troll(e) whining about you pangloss and pz. :D

Yeah... being 'discussed' here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79529) ...

Alright, Plognark, what in the world are you doing posting there... :confused:

Wait - I thought YOU were PlognarK?

Or is it Gerculd? And of course Ilion is really an atheist troll, and this guy is that one and 80% of posters at ARN are sockpuppets and........

:banghead:

Principia

March 24, 2004, 10:39 AM

[deleted]

(self control is key, Principia) ;)

Clutch

March 24, 2004, 12:38 PM

NO!! I'm not going there [viz, to IIDB]!!! I am issueing a challenge to their members who hide in their own territory, lying in wait for people who wander in, to come to my forum.Er... you wanna run that one by me again?

I try to be charitable, but sometimes you really do have to giggle... politely, of course.

djmullen

March 24, 2004, 07:50 PM

This is rich. If you click on any of the URLs relating to the Gynne Joint guy, you get this:

The post you selected no longer exists. It may have been recently deleted.

Please hit BACK on your browser, then hit REFRESH/RELOAD to get an updated view.

Press your browser's back button to return.

March 25, 2004, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by pangloss
Yeah... being 'discussed' here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79529) ...

Wait - I thought YOU were PlognarK?

Or is it Gerculd? And of course Ilion is really an atheist troll, and this guy is that one and 80% of posters at ARN are sockpuppets and........

:banghead:

Ok, so fess up: which one of us is Ilion??? :notworthy

KC

Principia

March 25, 2004, 06:42 AM

It's true what they say: you can't really appreciate another side's point of view . . . until you've been in their shoes. ;)

You know, people over at ARN seem to be a really perceptive bunch. So I can really use their help, since I am really just a confused mess of conflicting identities at the moment. Am I an atheist posing as a CreatoID at ARN. . . or am I a CreatoID posing as an atheist at II? Or oooh, I know. Maybe I am Chris Langan, and in the end, you shall all bow before me and tremble at my IQ score. :D

Principia

March 25, 2004, 07:07 AM

From this thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001123-p-3.html): These issue are incredibly complicated since some scientific enterprises--especially in the applied sciences--don't really touch on the issues that animate partisans. So, it's clear that most working scientists--especially devout ones--don't give this stuff a second thought, and they probably shouldn't. However, claims of "science" that attempt to answer the questions that claims of theology have traditionally been conscripted to answer--e.g., who and what are we and can we know it--are where the real action is. So, sociobiology, neurophysiology, embryonic experimentation--whose dominant premises are derived from a materialist construal of human beings--provide contrary answers than are offered by traditional theology: sociobiology (morality is a social construction and the result of natural selection)/traditional theology (morality has ontological status and is an unchanging immaterial set of knowable ideas), neurophysiology (the mind is a purely material substance)/theology (the mind is the intellectual power of the immaterial soul, one's substance), embryo experminentation (human beings do not become "persons" until consciousness arises or some requisite brain state) / traditional theology (a human beings is a whole complete being from the moment it comes into existence with certain basic capacities that come to fruition as a result of its intrinsic purpose working with its parts in concert). :banghead: Sociobiology declares morality is a social construction evolved via natrual selection?? Neurophysiology declares mind of a purely material substance?? WTF

Gee, but Frank missed some of the more obvious ones:
meterology (the weather is a chaotic system determined by purely natural forces, which we can forecast only to a limited extent) / theology (the weather is the will of the Storm gods, which we can alter by supplicating to the gods with virgin sacrifices)

astronomy/cosmology (the pinpoint dots in the sky are giant balls of gas millions of light years away) / theology (those dots are heavenly beings circling the earth, watching over us)

medicine/pathology (diseases of the body are the predictable result of natural forces which can be treated by material interventions) / theology (diseases of the body are the result of daemons or God's wrath, which requires chants, prayers, and exorcism)

democracy (individuals are free to choose) / theocracy (God is Lord and rules through his High Priests)

Bizarre.

pangloss

March 25, 2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by KC
Ok, so fess up: which one of us is Ilion??? :notworthy

KC

Indeed - I mean, you've been doing it for at least a couple of years (http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52717) now...

Thats quite a ruse...

Plognark

March 25, 2004, 10:34 AM

Alright, Plognark, what in the world are you doing posting there...

I'm starting to wonder that myself...:rolleyes:

Regretably I wasn't familiar with this thread, and I wouldn't have stepped into that particular beartrap had I been keeping up on what's going on here, but that's fine. I'm comfortable enough with my own morality and beliefs to handle that place; too bad they don't yet appear interested in any dialogue or in even spending more than a microsecond in thought on what I post.

here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79529&perpage=25&pagenumber=1) is the link to discussion thread in the lounge, if anyone cares, and This link (http://pub17.ezboard.com/fquestempfrm25.showMessage?topicID=12.topic) leads to the actual discussion on that other board.

Clutch

March 25, 2004, 10:55 AM

I hope if any of you are me, you'll do the courtesy of letting me know.

No, I better not look. I just might be in there!

djmullen

March 25, 2004, 08:39 PM

Frank: traditional theology (morality has ontological status and is an unchanging immaterial set of knowable ideas)

Well, sure:

LEVITICUS 25:44 'As for your male and female slaves whom you may have - you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.
45 'Then too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.
46 'You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Confederacy: Sorry about that Civil War thingy. Turns out you slave states were Biblically Correct all the time.

Blacks: I'm sorry, but since Biblical Morality is unchanging, you are stolen property. Please turn yourself in to the nearest massah immediately.

Frank: :boohoo:

djmullen

March 25, 2004, 08:41 PM

Clutch:I hope if any of you are me, you'll do the courtesy of letting me know.

Wait a minute! I thought you were me.

Now who the hell is George W. Bush?

pangloss

April 13, 2004, 02:25 PM

I cannot resist - in this thread (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=001238) , we have the old troll master Mike Turner writing:

"Let's get our terminology straightened out first;"

Is this, or is this not, the troll who claimed that mutations could not have always occurred because the term wan't coined until this century? :banghead: :banghead:

pangloss

April 13, 2004, 02:37 PM

Pardon my French, but Leonard (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000956) - yes the Leonarde that is apparently still a member here <edited insults>

Where was KingLoony "censored for (cleverly and acerbically I admit!) quoting the Bible" I wonder?

wildlifer

April 14, 2004, 10:57 AM

Pardon my French, but Leonard (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000956) - yes the Leonarde that is apparently still a member here -<edited for consistency>

Where was KingLoony "censored for (cleverly and acerbically I admit!) quoting the Bible" I wonder?

I wondered the same, although I have only been here at IIDB a short time, I have never seen a creationist, or anyone for that matter, censored, thoroughly trounced, yes, censored, nope.

Principia

April 15, 2004, 12:52 PM

Well, since we're all trying so hard to reveal each other's Net identities these days at ARN, let's talk about one of ARN's well-known personalities. ;)

Paul Nelson recently complained on this thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001258-p-2.html): No -- I want to know what philosophical naturalists think is true.

Is it true that Christianity and neo-Darwinian evolution can be reconciled? Now, one can point to theistic evolutionists, such as Ken & Keith Miller, and say, "Look, they say it's possible. Why don't you follow their example?" This is what Dayton suggests, in his talk and posts in this thread. Lots of people affirm the theory of theistic evolution, he says; ergo, it is possible to reconcile Christianity and naturalistic evolution.

But Christianity as a worldview makes particular truth claims. It says, for instance, that all humans are sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God. These claims are either true or false. Because they are universally quantified -- e.g., all humans -- Dayton (indeed, anyone) must take a stand on them. Is it true that all humans have sinned and need to be saved? And is this claim actually congruent with the neo-Darwinian naturalistic world picture? Uh oh. Are we militant atheists suddenly responsible for turning wayward Xians back onto the path of righteousness? LOL Whatever.

The false dilemma here, of course, is presenting Xian truth claims, which most open-minded individuals consider a matter of faith, as a matter of logical necessity. The dilemma is the reason why people like Nelson keep digging themselves deeper towards this illogical black hole. Despite all the whining about scientists supposedly using a priori rules, it amuses me how CreatoIDs like Nelson can't see beyond their own a priori claims. For Nelson, YEC is true not because there is overwhelming empirical evidence to back it up. It is true because the first question to get over is whether or not all of the Bible is true. And that must be answered because a God who cannot be trusted to reveal Himself truthfully, is not much of a God at all. And once this truth, this logical necessity, is established, it is no wonder why Nelson and his compatriotis reject TE. It is quite simply a no-brainer. Science becomes a search for evidence that fits their predetermined truth -- a means to a perverted end.

The answer to this question can't be fobbed off on the Millers et al. "Ask them, they're the theistic evolutionists." If one says, as Dayton does, that Christianity and neo-Darwinism can be reconciled, and that theistic evolution makes sense, one is obliged to show how that's possible.

Let's go back to my geometry example. It is impossible to express the relation of the side of a right triangle and its hypotenuse as a ratio of two integers. It wouldn't be possible even if 6 billion people earnestly believed it was, and pointing at those people ("Look at them, they say it can be done") is strictly irrelevant. Oh but how could atheists cite happy theists who have reconciled empirical facts with their religions? The hypocrisy of it all. :D

Let's turn the question back to Nelson. Evolutionary theory at least is compatible with some theists. It is a testament to the metaphyically minimalist nature of sciences. OTOH, name us one philosophical materialist or naturalist that finds YEC or ID acceptable.

PS: It is not impossible to express the relation of the side of a right triangle and its hypotenuse: {3, 4, 5}, {5, 12, 13}, {7, 24, 25}, etc. Not all Pythogorean triples form rational pairs, sure. But then I'm not quite sure what the point of Nelson's analogy to geometry is anymore. Maybe it is that Xians are going to have to pick and choose the irrational elements of the set of their beliefs to toss away. ;)

http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg

Principia

April 20, 2004, 09:55 AM

Recently, yet another thread (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-001268.html) was started to bait evolution proponents into another Dawkins-bashing session: Ron Okimoto: Beats me what is wrong with you. If calling something bullshit doesn't mean that I disagree with it, why do I have to convince someone else?

IDiot: No one is questioning that you disagree with it. I’m just wondering why it is that someone with over 700 postings under his belt (on this forum alone) can’t point to any thoughtful arguments against Dawkins et al. Here, try this one from Dawkins:

In any case, the belief that religion and science occupy separate magisteria is dishonest. It founders on the undeniable fact that religions still make claims about the world that on analysis turn out to be scientific claims. Moreover, religious apologists try to have it both ways. When talking to intellectuals, they carefully keep off science's turf, safe inside the separate and invulnerable religious magisterium. But when talking to a nonintellectual mass audience, they make wanton use of miracle stories--which are blatant intrusions into scientific territory.

The Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the raising of Lazarus, even the Old Testament miracles, all are freely used for religious propaganda, and they are very effective with an audience of unsophisticates and children. Every one of these miracles amounts to a violation of the normal running of the natural world. Theologians should make a choice. You can claim your own magisterium, separate from science's but still deserving of respect. But in that case, you must renounce miracles. Or you can keep your Lourdes and your miracles and enjoy their huge recruiting potential among the uneducated. But then you must kiss goodbye to separate magisteria and your high-minded aspiration to converge with science.

Now, don’t worry, there are plenty of ID critics out there who can naysay ID over the next few days, such that you won't be missed if you ease up for 72 hours. So why not take that time and outline arguments against Dawkins point and then post it here? Certainly, you have decent arguments behind the label “bullshit,�? don’t you?

Ron's reply is instructive: Why should I take up every cause? Demonstrating the stupidity of the current ID phenomena takes enough effort.

What is your take on the Ohio Model Lesson Plan? Why aren't you speaking out against such a dishonest piece of garbage?

Were you involved in the Discovery Institute's switch from the "teach ID" to the "teach the controversy" scam? Did you argue against going with the dishonest ploy or did you agree that it was the only way to go when the DI seems to have decided that ID had turned its toes up around three years ago and they abandoned ID as their preferred wedge into the classroom?

I'm against murder, starvation in developing countries, and other things like that, but I don't bother argue against them, do you?

I'm really curious about what your reaction to the switch to the "teach the controversy" scam was and what you know about the DI's justification for it.

If you produce that information I'll take the time to argue against Dawkin's statement above.

This hypocritical reply however is a keeper: I already made my arguments against teaching ID in the schools. Here’s (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000215.html) a recent formulation. I try to remain rather apolitical on this matter. When it comes to politics, I focus on real threats and dangers, such as the War on Terror. Methinks this hypocrite is afraid of retribution from WAD. ;)

And the other is from our typically incoherent buddy GtG, that is surprisingly accomodating, and so I reproduce in full: “All I am doing in this thread is highlighting the simple fact that the “science implies materialism�? position is not something dreamt up by the ID Movement.�? – Mike Gene

My guess is that you think you are doing more that just this. In one way, Ron is correct; it is too obvious. But are you also then promoting that science implies the opposite of materialism?

As for the implication that the belief ‘science implies materialism’ could or should be attributed (origins) to the IDM, we are agreed. It would be ridiculous to suggest that scientists since 1993 came up with such blanket, historical idea. And in any case, it is self-serving and self-promotional at best even to suggest it.

“biologists, immunologists, doctors, geologists, engineeers�? – S. Cordova

Spectacularistic claims aside, the IDM is responsible for a ‘basket’ of concepts and will have to do its own actual scientific work before it may deserve respectability in the greater scientific community. Otherwise, scientists in one of the youngest nations in the world ought not speak so much about what their great new theory of intelligent design will do to the entire scientific world. Unilateral decision-making for scientific agendas would be another connection Mike could make to this broad topic.

Although I love the guy’s enthusiasm and apparently good intentions, S. Cordova is once again revealing some of the most extremist, American, fundamentalist tendencies of ID-ism, and which forewarns open and honest scientists and scholars (especially Christian one’s) of the dangers of ID theory being (stretched) taught by amateurs and pseudo-intellects. Or maybe it’s just a good example of a specialist who drowns threads with information on topics he has no knowledge about. What is sociology, Salvador? It seems to me you need a vacation from ID land in a big way, or maybe just in order to read something philosophical instead of instruction manuals that over-simplify one’s thought.

“I could have made the same point with any opponent of the ID Movement.�? – Mike Gene

Why such universalistic claims, Mike? I’m not clear who you are representing or defending in this discussion (Christians, theists or…?) , but this seems to be an example of speaking more than one should in protecting their invested absolutisms. As long as people in the IDM promote ID as the be-all, end-all, greatest-invention, discovery, selected phraseology of the 20th century, then they are carrying targets on their theories and methods. On the other hand, speak about the boundaries or limitations of ID theories and maybe even staunch evolution-ists would be more likely to listen.

“My focus/interest in this thread is the sociological dynamic of the debate.�? – Mike Gene

Are you then asking for advice from sociologists to help you articulate what you want to investigate in terms of sociological dynamics (and statics)? Do you know what some of the ‘right questions’ in such a discipline would be? Although I applaud the effort to examine the IDM from an alternate perspective than normal (cf. ARN = Science, Technology and Society), my feedback is to note you’ve given mere simple lip service to society so far. Actually, you haven’t turned back to this social claim since being dee-stracted by Dr. Okimoto, the bio-molec-gen guy. Did you really want to talk about the ‘alienation’ of the IDM or the scientific and theological ‘divisions of labour’ then? Otherwise, things should just return to circular discussions of biological wizardry and front loading.

“The ID Movement is indeed a reaction. But a reaction to what?�? – Mike Gene

The IDM (as a stronger or looser community of scholars and scientists) clearly says that it is a reaction to (neo)(Neo)-Darwinian Evolution, just like in the opening lines to the DVD “Unlocking the Mystery of Life.�? This is unambiguous and not difficult to understand given the popular antagonism to Darwinism in the U.SA.. My concern is when the rhetoric escalates to talk not only of ‘reactionaries’ but also of ‘revolutionaries.’ In which case, sociologically speaking it would not be unfathomable to compare the IDM with other revolutions that did not actually happen. Well, that is, it hasn’t happened yet. The IDM is currently evolved in a process.

“The fact is that many in the scientific community are trying to use science to advance their materialistic metaphysics.�? – Mike Gene

Yada, yada, of course they are. People on this board, however, for some reason feel the need to debate ‘what science is and isn’t’ quite regularly. Evolution is often used to justify anti-theological views. Religion and Science are framed in an inevitable conflict paradigm (cf. Plantinga or Gould). Nonetheless, Intelligent Design hasn’t offered a scientific alternative to materialism and ID theorists confess they use materials in their practical experiements and bench research (if they are doing any). The only option remaining then is a GUT dream of Theistic Science.

Please keep me in the loop when you discover it and GET it out in print.

Warm regards from an unusual ID friend,

gregory the grey
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/graphics/StatlerWaldorf_s.jpg