Nick Matzke posted Entry 2772 on December 16, 2006 11:24 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2762

Just when you think the ID guys can’t get any sillier and more immature, you see stuff like this. Dembski admits on his blog:

Over at www.overwhelmingevidence.com there is a flash animation featuring Judge Jones spouting inanities (inanities that he actually did write or say). There’s been a design inference made that it’s my voice in the Jones animation. A disgruntled former UD commenter KeithS slowed it down and lowered the pitch. Well, it’s true, it actually is me.

Now I’m wondering if the reason we’ve seen Dembski’s writing output decline is because he is spending all his time designing anti-Judge Jones flash animations. And I’m wondering who did the grunts.

Update: see below the fold.

Dembski apparently didn’t think that someone would be clever enough to figure out whose voice was in the flash animation. But after KeithS did his CSI thing and figured it out (sleuthing worthy of a PTer, I might add), Dembski tried to make the best of an embarrassing situation and posted the above on his blog, and emailed the nervous bravado below to the people in the animation – Ken Miller, Barbara Forrest, Rob Pennock, Laurence Krauss, Genie Scott, Wes Elsberry, Patricia Princehouse, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett – as well as Kevin Padian. Dembski’s email had been forwarded to me, but I had to leave it to the recipients to see if it would be made public. Now the text has been posted at RichardDawkins.net. Here it is:

There’s a Christmas present for you at www.overwhelmingevidence.com

– a flash animation that features each of you prominently (some of you are probably aware of it already). We’re still planning a few enhancements, including getting Eric Rothschild in there and having Judge Jones do the actual voiceovers himself (right now it’s me speeded up though it’s his actual words). In return for the judge doing himself, we’ll drop some of the less flattering sound effects. We would have included Prof. Padian, but the images of him on the internet weren’t of sufficient quality (I’m copying Prof. Padian – if you send me a hi res jpg of yourself, I’m sure we can work you in – you were after all the expert witness at the trial).

Best wishes,
Bill Dembski

A genuine scientific revolutionary for sure!

(Hat tip: jeffw)

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #150578

Posted by Bob on December 16, 2006 11:54 AM (e)

It’s funny, because they don’t actually show or tell why any of the statements are false. It’s the old, if-I-say-it-in-a funny-voice-it-must-be-false agrument, which is supported by the equal time tested agrument of the fart sound. (A side note, the fart sound agrument always works in real life. Next time you someone comes up to you trying to start an agrument, just say nothing and let one rip. You’ll always win.)

Also which side of this debate usually sounds more like a recording than the other. (i.e. A system X is irreducibly complex because we said so hundred and one times.)

Although I must admit their flash animation sucks. At least they could have made the arms stay on the characters as they pulled the cord. Also there attempts at humor are sad. At least they could have called Judge Jones “a big poopoo head,” or claimed that he had cooties. At least that would have elevated the discorse to sophomoric level.

P.S. Where the cord that one must pull on Behe or Dembski to get them to do science?

P.P.S. Which grade should we teach ID in, second or first?

Comment #150579

Posted by Bob O'H on December 16, 2006 12:02 PM (e)

I sit in awe of KeithS, what with Sal’s elipses as well.

Bob

Comment #150581

Posted by k.e. on December 16, 2006 12:16 PM (e)

Eponymous Darwin phobic superhero Darkwing Quackski (he has 2 PhD s don’t ya know) with the alter ego of William A. Dembski seems indeed to be giving up writing and moving into multimedia and flashy introductions at the St. Canard school of mallardly voice overs.

For his next trick, expect the paper cutouts of the Darwinian rogues gallery to take on South Park like personas with Quackski and longtime sidekicks Slavering Cadaver and Dave ‘Il Duce’ S. Springer valliantly dispatching them with their shining wit.

Obviously ID is going from post modern to post literate.

Comment #150582

Posted by TheBlackCat on December 16, 2006 12:21 PM (e)

I agree with Bob. DI seems to think that repeating some of the best statements Jones made, using a funny voice and fart sounds, somehow helps their cause. It very well might, but it just shows conclusively what we have known all along: DI is operating at a grade-school potty humor level, not a mature, rational, scientific level.

Comment #150583

Posted by ERV on December 16, 2006 12:30 PM (e)

Hehe! That voice scared my dog.

My dogs a pit bull.

Hes a good judge of character.

Comment #150584

Posted by MarkP on December 16, 2006 12:30 PM (e)

The whole UD site is little more than pissed off sarcasm. It’s the final weapon of losers who just won’t tap out.

PS Bob, it’s “argument”

Comment #150589

Posted by Mike Elzinga on December 16, 2006 1:44 PM (e)

Well, at least Dembski admits on Overwhelming Evidence that the humor is directed at adolescents. After all, this is really the targeted audience that he and his IDiots are aiming at. Get ‘em before they can think properly, thus assuring that they never will.

Comment #150591

Posted by wad of id on December 16, 2006 2:22 PM (e)

Dembski was chocking his chicken? What?

Comment #150592

Posted by Gerard Harbison on December 16, 2006 2:28 PM (e)

Now I’m wondering if the reason we’ve seen Dembski’s writing output decline is because he is spending all his time designing anti-Judge Jones flash animations.

I wouldn’t say it’s declined. Producing a smaller volume of utter crap is an improvement!

Comment #150594

Posted by BC on December 16, 2006 2:43 PM (e)

When I saw the animation the other day and read Dembski’s commentary: “‘The Judge Jones School of Law’ is the brainchild of brilliant professional flash animator (I think of him as the “Rembrandt” of flash animation; for now he will remain anonymous until he sees the fallout from his handiwork) as well as of me and my lovely wife Jana (who came up with the name).” my first thought was, “So you came up with this ‘The Judge Jones School of Law’ idea, and then you paid a professional webdesigner to create this flash animation for you?” Clearly, if Dembski’s voice was used through the animation, he was involved from the very beginning. Based on the immaturity of the whole thing, it reflects badly on Dembski (but, you know, he’s the “Isaac Newton of Information Theory”, despite these adolescent-level games).

Comment #150596

Posted by Ed Darrell on December 16, 2006 2:52 PM (e)

So, what was supposed to be funny about it? What I saw was a goofy-eyed guy with a goofy voice who shredded ID arguments.

Good heavens! Do they think those arguments have problems?

Comment #150598

Posted by Allen Williams on December 16, 2006 3:06 PM (e)

I might ask which should we teach in elementary school, Grimm’s ‘fairy tails’ or ‘evolution? Oh, that’s right, we are already teaching the kids about homosexuality so we won’t need evolution, after all.

While you spend your time analyzing the ‘nuances’ of senantics and yuking it up, the fact remains that your evolutionary ‘science’ violates the known laws of thermo, probability theory, physics, information theory, kinetics, and the laws of angular momentum.

Natural selection and its mutations cannot account for the complexity of higher order life forms, hell, it can’t even account for the existence of the tiny machines that Behe has discovered in the human cell. Such mechanisms don’t ‘evolve’ out of your slime pond else the law of entropy has no validity.

All you have is the ‘fanciful’ stories of fools like Steven Gould and
Carl Sagan to explain the origins of life. Imaginary scenarios invented to deny the existence of a god, taught as ‘science’ for no other reason than to justify social change.

Evolution is the only ‘court’ protected ‘scientific’ theory in the history of the United states. It is NOT observable, NOT testable and NOT rational.

Other than that what’s holding it back?

Comment #150599

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 16, 2006 3:17 PM (e)

So, what was supposed to be funny about it?

Good heavens! Do they think those arguments have problems?

asked and answered (even if the answer was phrased as another question).

Comment #150600

Posted by minimalist on December 16, 2006 3:20 PM (e)

Really, why act all surprised? Who hasn’t seen this coming? What with Darwin dolls in a vise and his fantasies of putting his detractors on trial, it’s been obvious that Dembski has been little more than your average paranoid crank.

Honestly though, I don’t see much point wasting any more bandwidth on Dembski’s pathetic last stabs at relevance. His time is past and he knows it. His atom-thin veneer of “scientific respectability” has been scratched beyond repair by the utter shreddings he’s received, and what’s under the surface turns out to be a garden-variety Usenet troll after all.

So just don’t feed him! Focus on the DI’s silly press releases, and public/political issues; issues where some ID types might actually have a chance of having some influence and effect. Dembski’s a has-been; a never-was, even. What was the last major effort he spearheaded, being “science advisor” for Ann Coulter’s latest masterwork? What a joke. He doesn’t even seem to have much cachet even within the debased standards of the ID community.

Comment #150601

Posted by Dave Carlson on December 16, 2006 3:27 PM (e)

Allen Williams wrote:

hell, it can’t even account for the existence of the tiny machines that Behe has discovered in the human cell.

(emphasis added)

As Sheila Brofloski (Kyle’s Mom) would say, “What, what, WHAAAT?”

Comment #150603

Posted by Steve Reuland on December 16, 2006 3:45 PM (e)

While you spend your time analyzing the ‘nuances’ of senantics and yuking it up, the fact remains that your evolutionary ‘science’ violates the known laws of thermo, probability theory, physics, information theory, kinetics, and the laws of angular momentum.

Angular momentum? That’s a new one to me. Anyone got the scoop on the origin of this particular bit of nuttery?

Comment #150605

Posted by ag on December 16, 2006 3:49 PM (e)

Re: comment 150598 by Allen Williams:

evolutionary ‘science’ violates the known laws of thermo, probability theory, physics, information theory, kinetics, and the laws of angular momentum.

Thanks, Allen, for a fine parody of utterances by ignorant but self-admiring nincompoops.

Comment #150607

Posted by KL on December 16, 2006 4:13 PM (e)

Well, that troll came out of left field. Clearly the Rip Van Winkle of trolls. Where has he been for 20 years?

Comment #150609

Posted by jeannot on December 16, 2006 4:26 PM (e)

evolutionary ‘science’ violates the known laws of thermo, probability theory, physics, information theory, kinetics, and the laws of angular momentum.
Sure, and an omnipotent designer sticking a home made flagellum on a bacterium’s rear doesn’t violate anything (except the bacterium maybe?).

Oh the irony. :-D

Comment #150610

Posted by David B. Benson on December 16, 2006 4:28 PM (e)

Nurse, nurse! Over here, nurse. Another inmate, er, resident, escaped…

Comment #150611

Posted by Allen K Williams on December 16, 2006 4:34 PM (e)

No, “Thank you’ for revealing the only thing you really have to offer, which is snide remarks. It’s only ‘nuttery’ because you’re ignorant of the topic.

It’s the liberal way isn’t it? When you lack anything of substance to say in an argument, you make wise cracks or attack the person presenting the argument. It’s as if your ‘social beliefs’ carried the same weight as known facts.

If any of you had studied physics, you’d have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system. So, if evolution is true then none of the known and accepted laws of science can be true, particularly the law of angular momentum.

Your stupidity is not my problem.

Comment #150612

Posted by Jesse on December 16, 2006 4:38 PM (e)

Angular momentum? That’s a new one to me. Anyone got the scoop on the origin of this particular bit of nuttery?

Kent Hovind. ‘Nuff said.

Comment #150613

Posted by allen_k_williams on December 16, 2006 4:44 PM (e)

Well ‘jeannot’

You seem to accept the fact that people can and are born with a third kidney, double joints, and other physical anomalies.

Why would you have a problem with a ‘whip tail’ capable of over 100,000 RPM?

It’s certainly better evidence of an Intelligent Designer at work than such a device emerging by random selection from your muck pond. Ever seen a 747 evolve out of junk?

Comment #150614

Posted by stevaroni on December 16, 2006 4:51 PM (e)

“Allen Williams” rants…

All you have is the ‘fanciful’ stories of … to explain the origins of life. Imaginary scenarios invented to deny the existence of a god
Evolution is … NOT observable, NOT testable and NOT rational.

Al,

You win. It makes much more sense that we teach kids that man was cooked up one morning in the middle of the bronze age by a bored deity out of clay and spare ribs.

Yup. We can just ignore all those pesky fossils and stuff. Probably put there by the devil anyhow.

Glad you corrected me on the laws of motion, too, Al. Would you believe that I’m a working engineer and I still didn’t realize that every single heat calculation I’ve made in the last 20 years has been wrong. It’s a wonder I still have a job. Gotta go now, I’ve got a lot of stuff to fix.

Comment #150615

Posted by cff on December 16, 2006 4:58 PM (e)

Allen K Williams wrote:

If any of you had studied physics, you’d have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system. So, if evolution is true then none of the known and accepted laws of science can be true, particularly the law of angular momentum

Hum. Would you mind putting that line of argumentation into standard form?

Let’s see if I can try:
1) There is a law of angular momentum and, as I take it, which has been violated.
2) If evolution is true, then It is not the case that the “known and accepted laws of science can be true”
————–
3) Hence, evolution is not true???

your argument is:
1) A
2) if B then A
————
3) B ???

Fallacy of affirming the antecedent eh?

Comment #150616

Posted by stevaroni on December 16, 2006 4:59 PM (e)

If any of you had studied physics, you’d have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system. So, if evolution is true then none of the known and accepted laws of science can be true, particularly the law of angular momentum.

I’m fascinated, Al. Since you are obviously skilled in the science of physics, please explain to me how the rotation of the earth disproves the laws of angular momentum.

You don’t have to get all complicated, just sketch it out roughly for me. Couple of equations, that’s all I need to understand your flawless logic, and, of course, to see the error of my ways.

Comment #150617

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 16, 2006 5:06 PM (e)

It’s the liberal way isn’t it? When you lack anything of substance to say in an argument, you make wise cracks or attack the person presenting the argument.

you would have only noticed that if you yourself were the target of sarcasm, and deservedly so, based on your current ramblings.

hey, just like “you’re not paranoid if they really are out to get you”, if you yourself actually lack coherence in your arguments, expect the responses to correctly attribute your arguments to insanity.

go figure.

Comment #150618

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 16, 2006 5:10 PM (e)

… oh, almost forgot, Allen:

Bwa ha ha!

you did a great job helping us stick to the topic the thread title implies; laughing at idiots.

Comment #150619

Posted by jeannot on December 16, 2006 5:12 PM (e)

Allen williams wrote:

You seem to accept the fact that people can and are born with a third kidney, double joints, and other physical anomalies.

I don’t see you point. Don’t physical anomalies happen sometimes? Do you think it’s how evolution happens?

It’s certainly better evidence of an Intelligent Designer at work than such a device emerging by random selection from your muck pond.

Random selection? Never heard of that.

Ever seen a 747 evolve out of junk?

Nope, and I don’t see how this is relevant to evolution either. I you think it is, you’d better read some biology textbook.

Comment #150620

Posted by jeannot on December 16, 2006 5:13 PM (e)

Allen williams wrote:

You seem to accept the fact that people can and are born with a third kidney, double joints, and other physical anomalies.

I don’t see you point. Don’t physical anomalies happen sometimes? Do you think it’s how evolution happens?

It’s certainly better evidence of an Intelligent Designer at work than such a device emerging by random selection from your muck pond.

Random selection? Never heard of that.

Ever seen a 747 evolve out of junk?

Nope, and I don’t see how this is relevant to evolution either. I you think it is, you’d better read some biology textbook.

Comment #150621

Posted by jeannot on December 16, 2006 5:15 PM (e)

Oups, double post.

Comment #150622

Posted by jeannot on December 16, 2006 5:18 PM (e)

sorry for the double post.

Comment #150623

Posted by TheBlackCat on December 16, 2006 5:19 PM (e)

Allen Williams wrote:

If any of you had studied physics, you’d have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system. So, if evolution is true then none of the known and accepted laws of science can be true, particularly the law of angular momentum.

Sorry Allen, I think you have your flawed Creationist arguments a bit confused here. Earth rotates in exactly the same direction as other bodies in the solar system. You are thinking of Venus, which rotates in the “wrong” direction. If you are going to use flawed, decades-old Creationist arguments, at least get them right.

As for the angular momentum problem, that only deals with how the solar system formed. A lot has happened in the last few billion years. In the case of Earth, it was smashed by a protoplanet the size of Mars that gouged out enough material to make the moon. Something similar happened to Venus, except in Venus’s case it was a glancing blow near one of the poles that caused the planet to flip over, making it seem to turn the other way. It is actually still turning the same way, it is just the axis of rotation has flipped. Something similar happened to Uranus, which is now laying on its side (90 degree flip).

And let me ask you, why would a creator decide to randomly flip some arbitrary planet over? What possible purpose could that serve.

Comment #150624

Posted by jeannot on December 16, 2006 5:20 PM (e)

Damn, that’s weird. The board only displays my comments when I post two of them.

Time to go to sleep I guess. ;-)

Comment #150625

Posted by David B. Benson on December 16, 2006 5:21 PM (e)

jeannot — That’s ok. I am sure he needs to read it at least twice…

Comment #150626

Posted by stevaroni on December 16, 2006 5:30 PM (e)

You seem to accept the fact that people can and are born with a third kidney, double joints, and other physical anomalies.

Um, wouldn’t that third kidney require extra, oh, I don’t know, maybe information or something?

Oh hell, never mind.

Comment #150635

Posted by allen_k_williams on December 16, 2006 5:47 PM (e)

‘Jeannot’ and whomever:

Physical anomalies occur because of the bondage of ‘decay’, i.e. the third law of thermodynamics, i.e. the law of entropy which says everything is in a perennial state of decay. Nature occasionally makes mistakes because genetic ‘information’ is being lost in each succeeding generation.

I don’t know what you learned in ‘Pub-Ed’ biology class but here’s what has to happen:

In the ‘muck pond’ basic amino acids form randomly from the elements, you know carbon, oxygen, nitrogen etc. (The only alternative is there was pre-existing life or someone assembled the molecules and that conflicts with Carl Sagan.)

So, next the amino acids in the pond randomly combine into a favored structure because of ‘natural selection’ and form a cell which ‘magically’ learns to multiply and create a physical entity without a schematic, sounds pretty far fetched to me! Too bad the process can’t be patented.

Then some static charge and/or a lightning bolt happens to strike the pond by accident and voila! We have a basic single cell organism. Sound like biology yet?

Unfortunately, evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin has noted in his book ‘Algeny’, that amino acids can’t form in excess water or with oxygen present in the water. (Look him up on the web.)

Opps! That’s exactly what a muck pond is! So we have a theory of ‘science’ that doesn’t have a workable beginning. That’s real science..yep..yep..yep..yep!

Comment #150636

Posted by jeannot on December 16, 2006 6:00 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #150637

Posted by jeannot on December 16, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

Physical anomalies occur because of the bondage of ‘decay’, i.e. the third law of thermodynamics, i.e. the law of entropy which says everything is in a perennial state of decay. Nature occasionally makes mistakes because genetic ‘information’ is being lost in each succeeding generation.

Fascinating theory! Can you post here some references?

So, next the amino acids in the pond randomly combine into a favored structure because of ‘natural selection’ and form a cell which ‘magically’ learns to multiply and create a physical entity without a schematic, sounds pretty far fetched to me! Too bad the process can’t be patented….
Sound like biology yet?

Sounds like a straw man to me.

Comment #150638

Posted by jeannot on December 16, 2006 6:15 PM (e)

Allen, don’t you wonder why the people who oppose evolution are not chemists/physicists working on thermodynamics/angular moment, but mostly Christian fundies?

Go figure…

And btw, how old is the Earth? :-P

Comment #150639

Posted by Ritchie Annand on December 16, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

I know I ought’nt feed the troll, but it’s fun! It’s especially funny when they use things they poorly understand :)

Crazy Allen wrote:

Physical anomalies occur because of the bondage of ‘decay’, i.e. the third law of thermodynamics, i.e. the law of entropy which says everything is in a perennial state of decay. Nature occasionally makes mistakes because genetic ‘information’ is being lost in each succeeding generation.

You mean Nerst’s Postulate? The one that says that entropy at absolute zero is zero?

Or are you misusing the Second Law? That’s usually more typical. Creationists love to ignore the fact that if their “decay of everything” version of the Second Law was true, you couldn’t even grow wheatgrass in a cup, because wheatgrass has, like, information in it. Maybe God has to prop up even wheatgrass development in this whole physics-derived field of Okami evil spirit-like cursed decay.

Crazy Allen wrote:

Then some static charge and/or a lightning bolt happens to strike the pond by accident and voila! We have a basic single cell organism. Sound like biology yet?

No it doesn’t! HA HA HA! For one, that’s abiogenesis, not evolution, and for two, that’s not even close to the way it would happen! Neener, neener!

Crazy Allen wrote:

…that amino acids can’t form in excess water or with oxygen present in the water.

Oh, that’s right! I’m SURE there was a lot of oxygen before the first plants or even cyanobacteria were around! Because otherwise there wouldn’t have been any in the amino acids! Or for the evolution of rust! HA! HA!

I propose that the Creationist Second Law of Thermodynamics (as opposed to the real one) applies to their arguments and to Ken Ham sandwiches left on a warm counter.

This message has been approved by the jolly spirit of the season :)

Comment #150640

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 16, 2006 6:18 PM (e)

Unfortunately, evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin has noted in his book ‘Algeny’, that amino acids can’t form in excess water or with oxygen present in the water

oops. too bad we have anoxic environments, both with and without water, still common even today. I don’t think how you have used Rifkin’s “work” would even be approved by Rifkin, let alone any sane chemist or biochemist.

I swear, the stupidity these folks not only endure, but espouse with regularity is frightening.

even continuing with the conflation of the ToE with all other theories, both biological and not.

Comment #150641

Posted by TheBlackCat on December 16, 2006 6:18 PM (e)

allen wrote:

Physical anomalies occur because of the bondage of ‘decay’, i.e. the third law of thermodynamics, i.e. the law of entropy which says everything is in a perennial state of decay. Nature occasionally makes mistakes because genetic ‘information’ is being lost in each succeeding generation.

Wow, you really don’t have a clue what you are talking about. As I said before, if you are going to use the same old tired creationist arguments, at least get them right It is the second law of thermodynamics that Creationists do not understand. The third simply states that the other two laws only apply at temperatures above absolute zero. The second law says that total entropy can only go down in a closed system. But the Earth is not a closed system, every tiny drop in entropy here is compensated for many times over by the constant, massive increase in entropy in the sun. You know, it being a massive nuclear fireball and all.

Look around next time it is snowing. Snow is a much lower entropy state for water to be in compared to the water vapor that it started at. Yet snow forms. The same goes for crystals, ice, water, and many other ordered system that form spontaneously in nature. The same principles that allow these system to reduce their entropy also allows life to reduce its entropy. If you are correct, then snow could never exist.

I don’t know what you learned in ‘Pub-Ed’ biology class but here’s what has to happen:

allen wrote:

In the ‘muck pond’ basic amino acids form randomly from the elements, you know carbon, oxygen, nitrogen etc. (The only alternative is there was pre-existing life or someone assembled the molecules and that conflicts with Carl Sagan.)

Totally incorrect. Spectroscopic analysis of interstellar dust clouds show that relatively complicated organic molecules are common in the universe. They are not as complicated as amino acids but still complicated enough to form them under conditions found in early Earth.

allen wrote:

So, next the amino acids in the pond randomly combine into a favored structure because of ‘natural selection’ and form a cell which ‘magically’ learns to multiply and create a physical entity without a schematic, sounds pretty far fetched to me! Too bad the process can’t be patented.

No, that would be nucleic acids. Amino acids cannot have natural selection because they cannot self-replicate. Nucleic acids can.

allen wrote:

Then some static charge and/or a lightning bolt happens to strike the pond by accident and voila! We have a basic single cell organism. Sound like biology yet?

No, it sounds like you took standard, extremely wrong creationist arguments then completely muddled them so they bear even less similarity to reality (if that is even possible).

allen wrote:

Unfortunately, evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin has noted in his book ‘Algeny’, that amino acids can’t form in excess water or with oxygen present in the water. (Look him up on the web.)

If that was the case neither you nor I could exist, since we are full of water with extremely high oxygen concentration and constantly need to make proteins. What you mean is that they cannot form spontaneously. This is an important distinction.

Lucky for us free oxygen did not exist in early Earth. Oxygen is extremely reactive. It does not occur in a free state in nature. The only reason oxygen exists in a free state on Earth is because of photosynthesis, i.e. life. Before life there would be no oxygen to destroy the amino acids. In fact it would have been completely the opposite, a reducing environment that is much more conducive to the formation of polypeptides.

Comment #150642

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 16, 2006 6:23 PM (e)

…oh, and again, thanks for the laughs, Allen.

Bwa ha ha!

Comment #150644

Posted by KL on December 16, 2006 6:27 PM (e)

I KNOW I have a straightjacket here somewhere….

Comment #150648

Posted by waldteufel on December 16, 2006 6:39 PM (e)

Allen, you really are a hopeless idiot. For starters, entropy is the central feature of the SECOND law of thermodynamic, not the third.

The rest of your blathering is the usual hoo-haa from the scientifically illiterate trolls who inhabit the nether regions of the world of ignorance.

I’ll bet you mover your lips when you read your Wholly Babble.

What an ass.

Comment #150649

Posted by allen_k_williams on December 16, 2006 6:57 PM (e)

To All:

The law of non-contradiction is the one that applies here. ‘A’ and ‘NOT A’cannot both be true, so if ‘A’ is true then obviously ‘not ‘a’ is false.

It’s not a false creationist argument. I was speaking of the planets in this solar system. Your counter argument assumes that the moon was formed from a collision yet, amazingly there is no indication of collateral damage to the earth from such an impact. It’s nearly round…guess all that friction of revolving through the vacuum of space across the millenia polished off the rough edges.. and didn’t even slow the rotation either. And, what would happen to the atmosphere during such a collision? Don’t bother telling me that it hadn’t evolved yet. The force of such a collision would have broken off far more than the moon.

Also, the earth’s rotation would have had to be much faster millions of years ago for evolution to be true because of entropy, not to mention the core having cooled to solid material, (Newton’s law of cooling). Otherwise, you have a perpetual motion machine.

And, don’t bother telling me that the collision transfered all the energy to the earth’s rotation and none to the moon. That violates the law of angular momentum, catch the connection?

You don’t need any equations friend, ask your buddy, ‘the blackcat.’ He’s the one who claims a collision produced the moon which interesting enough doesn’t rotate as the law of angular momentum requires when separated from a parent object.

No, I wouldn’t believe you’re a working engineer because if you were, you’d realize that Heat and Material Balance calculations don’t depend on whether or not someone rejects the nutty assumptions required to believe in evolution.

The geological column has been developed on faulty logic. First, a rock strata is dated using flawed carbon 14 and Potassium-Argon dating methods. How do you get ‘millions’ of years from a C14 radioactive isotope with a half life of only 30,000 years? Don’t they teach you scientists about the dangers of an infinite regression?

Known fossils of 150 years have dated out to millions of years with C14 and fresh lava from Mt. St Helens dated out in the millions to billions of years with K-Ar.

Your fossil is assigned to a geological period based on other fossils of like kind being found in the rock strata. So, what happens when a petrified tree is found upright in the column? Are it’s roots millions of years older than its trunk? Meterorites are full of nickel, a rare element on earth, how come there isn’t any in your geological column?

The point is when there are 50 or more reasons why a theory cannot be true, one anomaly one way or the other doesn’t contradict the weight of all the negative evidence simply because you want it to. If you can’t see that then you certainly have a poor grasp of science. All, it takes is a single failure to disprove a mathematical theorm, so why is evolution different?

Yes, ‘toejam’ as far as laughing at idiots, I might make the same claim about you. It takes far more blind faith to believe in your stupid evolutionary model than it does in a Creator God.

BYE!

Comment #150650

Posted by waldteufel on December 16, 2006 7:20 PM (e)

I guess Allen crawled back under his rock to play with ….his precious ….

Gollum …Gollum …

Comment #150658

Posted by ag on December 16, 2006 7:51 PM (e)

PT denizens have had enough fun with Allen Williams whose head is full of misunderstood swatches drawn from various dubious sources. He is an obvious sample of abject ignorance. As a professor of physics with many years of experience, I can assure you that were he my student and opened his mouth to spew all his nonsense, from thermodynamics to the law of angular momentum conservation, a big fat F would materialze without a farther discussion. Hopefully he is gone from this thread. Please don’t feed him any more, his comments are nauseating.

Comment #150659

Posted by NJ on December 16, 2006 8:11 PM (e)

Oh, what fun! Now he’s going to explain the problems in geology to us, too.

Lessee, crosses up relative and absolute dating, gets half-life numbers way off (Alster? Think decay constants, not half-lives. Don’t know about those? Then STFU and learn first.) Oh, and not familiar with crystallization sequences, or polystrate trees, and, “where’s the nickel in the geologic column?” Dude, that doesn’t even PARSE in a human language!

Umm, Al? Here’s a hint: When you pull stuff out of your butt rather than look it up, it comes out all covered with Kent Hovind…

Comment #150666

Posted by marie on December 16, 2006 9:07 PM (e)

i have something to say… those Intelligent Design people are really really creepy!

Comment #150667

Posted by TheBlackCat on December 16, 2006 9:09 PM (e)

allen wrote:

I was speaking of the planets in this solar system.

I see you completely sidestepped the embarrasment of having Venus and Earth confused.

allen wrote:

Your counter argument assumes that the moon was formed from a collision yet, amazingly there is no indication of collateral damage to the earth from such an impact.

That is because it melted Earth’s crust.

allen wrote:

It’s nearly round…guess all that friction of revolving through the vacuum of space across the millenia polished off the rough edges.

I suppose you have never heard of gravity. It is something that causes objects to be attracted towards each other. It also causes objects that are large enough to form into spheres, or roughly spheres, since that shape minimizes the distance of any point from the center. Even the largest asteroids are massive enough to do this, not to mention the Earth and the Moon.

allen wrote:

And, what would happen to the atmosphere during such a collision? Don’t bother telling me that it hadn’t evolved yet.

Atmospheres cannot reproduce, therefore they cannot evolve. And remember all that stuff I was saying about organic molecules being common in the universe? They are common on all planets with enough gravity to keep them. One interesting thing is that they are not common on Earth, despite the fact that Earth should have enough gravity and low enough temperature that it should have a significant amount of simple organic molecules in its atmosphere. Our atmosphere also has much less Nitrogen than the other planets. It seems like some huge catastrophe came along and stripped it all away. Interesting, isn’t it? Of course water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen were trapped underground and escaped over time, but our atmosphere is still completely different than it should be compared to other planets, assuming there wasn’t some massive event that changed it.

allen wrote:

The force of such a collision would have broken off far more than the moon.

You do realize the moon is 1/4 the width of the Earth, right? I would say that is quite a large part of the Earth. Any more and it would be twin planets, not a planet and a moon. I should also point out that there are a great many chemical similarities between the Earth and the Moon.

Comment #150668

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 16, 2006 9:17 PM (e)

Allen, just for participating on today’s gameshow:

Who’s the Biggest Moron

You not only get the home version ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html ), you did so well we figure you personally would enjoy participating in our “professional idiot” edition too!

go HERE:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4584b51a7795823f;act=ST;f=14;t=3131

… and feel free to join in any time, as there is an open invitation for you to educate everyone as to just how wrong they all are!

You can even tag-team with our longest running player, AFDave!

the game is: “Tag-Team Creobot Wrestling”. However, you should come up with a fancy wrestler name before tagging in.

anybody got a good wrestling name for Allen?

Comment #150670

Posted by TheBlackCat on December 16, 2006 9:25 PM (e)

Also, the earth’s rotation would have had to be much faster millions of years ago for evolution to be true because of entropy, not to mention the core having cooled to solid material, (Newton’s law of cooling). Otherwise, you have a perpetual motion machine.

That has nothing to do with entropy (a fast spinning system has the same number of microstates as a slow spinning system). But Earth’s rotation was much faster in the past.

And, don’t bother telling me that the collision transfered all the energy to the earth’s rotation and none to the moon. That violates the law of angular momentum, catch the connection?

It transfered kinetic energy to the moon by flinging molten rock into orbit. Putting that much matter into orbit takes a lot of kinetic energy.

You don’t need any equations friend, ask your buddy, ‘the blackcat.’ He’s the one who claims a collision produced the moon which interesting enough doesn’t rotate as the law of angular momentum requires when separated from a parent object.

Actually, it does. Computer simulations have shown that the impact hypothesis perfectly accounts for the angular momentum of the system.

No, I wouldn’t believe you’re a working engineer because if you were, you’d realize that Heat and Material Balance calculations don’t depend on whether or not someone rejects the nutty assumptions required to believe in evolution.

No, they require you actually understand how to use them, and that you use them properly. Considering you don’t even know the difference between the second and third laws of thermodynamics, I can guarantee you don’t.

The geological column has been developed on faulty logic. First, a rock strata is dated using flawed carbon 14 and Potassium-Argon dating methods. How do you get ‘millions’ of years from a C14 radioactive isotope with a half life of only 30,000 years? Don’t they teach you scientists about the dangers of an infinite regression?

No one uses carbon 14 dating. It is only accurate up to a few tens of thousands of years.

Known fossils of 150 years have dated out to millions of years with C14 and fresh lava from Mt. St Helens dated out in the millions to billions of years with K-Ar.

Carbon 14 cannot be used for things that are two old, and K-Ar cannot be used for things that are two young. It is like trying to measure a race using the phases of the moon. It is stupid and the only creationist actually try to do it because everyone knows it is a waste of time.

The point is when there are 50 or more reasons why a theory cannot be true, one anomaly one way or the other doesn’t contradict the weight of all the negative evidence simply because you want it to. If you can’t see that then you certainly have a poor grasp of science.

I see, so every single expert in every single field that has any bearing on our discussion disagrees with you, but you are all-knowing and they have a “poor grap of science”.

All, it takes is a single failure to disprove a mathematical theorm, so why is evolution different?

Mathematicians have the luxury of defining the universe in which they operate, giving them absolute certainty in their conclusions. The rest of us have to live in the real world, unfortunately, and absolute certain is impossible.

Comment #150673

Posted by waldteufel on December 16, 2006 9:35 PM (e)

Blackcat …you are confusing the words “too” and “two” ….
If you are gonna lecture a creationist, please use the correct English words.

Otherwise, your credibility is compromised.

Comment #150677

Posted by jeffw on December 16, 2006 9:39 PM (e)

Just when you think the ID guys can’t get any sillier and more immature

Apparently Dembski has now stooped to sending juvenile emails to Dawkins and others involved in the Dover trial, calling attention to his handiwork. It’s posted on Dawkins site with a response from Dawkins:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,428,Christmas-Present-to-Defenders-of-Darwinism,William-A-Dembski

Comment #150682

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 16, 2006 9:59 PM (e)

ROFL!

did anybody bother to tell Dawkins that Dembski himself does the voice of Jones’ caricature?

Comment #150684

Posted by DragonScholar on December 16, 2006 10:17 PM (e)

Stick a fork in him, he’s done.

Seriosuly, it seems to me that this represent Dembski slipping just about as low as he can go without completely going over the edge. Stupid adolescent humor and harassing emails, activities devoid of any intellectual substance or even its pretention, are probably the step before he completely snaps. I’m expecting a nice slow slide into complete paranoia and all that entails.

I certainly have felt UD has been on a decline the last few months - which certainly says something.

Comment #150689

Posted by Sir_Toejam on December 16, 2006 11:25 PM (e)

Seriosuly, it seems to me that this represent Dembski slipping just about as low as he can go without completely going over the edge.

funny, that’s what we said last year when he made the famous “vice strategy”, and took a picture of a Dawin doll’s head in an actual vise:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/Darwin_in_a_Vise.jpg

that’s taken straight from Dembski’s website at the time, btw.

soon after he posted it, he removed it, but it was just such a classic example of “Dembskiitis” that many of us kept a copy, for just such occasions.

Comment #150695

Posted by Parse on December 17, 2006 1:01 AM (e)

I may as well stick my fork into this troll as well.

Allen, here’s a little experiment for you to try:
Take three bowls of water.
Add ice cubes to the first to make it nice and cold.
Add some heat to the third to make it nice and warm.
Let the second one remain at room temperature.

Place your left hand in the first bowl and your right hand in the third, and leave them there for a bit. Say, a minute or so.

Then put them both in the middle bowl. Voila! The middle bowl is both hot and cold! If hot is A, then the middle bowl is both A and NOT A!

What I mean to show here is that you’re contriving a false dualism here. Real life is not binary, it uses real numbers (I’m not saying that binary numbers aren’t real, but that real life can use rational and irrational numbers) At the core, proofs in biology are not different from proofs in mathematics. However, the logic you’ve tried using in math is obscenely insufficient to represent biology.

Better luck next time.

Comment #150697

Posted by Robert O'Brien on December 17, 2006 1:15 AM (e)

That e-mail is very odd, to say the least.

Comment #150707

Posted by steve s on December 17, 2006 2:23 AM (e)

LOL. From Dawkins’s website:

Reponse from Richard Dawkins:

Anybody who resorts to tactics of desperation like this has to be a real loser. Dembski is a loser, and it now looks as though he KNOWS it. My guess is that he will try to take it down when he realizes how foolish it makes him look. Josh, can we can keep a copy, after he tries to remove it from his own website?

UPDATE: Just in case he does take it down, I’ve saved a copy on our server. -Josh

Comment #150709

Posted by steve s on December 17, 2006 2:34 AM (e)

What I don’t understand is, why hasn’t Dembski started the cult already? Why isn’t he getting Salvador and Davetard and Joe G and Casey Luskin to all move to El Plano, wear PJs, and give up their money? He’s already demonstrated that he can get a small number of idiots to say and do anything for him, so why isn’t he strip-mining their bank accounts yet?

Comment #150715

Posted by Mike on December 17, 2006 3:42 AM (e)

I think it is great to finally see the fruits of the $4 million in research that the Discovery Institute has spent on researching Flash animation. Money well spent!

Comment #150716

Posted by jeannot on December 17, 2006 4:25 AM (e)

our new crackpot wrote:

How do you get ‘millions’ of years from a C14 radioactive isotope with a half life of only 30,000 years? Don’t they teach you scientists about the dangers of an infinite regression?

You don’t know much about absolute dating in geology, do you?
And at least, get your straw man right. The half life of C14 is 5730 years.

Comment #150753

Posted by Liz Craig on December 17, 2006 12:08 PM (e)

This confirms a long-held belief of mine: that ID promoters have no real sense of humor.

I imagine Bill’s band of followers are roaring with laughter over the fart sounds.

Comment #150755

Posted by stevaroni on December 17, 2006 12:41 PM (e)

Al, um, sort of argues ….

I wouldn’t believe you’re a working engineer because if you were, you’d realize that Heat and Material Balance calculations don’t depend on whether or not someone rejects the nutty assumptions required to believe in evolution.

Well, gee, that’s a shame. My mother will be so dissapointed to find out I’m a self-deluded failure.

But, well, aren’t you in fact arguing that evolution can’t be true because of all these “heat and Material Balance” calculations?

So, Um, since all this old-school math has always seemed to work for me in the past, I’d appreciate it if you could explain just what the orbit of venus and the rotation of the moon have to do with anything.

I know you’re a busy man, what, with that bridge to maintain and everything, so just a few brief sentences would be fine.

Just start with “Evolution can’t be true because”… and eventually work your way down to the orbit of Venus, or the “law of angular momentum” or wherever you’re going.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject, I think the phrase you’re looking for is “The law of conservation of angular momemtum”.

But you probably knew that already and were just testing us. I just happen to luck out and know that one because, well, I use it on a regular basis.

Comment #150757

Posted by Gary Hurd on December 17, 2006 1:28 PM (e)

I am schocked shocked schlocked

How could Dimwitzchi have left out Nick????

It is an outrage!

Fart jokes are the hight of comedic brilliancy. Well, for fourth graders confident in their bowel control. When I give school presentations, the fourth graders love learning about frass and the rest of scientific scatology.

Comment #150769

Posted by Kaptain Kobold on December 17, 2006 2:45 PM (e)

“It’s not a false creationist argument. “

If it’s not false then it can’t be a creationist argument.

Comment #150818

Posted by C.W. on December 18, 2006 5:22 AM (e)

I just love the first comment to the animation thread at overwhelmingevidence.com, complaining that ridicule is not a good tactic.

We don’t need that.

They do.

Whoever wrote that does have a point. If it wasn’t for this comic relief through relentless mockery of IDiots, my major intestine would probably leap straight up through my neck and throttle my brain.

Comment #150833

Posted by Roland Anderson on December 18, 2006 9:26 AM (e)

This has to be the most pathetic thing I’ve yet seen on the ID side. These guys must be crazy if they think doing this sort of thing is going to win them respect from anyone. And what’s more the dweebs at Uncommon Descent have defended it!

On a side note: I cannot believe that Allen Williams is for real. If there’s any evidence to the contrary please let me know - but surely nobody can be this ignorant. *Third* law of thermodynamics? He’s having us on… isn’t he… ?

Comment #150834

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on December 18, 2006 9:35 AM (e)

“Blackcat …you are confusing the words “too” and “two” ….
If you are gonna lecture a creationist, please use the correct English words.

Otherwise, your credibility is compromised.”

Now just imagine how his credibility would be compromised if he posted an
audio example of his flatulents along with that reply and then claimed he was trying to
impress young adults.

Comment #150845

Posted by Peter on December 18, 2006 11:22 AM (e)

I thought it was pretty funny to watch the South Park episode with Richard Dawkins (and I’m a major Dawkins admirer). But Dembski needs some lessons. The guy has no cred as a puppeteer or animator and his attempt is lackluster at best. He should have had Behe show up in a Carnac hat reading his own statements from the stand.
Sad.

Comment #150865

Posted by Ed Deer Valley on December 18, 2006 1:33 PM (e)

“If any of you had studied physics, you’d have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system.”

Where do people come up with this crazy stuff?!

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980225a.html

“4. All the planets revolve in the same general direction, with Pluto’s orbit being the most inclined (17 degrees). Their axes of rotation are more diverse, Uranus and Pluto rotate ‘on their sides’ and Venus’s axis points towards the South.”

Comment #150912

Posted by stevaroni on December 18, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

Ed writes

“If any of you had studied physics, you’d have learned that the earth rotates in exactly the opposite direction of other planets in this solar system.”

Where do people come up with this crazy stuff?!

Better yet, even if it were true, what possible connection would it have to evolution?!

Comment #151178

Posted by jeffw on December 20, 2006 1:28 PM (e)

All this silliness seems to have triggered an amusing email dumping war between Dembski and Dawkins. Dembski apparently thought he was quite poweful in 2004 (and not just in an olfactory sense):

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,428,Christmas-Present-to-Defenders-of-Darwinism,William-A-Dembski,page2#comments

Dawkins:
“Poor loser Demski, such delusions of grandeur, and now he has nothing better to do with his time than make farting noises over the Internet.”

Comment #152132

Posted by Popper's ghost on December 29, 2006 12:09 AM (e)

All, it takes is a single failure to disprove a mathematical theorm

Uh, no, a mathematical theorem is true by definition and therefore cannot be disproved. Perhaps you mean that a single counterexample is sufficient to disprove a universally quantified assertion, such as “for all x, F(x)”.

so why is evolution different?

Uh, because “evolution” is not a universally quantified assertion? Perhaps you mean the theory of common descent, rather than “evolution”. Well, what “single failure” do you have in mind? And if we do discover a failure, then we’ll switch to a theory of multiple descent, which still won’t invalidate “evolution”, which is known to occur. When mathematicians discovered that the fifth Fermat number contradicted Fermat’s conjecture that all Fermat numbers are prime, they didn’t discard Number Theory and replace it with “goddidit”.

Comment #152133

Posted by Popper's ghost on December 29, 2006 12:22 AM (e)

but surely nobody can be this ignorant

You must not get out much.

He’s having us on… isn’t he… ?

It’s a distinct possibility. If so, then some of his stuff is very funny … it’s like he’s the equivalent of Richard Sheridan’s Mrs. Malaprop, but in regard to scientific concepts.

Comment #152135

Posted by Popper's ghost on December 29, 2006 12:33 AM (e)

It seems that our Mr. Williams is an engineer for “Mid America Construction”, living in Overland Park, Kansas. I wonder if he attended the same engineering school as Larry Fafarman.

Comment #152221

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on December 29, 2006 12:21 PM (e)

ROB wrote:

That e-mail is very odd, to say the least.

Wow. It is really a takedown of another troll when the king of misdirected one-liners gets one right.

Making as much sense, s[limy]cordova has raised the ghost of Haldane’s dilemma over the new data on gene copy numbers in humans and chimps on Unbecoming Flatulence. As if duplications and substitutions were interchangeable, and an assumed discrepancy of 10^4 gets much worse if it would be multiplied with a mere 3. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html )

The divine wind must have poisoned the few remaining brain cells of the creationists. Now we wait for the putrification smell.

Bwa ha ha!

Comment #158566

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on January 29, 2007 8:23 PM (e)

I have closed this thread and deleted a bunch of comments from what are, apparently, spambots with clinical depression.