Pharyngula

Posted by: mo | August 10, 2009 7:47 PM

Wow, that site was not satire.

Posted by: 6-bleen-7 | August 10, 2009 7:50 PM

So Poe it's not a Poe? (No, Poe works both ways.) I love how he thinks "freethinking" is an insult.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 10, 2009 7:51 PM

Dammit, Bully Billy wants to take our toys away. He doesn't realise we appreciate the diversity of wackaloon delusionists we get here. ID creationists are only one of the many types of dingbats we feast upon.

I mean, it's all about variety, and a balanced diet of the different troll food-groups is essential. It keeps our beaks sharp, our eyes bright and our tentacles limber.

Posted by: John Morales | August 10, 2009 7:56 PM

Heh. IDiots aren't worth much XP, but they're great fodder for levelling up new commenters.

Posted by: legion | August 10, 2009 7:56 PM

Heck yeah we want to encourage these dipsticks' posting their idiocy... that way, when they apply for jobs after they get their "degree", prospective employers can google them & see just what sort of doofus they almost hired!

Posted by: Ferre | August 10, 2009 7:59 PM

At first I thought that his website was some sort of parody, I looked up Billy Dembski on wikipedia to find out that it is not.

Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | August 10, 2009 8:00 PM

Hmmm, #8 and #9 actually look quite coherent compared to Dembski's finest that troll around here...

Posted by: PixelFish | August 10, 2009 8:04 PM

For a percentage of them, it will actually probably help them to confront their cognitive dissonance and start thinking rationally. As I noted in the prior threads, this happens a lot on support boards for people leaving their religions. There are invariably people who come to preach the truth to us wayward lambs, and in the process have a few delusions punctured and take the time to investigate the holes in their arguments.

I always said the thing that did in my Mormon beliefs was that I was honest with myself and investigated the things that didn't sit right.

Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | August 10, 2009 8:10 PM

Even worse ... his site got slashdotted.

The slashdot hordes make the Pharyngulan hordes look tiny, and civilized.

Posted by: dogmeatib | August 10, 2009 8:14 PM

Why is it that creationists, conservatives, Christians, Republicans, and other right-wing loonies always seem to project their own standards, attitudes, beliefs, rules, etc., upon the rest of us? Suppress speech and keep people away who disagree with us? Isn't that the founding principle upon which Uncommon Descent was established?

But that isn't what we want, we're perfectly happy to shred the silly notions of creationist younglings. We just want them to stick around and actually participate in a discussion/debate, as was previously mentioned, the drive by trolling is rather pathetic.

Posted by: Carlie | August 10, 2009 8:19 PM

Oh, Billy. We laugh at the fact that you think there is any academic worth in making random posts on hostile websites. At least you should require that they make posts and responses to the reactions they get. But no, it's just a matter of numbers of posts altogether, nothing about their content or ability to rebut criticism.

Posted by: MadScientist | August 10, 2009 8:24 PM

You really do need a religious agenda to give credit for being stupid and more credits for being even dumber.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 8:27 PM

What do you mean you're taking them away? Bring them on. In the last thread on the matter, I even put up a post directly relevant to the discussion of Intelligent Design. I'd really like answers, or the very least a refutation of my logic in my justification / rationalisation of asking such questions. Surely it would be good for your students to teach me, after all they are learning from the master directly.

I for one welcome the challenge to learn, to discuss, to debate and take on other ideas. I welcome it as an opportunity to better understand the reality I reside in.

Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | August 10, 2009 8:28 PM

Bring on the trolls !

Posted by: SC, OM | August 10, 2009 8:39 PM

You know, with modifications it might actually be an instructive sort of assignment. You could ask students to:

a) choose an issue related to the class

b) write down their views on the subject

c) go to a forum or blog where people generally come from a perspective hostile to theirs

d) participate in the discussion for a present period of time

e) link to the discussion

f) write out whether and how their views have changed, if at all, as a result

Might be interesting.

***

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | August 10, 2009 8:42 PM

[/blockquote]I'll make you a deal: let Darwinist, atheist, skeptic, freethinking, and infidel websites state prominently on their homepage the following disclaimer -- "Intelligent Design Supporters Strictly Prohibited" -- and I'll make sure my students don't post on your sites.[/blockquote]

And give you ammunition when you want to pull your "poor, oppressed, Christian censored by the evil atheists" schtick for your knuckle-dragging students? No thank you.

Posted by: Chris | August 10, 2009 8:47 PM

Bring it on, Dembski-ites. Your grade depends on sufficient agreement with your professor.

Posted by: Reynold | August 10, 2009 8:49 PM

If Dembski wants to (pretend to) make a case against censorship, he should start at his own UD blog.

Since he or one of his students reads here, he can explain just why the students are only supposed to read reviews of books like "The God delusion" and not the actual books themselves.

First course I ever heard of doing that.

Posted by: bornagain77 | August 10, 2009 8:55 PM

Hey PZ,
Do you think I can get some credit for a grade from you to? I've posted at least a hundred times on your site.

Evolution: Redefined- Geoff Moore and the Distance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVwFYpFemE4

Posted by: ERV | August 10, 2009 8:58 PM

WAD-- In any case, I'll make you a deal: let Darwinist, atheist, skeptic, freethinking, and infidel websites state prominently on their homepage the following disclaimer -- "Intelligent Design Supporters Strictly Prohibited" -- and I'll make sure my students don't post on your sites.

BTW- AtBC FTW! Cant link to UD (dont want to up their stats), but you can link to The Watchers! w00t!

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 10, 2009 8:59 PM

What should not be forgotten in our mirth at Dembski et al.'s ridiculousness, is that this particular requirement is almost certainly driven by Bill's ressentiment and hatred of all of those who have exposed his inadequacy's.

But that's said, and frankly I can't think of a better response to it than more ridicule, exposure, and take-downs of his pathetic ideas. I wish there were something else to do (I'd really rather save him, if possible), however once one has made a career of trying to get even with one's betters, one is pretty damn hopeless, and the only proper recourse is to try to save people from becoming trapped in that subject's pathetic neuroses and hatreds.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: NickDLP | August 10, 2009 9:02 PM

LMAO

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 10, 2009 9:12 PM

Correction to #47. It should have been:

Continuing the theme in #44,

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 10, 2009 9:14 PM

Correction to #47. It should have been:

Continuing the theme in #44,

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 10, 2009 9:16 PM

You know, I could have sworn I was banned from UD two years ago... must be a figment of my imagination, seeing as WAD is so concerned about free speech on the internet...

Apparently, hypocrisy only makes baby Jesus cry when it's done by non-Christians. The Christian god allows some of his followers certain double standards - free speech is only free when it's for Christianity; homosexuality is bad, except when it's done by an important public religious figure and so forth. Ditto corruption, political manipulation, lying, embezzling and any and all forms of intellectual dishonesty.

My all-time favourite, though, is that their God is real and present and acts in actual, tangible physical ways - such as miracles - when Christians are talking to other Christians, but is untestable and lies outside of science when they're talking to atheists.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 10, 2009 9:17 PM

@ dogmeatib #22

Because they are right and that is that. Dog said it, they roll in it and they come up smelling like dogs. And the fragrance wafts upward even unto the nostrils of the Lord, who is thus made euphoric.

It is entertaining and occasionally educational to engage in deeper analysis of the mind set that is amenable to being human while being controlled from without. But when such discussions turn to ethics and morality and the value of faith they cease to be productive.

Reality and humanity's place in it is like the pudding; the proof is not in the pudding (not, that is, in the way it looks to us or the way it smells or the way it pleases us to have it on the table before us), it is instead in the eating of the pudding. Which is to say, when we actually put science to work by doing an experiment to test the expectation that the pudding is good. So far the score in terms of human benefit is Science=a lot vs Faith=an imaginary number.

Yup. You have to eat it to know if it's as good to eat. Most True Believers have eaten neither their own holy books or many text books or volumes of history and discovery. They have merely sniffed and licked around the edges, the skirts of any cohesive system of justifying personal existence.

For such a narrow view, I pity them. For not having yet eaten the pudding but still proclaiming its taste and nourishment abroad and insistently and with growing hubris humbly declaring their intent is to "just serve the truth" in the form of their own fears and at the expense of general freedom and civility, I call Stooge!* They have been had. To them it is profit, a ticket to eternity and beyond the end of the universe. We have no argument against it. Not one.

So. That leaves pointing and laughing and having a good time at their expense. What else can we do, as anything rational seems to roll of their backs as if they were ducks.

Quack. o_0

*not without deep reflection and regret.

Posted by: bornagain77 | August 10, 2009 9:23 PM

PZ,
Now I'm working on extra credit:

This Is A Excellent ID video that just came out that is narrated by Dr. Meyer:

Journey Inside The Cell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 10, 2009 9:39 PM

Dear Brother/Sister bornagain77,

I'm right with you on this one. It makes sense to me that God would work through a geophysicist with a doctorate in the History and Philosophy of Science to answer certain fundamental biological questions. As we all know, only God's giant slot machine could have hit the jackpot that created the human genome. What rubbish to imagine that tiny accretions of compatibly coded sequences might have led to ever greater complexity. Thankfully we have the good Dr Meyers to explain what really happened with his magnetized whiteboards and silken delivery. Praise God for photogenic preachers and the good oil they sell.

I'm a bit worried about his notion that some of these things might have taken millions, if not billions, of years though. Hasn't he read Genesis? Why would he want to confuse the huge percentage of brainwashed Americans-of-faith-with-cash who believe in a young earth? Who is right?

Yours in Christian consternation
Smoggy

PS Phew...sorry...got off message there for a minute. It doesn't matter who is right, does it? Just so long as we keep the ignorant confused and keep fucking up science for Jesus. PTL!

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 10, 2009 9:46 PM

This Is A Excellent ID video that just came out that is narrated by Dr. Meyer:

Is that the one they ripped off from Harvard?

the one they used in "Expelled"; before they had to rip it out?

Posted by: bornagain77 | August 10, 2009 9:48 PM

Mutations?

The following sources reveal the overwhelmingly negative mutation rate which has been found:

"I have seen estimates of the incidence of the ratio of deleterious-to-beneficial mutations which range from one in one thousand up to one in one million. The best estimates seem to be one in one million (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998). The actual rate of beneficial mutations is so extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement (Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998). Therefore, I cannot ...accurately represent how rare such beneficial mutations really are." (J.C. Sanford; Genetic Entropy page 24) - 2005

Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? (Thomas Bataillon)
Abstract......It is argued that, although most if not all mutations detected in mutation accumulation experiments are deleterious, the question of the rate of favourable mutations (and their effects) is still a matter for debate.
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v84/n5/full/6887270a.html

Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli
Excerpt: At least 80% of the mutations had a significant negative effect on fitness, whereas none of the mutations had a significant positive effect. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r37w1hrq5l0q3832/

High Frequency of Cryptic Deleterious Mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans ( Esther K. Davies, Andrew D. Peters, Peter D. Keightley)
"In fitness assays, only about 4 percent of the deleterious mutations fixed in each line were detectable. The remaining 96 percent, though cryptic, are significant for mutation load...the presence of a large class of mildly deleterious mutations can never be ruled out. "
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/5434/1748

“But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information… All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.”
Lee Spetner - Ph.D. Physics - MIT - (Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution)

"Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word “beneficial” (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed “beneficial mutations” were only beneficial in a very narrow sense- but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information.” Sanford: Genetic Entropy

“Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity change shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations leads to speciation.”
Lynn Margulis - Acquiring Genomes [2003], p. 29.

“But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution… There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.”
Jonathan Wells (PhD. - Molecular Biology)

"Of carefully studied mutations, most have been found to be harmful to organisms, and most of the remainder seem to have neither positive nor negative effect. Mutations that are actually beneficial are extraordinarily rare and involve insignificant changes. Mutations seem to be much more degenerative than constructive…" Kurt Wise, paleontologist (2002, p.163)

"The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the neo-Darwin theory is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume." Lee Spetner (Ph.D. Physics - MIT - Not By Chance)

“It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of naturally occurring mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organisms in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation”
H.J. Muller (Received a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations to DNA)

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it." Pierre P. Grasse - past President of the French Academie des Sciences

Evolution Cartoon - Waiting For That Beneficial Mutation - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71-QYtxi8Bw

"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do.,,,, Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link, is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axis. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again." Albert Szent-Györgyi von Nagyrapolt (Nobel prize for Medicine).

Posted by: bornagain77 | August 10, 2009 9:51 PM

Gene Duplication? could go on and on with references ,,,yet why try to herd cats?

Posted by: Ray S. | August 10, 2009 9:53 PM

ID supporters, especially those like Luskin and Dembski, remind me of the Frank Burns character in M*A*S*H. In one of my favorite scenes, Burns asks Hawkeye and Trapper why they have been pulling a series of stunts on him. Their response is that it was to help him look foolish. Burns replies,'I don't need your help!'

Science has had many revolutions in which the ideas appeared outrageous or even crazy at first. Eventually evidence, reason and a useful consonance with reality bring them respectability. We;re still waiting for all of those from the ID supporters.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 10, 2009 9:59 PM

Excuse me... Professor Dembski?

Professor Dembski!

I want to protest!

bornagain77 is exceeding his word count AND he's parroting stuff that the atheists have already proved is rubbish at least a dozen times. I hope you're not going to accept that as part of his assignment! If that gets through then I'm going to cut and paste all of Answers in Genesis for my assignment AND I expect full credit.

Yours in Academic angst
Smoggy

Posted by: raven | August 10, 2009 10:00 PM

bornagain the wacko:

Guess that whole overwhelming complexity being found in DNA thing passed you by?

Oh gee. The complexity of DNA was discovered by scientists over decades. Some of whom are running this blog and commenting on it. It was not done by homeschooled kids getting Ph.D.s in trolling at a Baptist seminary in Texas.

BTW, Meyers and your logic is simply the old Argument from Ignorance and Incredulity. A fallacy several thousand years old. "I can't see how my foot evolved, so goddidit." Or you are blind and stupid. We know the answer to that one.

Posted by: bornagain77 | August 10, 2009 10:02 PM

HEY HEY,,, I'm going for double credit buddy don't ruin it...

Posted by: XD | August 10, 2009 10:05 PM

It's been ages since I lurked around AtBC. Can anyone tell me whether bornagain77 came out as a deep, deep, deep undercover troll? I know there was talk of him being one, as his comments at UcD were indicative of someone either taking the piss big time, or suffering from degenerative brain disease. It's kind of hard to tell sometimes, Poe's Law and all.

By the way, Smoggy definitely gets my vote for next month's Molly. Actually, from what we've gathered in the past few days, an OM is probably worth than a PhD from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. More difficult to get, too.

Posted by: Olowkow | August 10, 2009 10:06 PM

This is all indicative of what a huge gulf there is between the fundamentalist theists and the non-theists. It is more than just a difference in beliefs, but an enormous chasm between the basic mind set of how to interpret the world around us and the motives of our fellow man.
As I read about the trip to the Creation Museum, it started to become clear to me that there is a segment of our country that really honestly just does not care what the truth is, not because they are bad people, but because that is just their value system. I run up against this once in a while and just marvel at the inability of some people to understand what a logical argument is.
As for defending ID on an atheist website as a requirement for an education, that is just flat paranoia.

Posted by: Andy | August 10, 2009 10:08 PM

ROTFLMAO. Oh boy, I wonder how much credit this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/quicktime/l_081_04.html will be worth. I apologize if this has been posted here before, but I just ran across it after searching some of the Science shows in an older post here. It's priceless. I almost spit my drink out my nose, but then I realized that this is way to tragic to be funny.

Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 10, 2009 10:10 PM

Who's against his trolls coming here? They provide nutrition. As to his idiocy, now that annoys me.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 10, 2009 10:15 PM

Bornagain77, not one citation to the peer reviewed literature, which means you posted nothing of scientific nature. You wasted your effort. That is the problems with you godbots. You think religion and religious ideas can negate science. Only more science can negate science, and science is only found in the peer reviewed literature. The burden of proof is still upon your to show your point. We are waiting for your citations from the peer reviewed scientific literature to even show you have a point...

Posted by: Ric | August 10, 2009 10:19 PM

XD @72: funny you should bring up bornagain77. I am always amused by his posts over at UD. He literally is perhaps the stupidest poster over there. That copy-paste list of "things theism predicted that materialism got wrong" is so ridiculous it boggles the mind.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2009 10:27 PM

Stephen C. Meyer has serious issues both with understanding information theory and with basic honesty.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 10, 2009 10:30 PM

@ bornagain77:

Assuming that someone is willing to give you college credits for your hard work and dedication that is displayed by your posting here, parrot style, the same old shit, am I then to further assume that you will accept those credits?

Incredible.

*but then it's so easy and just think of the jobs*

Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 10, 2009 10:33 PM

You are the Templeton Foundation’s new program director and are charged with overseeing its programs and directing its funds. Sketch out a 20-year plan for defeating scientific materialism and the evolutionary worldview it has fostered...

Dear ID students, welcome and please do let us know how you would undo germ theory & modern medicine. Let us know how you'd undo modern construction practices and earthquake awareness. You can earn extra credit by figuring out how to eliminate food safety science and disease control.

For really really extra credit you will effectively outline a program to advance us to the hellhole of 10th century European existence. Or, as some people like to refer to it, Christendom.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 10:38 PM

It's arguing by credentials. I could think up a long list just off the top of my head of scientists with Ph.Ds who support evolution, who are experts in their fields and are talking on matters directly relevant to evolution. But this is never about that.

We could throw quotes from those with Ph.Ds until the end of time and it wouldn't make a difference. The key is that there are those with Ph.Ds who support the position that Johan does, so those ones he listens to. Doesn't matter where the scientific consensus is at, doesn't matter about ultimately finding the truth - he already has his truth and will latch onto anyone who validates it.

Posted by: Tulse | August 10, 2009 10:38 PM

I wonder if Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has similar course in other topics. For example, is there a course on Abstinence and Christianity that requires surfing porn sites? And if there is, does SBTS offer distance learning credits?

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 10:43 PM

Oh, and the other day when I mentioned a creationist who called me closed minded because I still accepted that there was junk DNA? This guy right here. Nevermind that our genome is largely old ERV code, that we have pseudogenes, one piece of non-coding DNA turned out to have a different function therefore the entire notion of junk DNA is dead.

Posted by: John Morales | August 10, 2009 10:50 PM

Cuttlefish FTW!

--

I have seen estimates of the incidence of the ratio of deleterious-to-beneficial mutations which range from one in one thousand up to one in one million. The best estimates seem to be one in one million (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998)

That literally says Bad:Good :: 1:1,000-1,000,000, and is the opposite of what was intended. Heh.

Posted by: R. Schauer | August 10, 2009 10:53 PM

NEW FLASH...Scientific Breakthrough:

Prof. William Dembski of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary accidently demonstrated macro-evolution today by fishing for men and immediately turning them into sheep. A fleecing by Dembski commenced shortly thereafter.

Dembski stated, "It's a miracle! I had a small hand in the macro-evolution but only the all powerful hand of god could make this kind of fleecing possible."

PZ Myers, developmental biologist from the University of Minnesota Morris campus remained skeptical, however..."the evolution of a homo-sapian into a ovis aries is without precedence," Myers said. Myers continued, "I'll have to investigate this further given the relatively short amount of time it took for Dembski to accomplish his feat...especially the stupendous fleecing."

Posted by: Janeothejungle | August 10, 2009 10:59 PM

Dear Smoggy,

Please consider taking me as your nth wife. I am a devoted servant and can follow around behind you, dressed in my humble gingham and clunky wooden shoes, whilst you perpetuate your mighty messages. A life following you could never be dull.

sincerely,
just another unworthy sheep

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 10, 2009 11:10 PM

As usual, Cuttlefish wins the thread.

One thing I feel a need to reiterate (apologies for, if you'll excuse the term, preaching to the choir): there is no speciation without reproductive isolation. Without at least some reproductive isolation, beneficial mutations will simply spread within the population.

Imagine a large, well-stirred vat of paint (representing a species' genetic variation), with random spurts of various-colored paint (representing mutations) being dropped in. As long as it's a single vat, the entire vat will remain approximately the same color. Not until you split the paint into multiple smaller batches, and limit the intermingling, that you'll end up with different colors of paint.

(ObDisclaimer: IANABiologist, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

Posted by: robertm | August 10, 2009 11:11 PM

Oh this is just priceless;

"TAKE-HOME FINAL EXAM
Please answer each of the following questions in 500 words or less. Answer every part of each question.
Be concise. This exam is open-book, but you can only consult general reference books (e.g., the Bible),
the five books read in class, and the notes you took in class. You may not cruise the Internet in search of
answers or in any way seek the help of others. Your completed exam needs to be emailed to the grader,
Jack Greenoe, by Thursday 12:00 noon. In turning this paper in you agree, on pain of divine judgment,
that this is entirely your own work."

Taken from Dembski's final exam.
The bible is a general reference book, and if you cheat on this test you're going to hell!!

http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm

Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 10, 2009 11:15 PM

JRB - For really really extra credit you will effectively outline a program to advance us to the hellhole of 10th century European existence. Or, as some people like to refer to it, Christendom.

Nerd of Redhead @ #89

Or, as Pilty the stupid cat-o-lick troll thinks, utopia.

Yes, Utopia for the true believer of the one true god. For who would suspect that the one true god would bring down the plague on the righteous.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 10, 2009 11:20 PM

Dear Sister Janeofthejungle @ 100,
I am happy to consider your request to join the Batzrubble Harem, although I should point out that in the Church I am founding we don't accept such ostentation in dress as you have described. I will expect you to wear something simple and modest, probably along the lines of a leopard-print miniskirt and matching jimmy choo stilettos.

Do you like being in photographs? I am currently preparing an illustrated version of my hugely successful book "The Kama Sutra for Abstinence Pledges", and I need someone to work with my other model, a mild-mannered colleague named Floyd Rubber.

Yours in Connubial Bliss and Christian Commerce

Smoggy

Posted by: Defaithed | August 10, 2009 11:35 PM

How silly, that anyone thinks we would turn away the Faithful from our secular sites. Seriously, we'd love as many of them as possible to visit!

All ye secular webmasters, how about politely responding to Prof Dembski's concerns with a sincere, honest welcome mat on your sites? I just put one up on my site, letting the Intelligent Design supporters (and some of their friends) know that they genuinely are welcome to visit. (My mat links back to this page, in case anyone should wonder why "Intelligent Design supporters strictly WELCOME" is a necessary message.)

If anyone wants to steal my welcome mat for your own site, please do so. (Though I'd love to see the artistically-gifted create something much better!)

Posted by: MikeM | August 10, 2009 11:50 PM

Nice try, fakers: I cannot find a single instance of "evidences" in this ENTIRE post!

Hah! I call Poe, Smoggy ButtBuster888!

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 11, 2009 12:01 AM

Dear Brother MikeM,

I am hurt that you (I presume a fellow Christian) would stoop to making fun of my name. God appointed me a missionary to the atheists to convert them to the one true Catholic faith. This is a hard enough job without being attacked by my own side.

Yours in Christ-like forgiveness

Smoggy

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | August 11, 2009 12:32 AM

Dearest Brother Smoggy B--
I do not know that book.
If you insist, I'll look and see,
But 'til I take a look,
I must confess, I've never heard
Of any Michael Frith.
Of course, I'll take you at your word
And search for him forthwith.
My own dog knows far fewer words--
We'd teach him more, but that's trouble--
And education's for the birds.
Good luck, though, Brother Batzrubble!

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 11, 2009 12:41 AM

Dear Brother Cuttlefish,

Thank you for the lyrical enlightenment. I recall why the poem seemed familiar--in the story the young dog trainer keeps counting how many words he has still to teach his dog if he is to reach 100. There, I think, the similarity ends. I would look it up myself, but sadly one of the Small Smoggies ate the book. I imagine Cuttlefish offspring don't eat a lot of paper.

SB

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 11, 2009 12:52 AM

What I want to know is, just where are these infidel websites?
(Is infidel a scientific term?)

I mean, I've seen the "Darwinist," atheist, skeptic, and freethinking ones. But no infidel ones.

Maybe I should go register InfidelsOnline.com or something and start one.

Posted by: Dan W | August 11, 2009 1:02 AM

There seem to be more fake trolls (Poes) than real ones in this thread. Where are all of Dembski's students, who are required to troll for their grades? It'll get boring without trolls to provide us with lulz.

By the way, loved the great poem, Cuttlefish. 'Twas awesome.

Posted by: DingoJack | August 11, 2009 1:21 AM

Smoggy, James, Cuttlefish -
GET. A. ROOM!
*sheesh* - DJ

Posted by: Ron Sullivan | August 11, 2009 1:42 AM

If there were a god, it would be Cuttlefish.

Posted by: efrique | August 11, 2009 4:10 AM

The more I talk with creationists, the clearer it has become. They're so busy projecting, they simply cannot begin to understand us our our motives at all; they can't see us because we're completely obscured by a shadowy reflection of what they've decided we must be, which is a paler, nastier, more nihilistic imitation of themselves.

In such circumstances, communication seems impossible, because they're too busy having a conversation with a homonculous sprung fully formed from their own forehead that they imagine is us.

Posted by: 386sx | August 11, 2009 4:30 AM

Oh yeah, and "Darwinism" doesn't obey the second law of thermodynamics, too. It's a miracle. And of course Darwinians worship Darwin as if he were an infallible god.

Yep, creationist made up their own quaint little religion called "Darwinism". And it looks a whole lot like creationism.

Posted by: DingoJack | August 11, 2009 5:41 AM

I would have thought IF there were a god it would be more squid-like (and made of yummy bacon). - DJ
_____
PS forgot to add ":)" to the end of #124, apologies.

Posted by: DingoJack | August 11, 2009 5:55 AM

Ed Darrell (#127) - wants a designer to create badges* for sites "likely to be hostile" to Hammy's Mammy-boys (& girls). Surely (according to the IDiots) such a thing has already occurred.
'DESIGNER^'DIDIT! :) - DJ
________________
*"Badges? We don' nee' no steenkin' BADGES!
^ aka god, but don't say it too loud.

Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | August 11, 2009 6:07 AM

Requirements:

(1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

OR

(1) Present a ticket stub and photgraph from the Creation Museum, Kentucky
(2) Present a ticket stub and photograph from the Dinosaur Adventure Land, Pensacola, or a photograph of the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield
(3) Present a ticket stub for the film 'Expelled'

OR

(1)Send in 10 box tops from Creation Crispies plus 1 dollar...

...to get your Degree and secret creation decoder ring.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 11, 2009 6:18 AM

Yep, creationist made up their own quaint little religion called "Darwinism". And it looks a whole lot like creationism.

The number of times we've been accused of worshiping Darwin (may the peace of Dawkins be upon him) shows there's some validity to this claim.

Posted by: Haruhiist | August 11, 2009 6:44 AM

I hope PZ doesn't dissuade any of those students (cough) to come here and post, without them Haruhi might get bored and do something stupid like substitute this world with one that's more interesting. And I'm kinda attached to this world..

Posted by: Scaryduck | August 11, 2009 7:10 AM

Does that rant mean we're all officially infidels?

This has got to be the greatest day of my life.

Posted by: Enos Wagstaff | August 11, 2009 7:55 AM

If he is an infidel, he is an infidel as a dog is an infidel; that is to say, he has no thought upon the subject.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 11, 2009 8:15 AM

bullcrap?

Like bullshit, only more genteel.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 11, 2009 8:32 AM

Wow--did 143 get a humorectomy at some point, or was he born that way?

Poor thing.

Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 11, 2009 8:45 AM

Oh, and a remark about "boringagain77":

Why is it that creationists are so fond of quotes? Do they think it can replace an argument? Perhaps it comes from the habit of piling bible quotes one upon the other?

"Hey, look, Pr So-and-so said this... hmm, let me get my scissors, ok... look, he said this, so you're doomed! Doomed!" Hmmm, I'm not sure it works that way. Especially when the quotes begin with a few legitimate scientists, and go on with some of the "great names" of the creationist movement. Come on, you're not fooling us !

Posted by: bornagain77 | August 11, 2009 9:09 AM

As for ring species per 121:

And how is that not to be considered reproductive isolation caused by loss of genetic information?

to further bolster the claims to reproductive isolation brought about by Genetic Entropy:

This following study is interesting in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed for the estimated 60,000 year old anatomically modern humans found in Australia:

Ancient DNA and the origin of modern humans: John H. Relethford
Excerpt: Adcock et al. (7) clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years,,,, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33358

The author of the preceding paper seemed to be mystified that there is this loss of genetic information. Yet, the result clearly falls within what we would expect from a Genetic Entropy perspective.

These following studies reveal the fact that Darwinian evolution cannot even account for the fact that a parent species/kind will have a more "robust genome" than its sub-species.

Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity.
A mouflon population (considered an ancient "parent" lineage of sheep), bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents.This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time. "What is amazing is that models of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we've found that it has been maintained," said Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta.

Allozyme evidence for crane systematics and polymorphisms within populations of sandhill, sarus, Siberian and whooping cranes.
"This is contrary to expectations of genetic loss due to a population bottleneck of some 15 individuals in the 1940s. The possibility should be explored that some mechanism exists for rapidly restoring genetic variability after population bottlenecks."
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:279-288- Dessauer, H. C., G. F. Gee, and J. S. Rogers. 1992.

This following study is clear genetic evidence of the "limited and rapid variation from a parent kind" predicted by the Genetic Entropy model:

African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research:
"The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).-------conclusion of the study?------ the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16846905

Cichlid Fish - Evolution or Variation Within Kind? - Dr. Arthur Jones - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1TDNHNvZRk

More evidence for rapid radiations from a parent species can be found here:

Biological Variation - Cornelius Hunter
Excerpt: One hint that biology would not cooperate with Darwin’s theory came from the many examples of rapidly adapting populations. What evolutionists thought would require thousands or millions of years has been observed in laboratories and in the field, in an evolutionary blink of an eye. http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.2_Biological_variation

Posted by: J-Dog | August 11, 2009 9:27 AM

Hey BA^77! If you are still out there, please, please come visit us at After The Bar Closes! We haven't had someone with your rhetorical skill set since crazy woman For The Kids ran away, and we would look forward to the opportunity to learn you some science.*

* Please promise not to do your usual UD cut & paste though. We've all seen it, and its all old and tired stuff long discredited. If you want to interact with people - even some working scientists - stop by. We will even create, I mean "design" a thread just for you! We would all like to go to UD and discuss with you, but hey, you know how it is over there -dissenting voices not allowed.

pps: (ala KF) What's up with your Nanny^Filter???!!!

Linky for BA^77: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4a8173d8121937bb;act=ST;f=14;t=6256

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 9:36 AM

Prof. Meyers

who?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 11, 2009 9:42 AM

Oohh, our ignorant cut/paste creobot troll cites that which doesn't back up his argument? Delicious irony. They can't even get their alleged evidence right. Failure from the start with a bad idea (doesn't even merit the term hypothesis), and it gets worse as they try to show themselves right.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 11, 2009 9:58 AM

Give it up Johan. You've gone as far as you can, now it's time to fight for your ideas in academia instead of on web 2.0. The battle for evolution will be won or lost in the scientific community, so while you refuse to participate in the process all you are doing is avoiding actually taking the fight to where it matters.

If you can demonstrate the fallacious nature of evolution in the scientific arena, fame and glory awaits. You'd be the premier scientific mind of the era, be lauded and showered with accolades, and have your name immortalised throughout all time.

See, this is why I don't think creationism has anything to do with being right. It has everything to do with evangelising God. Creationists are not truth seekers, they have no regard for what is right, nor fighting for their ideas. It's about preaching, it's about throwing out 'gotcha' moments to an unknowing public. Creationists won't fight in the academic arena because they know they'll lose. The scientific process is there for all, but it's easier to claim there's a scientific conspiracy to suppress God (ignoring all the theist scientists who accept evolution) and evangelise in a public who really doesn't know better.

You could be the premier thinker of our age, convert the world to your religion, have the same process that gave us the computer fighting on your side... and all you have to do is take up the fight among the knowledgeable. But the lack of involvement in the scientific process speaks volumes for the validity of the concept.

Posted by: daveau | August 11, 2009 10:19 AM

tsagrednep@143

Me likey Smoggy.

Posted by: James Sweet | August 11, 2009 10:35 AM

Dembski's point seems to be that if you don't specifically ask someone not to be a douche, then they have every right -- nay, an obligation -- to be as big a douche as possible.

If I ever have Dembski over to my house for dinner, I will be sure to post a sign on the front door that says "No shitting in the salad bowl." Otherwise, you know... he might.

Posted by: Bjoern Brembs | August 11, 2009 11:15 AM

Tried to post something along these lines to the thread at Uncommon Decent:
http://bjoern.brembs.net/comment-n538.html
Guess what? It got moderated and never appeared...

Posted by: Mu | August 11, 2009 11:35 AM

I wonder whether there are additional instructions to the trolling homework, like one post per blog you're commenting on. Otherwise the faithful might actually be drawn into a reasonable scientific discourse (these are young impressionable minds after all, and might be brainwashed again). Maybe we need to start setting up honeypots (attractive atheist pictures)to engage them and judge their potential to be saved?

Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 11, 2009 11:51 AM

Why is it that creationists are so fond of quotes? Do they think it can replace an argument? Perhaps it comes from the habit of piling bible quotes one upon the other?

Are you suggesting that there's a difference between constructing a sermon and a scientific theory?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 11, 2009 10:29 PM

LMAO!!!

Ed Brayton pointed out question 3 on Dembski's 2007 Intelligent Design course exam :

3. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch ID’s method(s) of design detection and then show how it/they apply (or might apply) to biological systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID? Also, indicate how ID differs from creationism and from natural theology. Finally, what would you say to the charge that ID is “pseudoscience”? What would you say to the charge that ID is “religion”?

lol

For expert credit explain why wussing out and not testifying at the Dover case would be the right course of action.

Actually that whole exam is hilarious. For starters it's a take home, open book exam. Don't worry about cheating. It says: "You may not consult with anyone while taking it". Then the first questions starts: "You are a panelist at the premier showing of Richard Dawkins’s BBC production debunking religion titled “The Root of All Evil?”". It then assigns you to "[c]hallenge him" on the claim "that that evolutionary theory is confirmed by overwhelming evidence whereas religious belief is as a matter of blind, unthinking faith". Question 5 asks you to outline Sunday school lessons. Question 4 just whines about Barbara Forrest and asks to explain and rationalize justify the Wedge strategy.

Not surprising that this course doesn't teach the students to think for themselves, but just repeat the propaganda of its instructor.

Posted by: Scott | August 12, 2009 2:15 AM

Dear bornagain @ #152,

And how is that not to be considered reproductive isolation caused by loss of genetic information?

Why do you consider a "loss" of information to be the only possible "change" in genetic information?

How exactly is genetic information "lost"? Does that mean that the species which has "lost" genetic information now has fewer base pairs? Fewer genes?

You do seem to have missed the point of the "ring" article. Each gull population can interbreed with the nearest two gull populations in the ring. Each population in the ring is a healthy, thriving, distinct population. No "loss" of function is observed. Yet, the ends of the "ring" cannot interbreed. Why do you think that might be?

BTW, a single line question followed by a long cut-n-paste is not actually a reasoned answer. Please try again.

Hint: if I can walk across the room, or walk down the block, why do you then say it is impossible that someone can walk from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast?

Thanks for your time.

Posted by: jpw | August 12, 2009 3:15 PM

*sigh*

As cathartic as it might be to call the IDer's names, it just reflects badly on the one doing the namecalling. Besides which, Christianists thrive on a persecution complex, so it's just stroking their egos.

A far more effective action is to call them, "heretics." Their attempt to trick people into thinking that ID is a science stems from a desperate attempt to find support for their dodgy misinterpretation of scripture.

The passages whose misinterpretations the Christianists desperately cling to lend themselves just as easily to interpretations that fit with current models of biology, cosmology and even linguistics. Hit them along those lines, and it becomes much, much harder for fundamentalist trolls to keep convincing themselves that ID is a science.

One last note, and something to keep in mind: here's a quote from Richard Feynman. "… Love is not a science. That doesn't mean it isn't any good. It just means that it's not a science."

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 3:33 PM

Welcome back, tmaxPA, glad to see you're feeling better.

Posted by: slpage | August 18, 2009 12:22 PM

bornagain77, after spewing a litany of quotes from either creationist 'resources' (Spetner, Moonie Wells, Sanford (who quotes Bergman!), etc.) or out of context quotes form real researchers, writes:

"Gene Duplication? could go on and on with references ,,,yet why try to herd cats?"

Why go on and on with your pre-fabricated litany of self-serving gibberish from people who refuse to acknowledge, much less correct, their fals eclaims or the borrowed list of 'quotable quotes' from your fellow snake oilers?

it just makes you look gullible and non-thinking...