Comment #32457

Posted by Anonymous on May 27, 2005 03:38 PM (e) (s)

First graffito!

Comment #32458

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on May 27, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

What? No “Creationists suck”?

Comment #32459

Posted by Savagemutt on May 27, 2005 03:46 PM (e) (s)

Wow. The first JAD-free Bathroom Wall.

Comment #32460

Posted by Gary Hurd on May 27, 2005 04:19 PM (e) (s)

Finally, a JAD free Panda’s Thumb.

Comment #32461

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 27, 2005 04:30 PM (e) (s)

Alas, poor Yorrick…

Comment #32465

Posted by Alan on May 27, 2005 05:14 PM (e) (s)

I guess I’ll never get a coherent definition of semi-meiosis now.

Comment #32469

Posted by Timothy Scriven on May 27, 2005 05:41 PM (e) (s)

Leave JAD alone, harmless nuts don’t deserve to be picked on.

Comment #32479

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 27, 2005 06:27 PM (e) (s)

What? No “Creationists suck”?

I very much doubt they do.

If they did (or at least if their wives did), they’d be a lot less uptight about everything.  <shrug>

Comment #32495

Posted by bill on May 27, 2005 07:28 PM (e) (s)

Let’s start a party.

I’d like a discussion on “Why Intelligent?”

Why not just Design?

Who are we to identify something as “intelligent?”  What does that mean?

If “we” can figure out that the flagellum is like a 10 E-09 hp motor, powering that wave hopping bacterium along at a cm per year then why don’t we build our own and add twin screws and a ski rope?

How do “we” know it’s “intelligent” design?  Suppose our designer came in last in his class.  Then what?  You know what they call a student who comes in last in his medical school class, don’t you?

Doctor.

So, how do we spot intelligence?  My cat is intelligent.  Oh, sure, he can’t paint the Mona Lisa, but neither can I.  I spend two hours a day driving to and from work.  My cat sleeps.  Who’s intelligent?

And, finally, anybody who refers to a freaking MOUSETRAP as “irreducibly complex” has obviously, obviously never tried to install a wireless network card with Windows 98!

Let loose the Dogs of War…

Comment #32502

Posted by amos on May 27, 2005 08:56 PM (e) (s)

Let slip the Dogs of War…

Comment #32504

Posted by Piltdown Man on May 27, 2005 09:14 PM (e) (s)

Interesting review of Peter Lipton’s “Testing Hypotheses: Prediction and Prejudice” at Philosophy of Biology.

Comment #32514

Posted by steve on May 27, 2005 11:48 PM (e) (s)

The NYT:

Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution

By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: May 28, 2005

Fossils at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History have been used to prove the theory of evolution. Next month the museum will play host to a film intended to undercut evolution.

The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, “intelligent design,” is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the museum “are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception” on June 23 for the movie, “The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe.”

http://nytimes.com/2005/05/28/national/28smithsonian.html…

Comment #32515

Posted by steve on May 27, 2005 11:59 PM (e) (s)

from that article:

The museum, he said, offers its Baird Auditorium to many organizations and corporations in return for contributions - in the case of the Discovery Institute, $16,000.

When the language of the Discovery Institute’s Web site was read to him, with its suggestion of support, Mr. Kremer said, “We’ll have to look into that.”

This is the second time in a week I’ve heard of deliberate lies by the DI. Remember they claimed that guy was a biochemist?

Maybe Bill Dembski is the Fletcher Reede of Information Theory?

Comment #32516

Posted by Kevin on May 28, 2005 12:08 AM (e) (s)

Gah.  Creationists Suck!

Read the article about the Smithsonian, it turns out that (surprise) they were just letting the IDers rent the room for the screening, which they will do for just about anybody.  But of course the creationists can’t get any traction without deception, so we have this BS about how delighted the museum is to have thier little piece of fiction. 

Seriously, is there anything to their strategy except repitition?  All of their arguements have been refuted again and again, but they still keep babbling on. It seems more and more likely that their strategy is to fill so much time and space with their rhetoric that no one will have time to hear the other side. 

I repeat :Creationists SUCK.

Comment #32517

Posted by steve on May 28, 2005 12:09 AM (e) (s)

FWIW, I found this on the DI website:

June 23, 2005
Smithsonian Institution Premiere of The Privileged Planet

The Director of the National Museum of Natural History and Discovery Institute are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception for The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe, 6pm Thursday June 23, 2005.

The documentary showing will be in the Baird Auditorium of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Insitution, Washington D.C.

The reception following will be in the Smithsonian Institution’s Hall of Geology, Gems and Minerals.

Attendance is by mailed invitation only.

Now lets look at that NYT article again:

But a museum spokesman, Randall Kremer, said the event should not be taken as support for the views expressed in the film. “It is incorrect for anyone to infer that we are somehow endorsing the video or the content of the video,” he said.

The museum, he said, offers its Baird Auditorium to many organizations and corporations in return for contributions - in the case of the Discovery Institute, $16,000.

When the language of the Discovery Institute’s Web site was read to him, with its suggestion of support, Mr. Kremer said, “We’ll have to look into that.”

Comment #32518

Posted by Henry J on May 28, 2005 12:24 AM (e) (s)

Re “I guess I’ll never get a coherent definition of semi-meiosis now.”

Maybe one of the biologists around here read enough of his material to summarize that concept? I think I got the gist of it, but the technical details go over my head.

The gist of it, to the extent that I could follow from wading through half of the “manifesto”, plus a handful of comments on here in which he actually talked about it, is that sometimes the female (or females?) of a species will shift into using an alternate means of reproducing, essentially inbreeding with herself, producing offspring that have identical alleles for all genes. I think the idea there is that those with a bunch of bad recessives will mostly die without descendants, and the handful that don’t get the bad recessives will be genetically “clean”. Those can then shift back into normal sexual reproduction with a “clean slate”, so to speak.

Plus, if during that semi-meiotic reproductive phase, some chromosomes fused, or split, or acquired inversions, or otherwise got rearranged, the descendants would then be a new species.

Now how that’s supposed to relate to the “new” species acquiring different anatomy or new abilities, I don’t know. Also don’t know how it’s ever supposed to work for types that have few offspring per parent, since in that case any one female going into semi-meiotic “mode” would be unlikely to produce any of those few with all clean genes.

Anyhoo, if I got the gist wrong, or if greater detail is wanted, maybe some resident biologists can fill it in.

But, if the above is more or less what he was saying, what really baffles me is that he wouldn’t simply say it in a few paragraphs.

Henry

Comment #32521

Posted by melior on May 28, 2005 12:59 AM (e) (s)

Give a man a fish, and you’ll feed him for a day.

Give him a religion, and he’ll starve to death while praying for a fish.

- Timothy Jones

Comment #32522

Posted by Jason Spaceman on May 28, 2005 01:25 AM (e) (s)

How many erroneous arguments against evolution can you pack into a single column?  This columnist at “Intellectual” Conservative.com attempts to set a new record —> Entropy: Enemy of Evolution?

The natural tendency of matter and of all of energy is toward greater disorder — not toward greater order or complexity as evolution would teach.

Very few scientists have considered or pondered the implications of the law of entropy upon the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution teaches that matter tends to evolve towards greater and greater complexity and order. We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new cars, boats, ships, inventions, etc.) that we assume that nature must work the same way also. Of course, we forget that all those new gadgets and technology had a human designer behind them. Nature, however, doesn’t work the same way.

The simple fact is that the law of entropy precludes macro-evolution from ever occurring. Entropy is the measure of increasing disorder in a system. The natural (or spontaneous) tendency of matter and of all of energy is toward greater disorder — not toward greater order or complexity as evolution would teach. This tendency towards disorder that exists in all matter can only be temporarily overcome if there exists an energy converting and directing mechanism to develop and maintain order.

Comment #32523

Posted by steve on May 28, 2005 01:54 AM (e) (s)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html…

Claim CF001.2:
The entire universe is a closed system, so the second law of thermodynamics dictates that within it, things are tending to break down. The second law applies universally.
Source:
Wallace, Timothy, 2002. Five major evolutionist misconceptions about evolution. http://www.trueorigins.org/isakrbtl.asp…
Response:

  1. The second law of thermodynamics applies universally, but, as everyone can see, that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down. The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time.

  2. The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form (Stenger 1995, 228).

  3. Disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. There are no laws about things tending to “break down.”

References:

  1. Stenger, Victor J., 1995. The Unconscious Quantum, Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

Comment #32524

Posted by steve on May 28, 2005 02:08 AM (e) (s)

full text of the email sent to :

Intellectual Conservative is not being very Intellectual in publishing this piece by Babu G. Ranganathan entitled Entropy: Enemy of Evolution? Babu says, “The natural tendency of matter and of all of energy is toward greater disorder — not toward greater order or complexity as evolution would teach.” This is just fantastically stupid, so old and dumb that physicists groan when they hear it. A standard response can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html… . The conservative movement makes a tactical mistake by aligning with pseudoscience advocates, such as global warming deniers and evolution deniers. While I’m a liberal, I send this to you because I want the other side to have the best possible arguments, in order that we may be strengthened by strong competition.

In the spirit of the Bathroom Wall, and because shooting down ID creationists is a boring fish-in-the-barrel game, I pose a novel question:

Anyone know what Aimee Mann’s wonderful song Red Vines is about?

Comment #32527

Posted by Alan on May 28, 2005 02:44 AM (e) (s)

Thanks Henry

So semi-meiosis is postulated to produce genetic variation. This is then available to the process of natural selection. Isn’t this evolution?

Comment #32528

Posted by Brendan Hogg on May 28, 2005 02:56 AM (e) (s)

Hi all,

I’m arguing in another place with a guy who claims to be neither a Creationist or IDer but keeps spouting anti-evolution arguments.  The discussion’s actually got to a point where I think he’s a disciple of James P Hogan’s “mainstream science is wrong about everything and any theory it disagrees with is correct by definition” view.  Anyway, he has made some fairly silly claims about the inability of natural selection to explain the sort of “microevolution” events in the lab that even the Creationists are happy with these days, but we’ve wandered quite some way from my expertise in physics and astronomy, so I was hoping I could get some of you clever people to check my counter-argument for holes.

Here’s what he cut-and-pasted from somewhere (I think Hogan’s “Kicking the Sacred Cows” book, but I’m not 100% sure):

The normal form of E.coli lives on the milk sugar lactose and possesses a set of digestive enzymes tailored to metabolize it. A defective strain can be produced that lacks the crucial first enzyme of the set, and hence cannot utilize lactose. However, it can be raised in an alternative nutrient. An interesting thing now happens when lactose is introduced into the alternative nutrient. Two independent mutations to the bacterium’s genome are possible which together enable the missing first step to be performed in metabolizing lactose. Neither mutation is any use by itself, and the chances of both happening together is calculated to be vanishingly small at 10-18. For the population size in a typical experiment, this translates into the average waiting time for both mutations to happen together by chance being around a hundred thousand years. In fact, dozens of instances are found after just a few days. But only when lactose is present in the nutrient solution. In other words, what’s clearly indicated in experiments of this kind—and many have been described in the literature—is that the environment itself triggers precisely the mutations that the organism needs in order to exploit what’s available.

And here’s my draft response:

OK, so the odds of both mutations happening at once is vanishingly small. But if both of those mutations by themselves have no harmful effect on the organism’s survival chances, then they won’t be selected against and so you will soon establish three populations — the originals, ones with mutant gene A and ones with mutant gene B. Then all you need is for one of the A mutants to also mutate the B gene, or vice versa, and you have your lactose-eating bug. It doesn’t have to happen at the same time.

Let’s look at the numbers. If the odds of A&B both mutating in the same reproduction event is 10^-18 then if each mutation is equally likely the odds of just A or just B mutating is 10^-9. If odds of 10^-18 work out to once every hundred thousand years then presumably odds of 10^-9 work out to once every 0.0001 years — and 0.0001 years is 52 minutes. So before the first hour of the experiment is up you have your first mutant version that could mutate again to give you the lactose eating one. Obviously, the mutant populations are going to be much smaller than the original population, so a few days seems about right for them to mutate again and suddenly find themselves able to eat the lactose. And of course once that happens the fact that they can eat stuff that’s all around them that the others can’t means they’ll outcompete them.

So basically it’s a classic example of evolution by natural selection of random mutations.

Any feedback welcome.

Comment #32533

Posted by Jason Spaceman on May 28, 2005 06:30 AM (e) (s)

From today’s NY Times:  Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution

Fossils at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History have been used to prove the theory of evolution. Next month the museum will play host to a film intended to undercut evolution.

The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, “intelligent design,” is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the museum “are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception” on June 23 for the movie, “The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe.”

The film is a documentary based on a 2004 book by Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay W. Richards, a vice president of the Discovery Institute, that makes the case for the hand of a creator in the design of Earth and the universe.

News of the Discovery Institute’s announcement appeared on a blog maintained by Denyse O’Leary, a proponent of the intelligent design theory, who called it “a stunning development.” But a museum spokesman, Randall Kremer, said the event should not be taken as support for the views expressed in the film. “It is incorrect for anyone to infer that we are somehow endorsing the video or the content of the video,” he said.

The museum, he said, offers its Baird Auditorium to many organizations and corporations in return for contributions - in the case of the Discovery Institute, $16,000.

Comment #32597

Posted by Sionan Atkins on May 28, 2005 04:04 PM (e) (s)

Pardon the interruption, my brother directed me to this site, and you seem the best people to ask.  I homeschool my kids, and, whenever I go to the NCHE bookfair or homeschool bookstores they are all dominated by creationist science books.  They are not all necessarily obvious about their creationism but the bias is almost always there.  I am about to order a science education set for the middle school level(5th-8th) and I could only get a superficial look at it first.  The website for the company is http://www.beginningspublishing.com/…  I have looked at the site and can’t detect any bias in that direction but some are very cagey about identifying themselves with this movement.  Does anyone already have any experience with this company, and its products, that they can share?
Thank you in advance.
Sionan

Comment #32603

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 28, 2005 04:37 PM (e) (s)

well, judging from the about section on the site you provided, I’d say there is something odd there.

also, this line could be a bit of a concern:

.deference to the Holy Scriptures

this certainly implies that “technical accuracy” might be suspect.

However, any legitimate textbook publisher should be able to provide a sample book for perusal.

ask for a sample in the area of concern, and judge by that.

Comment #32604

Posted by Sionan Atkins on May 28, 2005 04:39 PM (e) (s)

I realize I may not have been clear.  I know that I can’t really avoid the science books that have the bias I don’t really like.  Phrases like “deference to the Holy Scriptures” and euphemisms like “honest segregation of scientific knowledge and theoretical speculation with supporting evidences as well as technically sound critiques[teach the “controversy”] of those theories” are dead giveaways to the bias of this company.  But for middle-schoolers, basic science ought to be basic science and even creationists shouldn’t be able to screw it up.  I’m hoping this set is reasonable in that regard.
Sionan

Comment #32605

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 28, 2005 04:44 PM (e) (s)

just taking a look at the sample junior high biology lesson (http://www.beginningspublishing.com/R1Sample.htm…) provided answers your question quite nicely, here is a quote from the introduction to the biology lessons on evoltionary theory:

In this text we will attempt to teach the general theory of evolution because a good education in the sciences requires it. We present it as a theory—a working model into which scientific data are fitted—but which we ourselves do not accept. As new observations are made, models will be altered, radically changed or altogether discarded. After many years of study and observation in my discipline as a microbiologist, I hold that the general theory of evolution is in serious error and is entirely inadequate for explaining a great volume of scientific evidence. I also hold that the universe was created by a Supreme Being possessing design and creative capabilities far beyond our comprehension.

it just gets worse from there.

so, how you missed such obvious bias is odd, but trust me, it’s VERY biased.  I wouldn’t recommend it at all.

Comment #32608

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 28, 2005 04:55 PM (e) (s)

“I know that I can’t really avoid the science books that have the bias I don’t really like”

wow, if that is the case, I weep for the future of private schooling.

are you SURE this is so?

Aside from that, you really can’t have a legitimate discussion of biological science while including constant biblical references.

“even creationists shouldn’t be able to screw it up”

but that’s my point, they can and do.  even at the junior high level, basic discussion of SCIENCE should never include religion as alternative explanations for observed phenomenon.  this only induces unnecessary confusion and innacuracy at best.

This is why we all here at PT are so vehemently against teaching ID as a “theory” to begin with, alternative or not.  It simply ISN’T science, and it is confusing and deceitful to teach it as such.

If the best you can do is find texts that include such allusions to religion as science, perhaps you should write your own?

Comment #32619

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 28, 2005 06:17 PM (e) (s)

But for middle-schoolers, basic science ought to be basic science and even creationists shouldn’t be able to screw it up.

Uh, yes they can.

Comment #32621

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 28, 2005 06:23 PM (e) (s)

Ms. Atkins, is there any reason you can’t use the texts from a reputable publisher? 

I don’t know where you are — but some states allow local schools to loan texts to homeschoolers.  Some localities require it.  I’m not a great fan of most biology texts, since they tend to deadly dullness (the publishers are working on that), but it would be difficult for an independent publisher to do better than the mainstream educational publishers. 

Check out the websites for Holt Rinehart and Winston, and for Prentice Hall, and see what they have. 

One could also assemble a pretty good curriculum in biology from PBS tapes, especially with the series “Evolution.”  There is a great website that accompanies that series, and Carl Zimmer has a fine companion book that I’ll bet you can find at discount and in paperback.

And while they are not deep, having not been required to take biology before college, I got a great background from the Merit Badge Series from the Boy Scouts — Nature, Soil and Water Conservation, Forestry, Wildlife Management, Animal Science, Archaeology, Bird Study, especially Environmental Science, Fish and Wildlife Management, Fishing, Gardening, Insect Study, Landscape Architecture, Mammal Study, Medicine, Oceanography, maybe Pets, Plant Science, Public Health, Pulp and Paper, Reptile and Amphibian Study, and Veterinary Medicine.  That’s more than you need — you can tailor a program to your kids’ interests.  There is a pamphlet, or booklet, available on each one, and a set of requirements that kids must complete to get the badge, which would be great study assignments (bonus:  Enroll your son in Boy Scouts, get the merit badges, earn ranks …).  Here in Dallas the Dallas Zoo offers short courses in things like the Reptile Study badge, so kids can get the badges using the resources of the zoo.  Local nature centers often help out, too, and so do local chapters of the Audubon Society. 

I also recommend supplementing biology with other Scout science Merit Badge books:  Astronomy, Atomic Energy, Chemistry, Weather, and Geology.

One advantage of these books is that kids tend to have more fun and do a lot more hands-on stuff.  They’ll come out understanding not only how biology works from books, but knowing how it affects them and their community every day. 

If evolution is one of your state requirements for kids that age, you’ll have to supplement — the PBS series is great way to do it, and be sure to check out the University of California at Berkeley site on evolution (you can find it through NCSE’s site). 

You can find good lesson plans at the New York Times website, on some topics. 

Maybe you don’t need a book at all …

Comment #32625

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 28, 2005 06:41 PM (e) (s)

For example, here’s the Harcourt site on their book for 5th grade science — note there is also a supplemental CD-ROM, and note the teacher’s guide is available for a very affordable $11.00: 
https://parentstore.harcourtschool.com/jstorewebapp/catalogservlet?cmd=grade_list&cat_id=20&grade_id=6&ser_id=58

Comment #32630

Posted by Jim Ryan on May 28, 2005 07:09 PM (e) (s)

I faxed this letter to Randall Kremer at the Smithsonian:

______________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Kremer,

Sincerely Yours,

____________________________________________________________________

BTW,
In answer to Comment #32524, Aimee Mann’s Red Vines is, like a lot of her songs, a complaint about a friend. In this case, it’s a grown man who insists on testing the limits in every social setting like a rebellious adolescent. The refrain, “with cigarettes and red vines” compares the addictive oral fixations of adults (cigs) with those of children (red licorice) to make a statement about the fundamental immaturity of compulsive people.

Comment #32632

Posted by Jim Ryan on May 28, 2005 07:27 PM (e) (s)

I faxed this letter to Randall Kremer at the Smithsonian:

Dear Mr. Kremer,

Sincerely Yours,

BTW,
In answer to Comment #32524, Aimee Mann’s Red Vines is, like a lot of her songs, a complaint about a friend. In this case, it’s a grown man who insists on testing the limits in every social setting like a rebellious adolescent. The refrain, “with cigarettes and red vines” compares the addictive oral fixations of adults (cigs) with those of children (red licorice) to make a statement about the fundamental immaturity of compulsive people.

Comment #32641

Posted by Henry J on May 28, 2005 08:48 PM (e) (s)

Re “There are no laws about things tending to “break down.”“

What about Murphy’s law? ;)

—-

Alan,
Re “So semi-meiosis is postulated to produce genetic variation.”
More like it weeds out bad recessives. My inclination would be to say that s-m still needs mutations to maintain the supply of variation and selection (and drift) to week it out. Its author though (at a guess), might attribute that to the PEH thing instead, if he were to answer the question, I don’t know.

Henry

Comment #32651

Posted by Sionan Atkins on May 28, 2005 10:27 PM (e) (s)

Thank you.  I will try to answer all of you, but in no particular order.
  For the district I am in, in NC, I have to buy my own books.  I do actually have real textbooks from reputable publishers, but the mix is pretty eclectic.  The English grammar book came from Bob Jones University.  Why?  I like it.  I have the Harcourt Science book for 6th grade.  It is a general book for all the sciences.  I am not specifically looking for a biology book.  I don’t necessarily mind having the theology present, since it is homeschool I have control and can dance right past it.  I was hoping for critical comments about content from anyone who might already have used this.  After all, momentum is momentum and atoms are atoms, whether angels push the bowling ball down the lane or hold up the electrons outside of the nucleus.
  Someone said to write my own.  Not all of us are PhD trained scientists, or have the time.  I am a housewife.  I make time to homeschool and am really proud of what my kids have done, but there are limits.  What I can’t get from standard publishers is the physical hardware for the hands-on lab stuff(especially chemistry).  Since 9/11 you just can’t rustle up noxious and possibly dangerous chemicals(especially through the US Mail).  The set from this outfit includes all of it for a not unreasonable price.
  For the person who mentioned the Boy Scouts.  Are they the same Boy Scouts who don’t allow gay members because it conflicts with their Christian theology?  Uh, right.
  I remember the television show about evolution and will look for the book.  Thanx.
  Whoever weeps for private education.(Sir Toejam?)  You do realize that, while not solely responsible, homeschooling exists almost primarily because of religious people trying to get away from secular schooling in such subjects as evolution.  If you ever browse the bookstores that cater to homeschooling or attend the bookfairs this becomes blindingly obvoius.  I am very middle of the road.  My husband skirts dangerously close to the extremist fundamentalist positions, but does want his kids to have a solid science education.  We just did not like the public schools where we live.  I am not solely looking for evolution books(someone suggested that, and I know this is an evolution blog), just general science materials, most especially for lab work.
  It seems as if I have drawn your sarcastic hostility.  I know what you all stand for.  I am not against that.  I was hoping for assistance, not rhetoric.  I will not bother you again.

Comment #32655

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 28, 2005 11:23 PM (e) (s)

Over at the IDolog site, “ID the Future,” Jay Richards has a piece pointing to Mustafa Aykol’s “defense” of ID.  Aykol, you recall, testified at the Kansas Kangaroon Kourt in favor of gutting evolution from the Kansas science standards.

The Harun Yahya site, Aykol’s organization, has improved a lot over the years.  It used to claim Darwin had a role in inciting the war between English settlers and the natives of Tasmania.  This was an outright lie, of course, and easy to demonstrate:  The war against Tasmanians started in 1805, and Darwin wasn’t born until 1809.  By 1831, when Darwin first saw Tasmania, the aboriginals had been pretty much wiped out.  The Harun Yahya site does not make this claim any more — good on them for that.

But the oddly fascist political tone remains — odd because most of the time in English they rant against “fascism,” accusing Israel and Darwin of being fascists.  Yet, I say it is Harun Yahya who appeals to fascism time and time again.

But I digress.

I was checking to see whether the site had corrected the Tasmanian history problems (some of the more egregious errors have been corrected), and I was interested to see that a number of pages are in German, or Turkish, or other languages.  Picking one of the pages in German, I looked for translations to see what the site really said.

It appears that Harun Yahya is not a friend of the U.S. at all, or at least not a friend of the U.S.’s toppling of Saddam Hussein (whom the site calls a “fascist”).

Here, in German, is what the site says in one paragraph about the latest war: 

Im Gegensatz zur herrschenden Meinung ist der Plan, Saddam Husseins Regime mit Gewalt zu stürzen, schon lange vor der Erklärung des “Kriegs gegen den Terror” nach dem 11. September, in Washington DC gefasst worden. Der erste Hinweis auf diesen Plan tauchte 1997 auf. Eine Gruppe pro-israelischer Strategen in Washington entwarf das Szenario einer Invasion des Irak, indem sie den “neo-con” think-tank, das PNAC (“Projekt für das neue amerikanische Jahrhundert”), manipulierten. Die bekanntesten Namen des PNAC waren Donald Rumsfeld und Dick Cheney, die als Verteidigungsminister und Vizepräsident zu den einflussreichsten Beratern der George W. Bush Administration aufsteigen sollten.

And here is the crude, Google translation to English: 

In contrast to the dominant opinion the plan is to fall Saddam Husseins regime by force already for a long time before the explanation of the “war against the terror” after 11 September, in Washington DC seized.  The first reference to this plan emerged 1997.  A group of per-Israeli strategists in Washington sketched the scenario of an invasion Iraq, by manipulating “neo con” the think tank, the PNAC (“project for the new American century”).  The most well-known names of the PNAC were Donald Rumsfeld and thickly Cheney, which as Secretaries of Defense and vice-president should ascend to the most influential advisors of the George W. Bush administration.

Go see for yourself:
http://www.harunyahya.com/de/images/artikel25_golfkrieges.php

The article ends with a plea for world-wide Islamic union, to talk peace with the U.S., so it’s not necessarily sinister.  But one must wonder about a bunch who thinks that Cheney and Bush are so easily misled on such issues by a pro-Israeli “fascist” group, and who starts from the premise that Bush and Cheney had planned to go to war with Saddam and were handed an excuse with the terrorist attacks on the U.S. 

How much of this do the folks at the Discovery Institute know?

In their rush to find someone — anyone! — to agree with their intent to gut Kansas science standards, the creationists of Kansas have thrown in with a pretty odd bunch of Turks, if you ask me. 

Also:  Despite having corrected some of the errors, the Harun Yahya site still savages Darwin at every possible turn, unfairly and inaccurately casting Darwin as a racist and accessory to murder.  It’s still scurrilous, still scandalous, and still in error.

Comment #32657

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 28, 2005 11:37 PM (e) (s)

Ms. Atkins,

I suppose I could make a defense of the Boy Scouts by pointing out that almost all of the books I recommended were written prior to the present regime at National HQ.  Or I could note that the Boy Scout policy does not affect member boys (here in Texas it would be illegal to inquire of a 6-year old his sexual orientation), but only to leaders — and that it’s a burden many of us bear to keep an otherwise good organization going until we can change the bizarre policies.

But the irony of your endorsing books written at Bob Jones, with its racist and homophobic policies proudly defended, while turning up your nose at books used by people like Hank Aaron, Bill Bradley, Lamar Alexander, 11 of the 12 people who stepped on the Moon, and Gerald Ford, suggests such a defense is unnecessary.

I regret you took any of my comments as sarcastic.  I meant none of them in that way.  Your dilemma demonstrates why and when homeschooling is probably unwise:  When the topics get beyond the teacher’s ability to teach them.  Of course, that also applies in every other school.

My recommendations of the Boy Scout Merit Badge books stand, stupid policies from National notwithstanding — they are head and shoulders above anything from the Bob Jones curriculum.  Yes, it will take some work — but there is nothing in those books that you cannot do with a bit of preparation.

Comment #32659

Posted by bill on May 28, 2005 11:40 PM (e) (s)

As I was checking out the Mars exploration website http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/  it occurred to me that creationist Flood Geology doesn’t hold on Mars.

Here we have a couple of vehicles cruising around Mars collecting data on soil and rocks, and sending back pictures of geological faults, sediments, layering and so forth.

It appears that physics, as we know it, applies to Mars.  However, there’s not a lot of evidence for “intelligent design” creationism.

What gives?  Where’s Ken Ham on Mars?

Comment #32664

Posted by Bruce Thompson on May 29, 2005 12:34 AM (e) (s)

mars grand canyon
Here a flood there a flood everywhere a flood flood

Comment #32666

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on May 29, 2005 01:56 AM (e) (s)

Ms. Atkins,

Does your state have approved textbooks?  You can look to that list for chosing books.  If not, look to Texas and California, which I know have approved textbooks.  There has to be a list of middle school biology books in there somewhere.

You can also email Ken Miller at Brown University.  He is one of the authors on the most popular high school biology textbook.  I’m sure he would be able to recommed a biology textbook for middle schoolers.

Comment #32667

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 29, 2005 02:04 AM (e) (s)

“…that Cheney and Bush are so easily misled “

who says they were misled?  There appears to be mounting evidence that they had planned the invasion of iraq before 2002 (check out the UK policy memo unearthed earlier this month).

No, i agree that they weren’t misled at all.  Rather, they made conscious decisions as to what information they would choose to promote and spin.

Comment #32668

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 29, 2005 02:07 AM (e) (s)

“What gives?  Where’s Ken Ham on Mars?”

I don’t know, but I sure would like to send him there; permanently.

Comment #32671

Posted by Bruce Beckman on May 29, 2005 03:10 AM (e) (s)

Dear Ms. Akins,

I can appreciate the challenges you face when homeschooling your children. I’ve met a number of families that were traveling by small boats around the world and they usually recommend the Calvert School as providing an excellent (and even fun) homeschool/distance learning experience for their children. Since I believe that learning is more than just finding good textbooks (teachers are important too) Calvert may provide some of the resources you might be looking for. As far as I know, Calvert provides a pretty secular education that you can modify/enhance with your own additions as you see fit. This, I believe, is superior to many other programs where you may need to actively downplay/ignore areas that you believe are inappropriate.

Comment #32719

Posted by steve on May 29, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s)

An Ayn Rand nut I know, upon looking into home schooling, dismayed to learn that home schooling is full of religious nuts.

I didn’t say anything.

Comment #32748

Posted by Wayne Francis on May 30, 2005 12:52 AM (e) (s)

ARRRRG!!!! The Loom has exceeded its bandwidth!
To many people reading Carl’s stuff…..I’m getting itchy with not enough stuff to read!

Comment #32750

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 30, 2005 01:03 AM (e) (s)

lol.  hey wayne.  long time no see.

fyi, you can turn off your JAD filter now.  He screamed so loud we had to put that monkey down.  I personally don’t think i’ll miss him much.

Comment #32762

Posted by GT(N)T on May 30, 2005 07:37 AM (e) (s)

meigormekill,

It’s refreshing to see someone make an intellectually coherent, well-thought-out defense of Dr. Davison and DIC.

Comment #32763

Posted by PaulP on May 30, 2005 07:40 AM (e) (s)

How cum you treated Davison like you did?

JAD is fond of quoting Einstein in support of his theory. As a physicist I pointed out to him he did not understand what Einstein was talking about, for which impertinence he called me a “jerk”. He was similarly rude about other people.

Comment #32781

Posted by Unsympathetic reader on May 30, 2005 10:33 AM (e) (s)

Davison may be correct. And the world may have popped into existence last Thursday. I do not believe he was confined to his sandbox because of his hypothesis (odd and largely unsupported as it is) but because of his behavior. As JAD claimed repeatedly, he was never here to defend or discuss his work. He is here because of a pathologically large chip on his shoulder about “the establishment”. And, as you can see by his consistent refusal to be engaged in discussion of his publications, he stayed true to his claim. If you peruse Davison’s internet history on this and many other boards you can see that his internet persona is one of a boringly repetitive, disruptive, complete jackass. Can’t his hypothesis be evaluated independently of his personal deficiencies? Of course it can, but perhaps JAD — the internet persona — is not really up for the task. Based on his history at the U of Vermont, perhaps his offline personality wasn’t either.

But that’s OK. Ideas do not need to be discussed in the presence of their original author (Sometimes, I thinks it’s better that way: Promoters of “radical, new ideas” tend to get carried away in thinking that their idea applies in all cases or is mutually exclusive of other hypotheses. “It slices, it dices, it balances your checkbook!”). We don’t need Darwin here to discuss the implications of natural selection and we don’t need Leo Berg to discuss whether the idea of polyphyletic evolution has any merit. It’s open to anyone.

“How many times was life created?”
At least once. However, it’s fair to say that lineages like mammals or birds probably arose from a single branch.

Comment #32791

Posted by steve on May 30, 2005 11:55 AM (e) (s)

“All I’m trying to do is remind people about how little we actually know for sure about evolution. That’s all.”

You left a word out.

“All I’m trying to do is remind people about how little we Creationists actually know for sure about evolution. That’s all.”

You’re welcome.

Comment #32792

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 30, 2005 12:00 PM (e) (s)

Davison doesn’t even approach evolutionary science in any legitimate manner whatsoever.  Here’s his disqualifying prejudice (along with his nastiness—though to be fair, I wasn’t the least bit nice to him in an earlier post) once again:

Intelligent Design is not in question. It is obvious to anyone who is not genetically impaired like Glen Davidson.

He wrote this yesterday, here, at post 122:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/marty_pomeroy/#c…

The fact is that his ideas have been given too much attention, considering that he begins with such a prejudice that precludes the proper sort of scientific explanation.  As I responded in post #123:

This is why no one should even begin to read your moronic claims in science, since you base your “evolutionary ideas” on this species of idiocy. I don’t know why anyone even humors you to go ahead and read your “science”, since it is impossible to do science with such rank prejudices. I guess it shows that making an ass of yourself, like JAD, Dembski, and Wells all do, means that you get recognized. Even if reviled in the process.

And people do speak up for Davison, while ignoring anyone who doesn’t make an ass of himself.  It’s psychology, that what is noised about is thought to have something to it.  Almost certainly that really is why he’s so appalling, because he’s given attention and credit when his ideas aren’t even in the range of science.

He’s effectively banned from here. 

And there is a whole lot that we know very well about evolution, including the fact that the evidence we can evaluate supports nothing that has been conceived, except for mutation and various selection mechanisms, including natural selection.  There is no reason to put down what is known just because much remains unknown.

Comment #32796

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on May 30, 2005 12:30 PM (e) (s)

meigormekill wrote:

By the way has he been banned? I haven’t seen anything from him lately.

Meigormekill, what was your again?!

Comment #32813

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 30, 2005 03:12 PM (e) (s)

geez, John, do we have to ban your IP too?  take a hint.

Comment #32821

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 30, 2005 04:05 PM (e) (s)

suit yourself.

Comment #32822

Posted by UG Paul on May 30, 2005 04:35 PM (e) (s)

wrote:

…the Alamo of Darwimpianism.

any relation to the Waterloo for Evolution at the Kangaroo Court?

Comment #32846

Posted by Still unsympathetic on May 30, 2005 11:11 PM (e) (s)

meigormekill:
“By the way has he [JAD] been banned? I haven’t seen anything from him lately.”

Nothing of note.

Comment #32847

Posted by Query on May 30, 2005 11:18 PM (e) (s)

So, is the allusion to killing in username seen as an actionable concern or not?

Comment #32858

Posted by PaulP on May 31, 2005 05:04 AM (e) (s)

It seems that JAD still has not the courage to find a physicist to get educated about physics, as I challenged him a while back.

Comment #32861

Posted by Alan on May 31, 2005 06:33 AM (e) (s)

Professor

So evolution occurred in some fashion and has now ceased. There must be a mechanism that turned it off, presumably. Any coherent suggestions?

Semi-meiosis. Any coherent definition you could supply?

Anything coherent at all?

Comment #32862

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 31, 2005 06:45 AM (e) (s)

Who left the screaming monkey’s cage open … .

Comment #32865

Posted by PaulP on May 31, 2005 07:56 AM (e) (s)

JAD: Have you any arguments as to why you are right about Einstein and I am wrong? A recap: have you forgotten when I quoted from Profesor’s Brian Greene’s book “The Fabric of the Cosmos” :
“Quantum mechanics injects probability into the laws of physics in a manner that no one had predicted…Casinos use probability to predict the likelihood you’ll throw snake eyes. But probability plays a role..because we haven’t all of the information necessary to make definitive predictions..The probability introduced by quantum mechanics is of a different, more fundamental character. Regardless of improvements in data collection or in computer power, the best we can ever do .. is to predict the probability of this or that outcome”.

So we have probability as a result of lack of information which is different to the non-determinism of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is what I was taught 20 years ago and nothing has changed since. You are completely clueless on this whole issue. If you have any sense you will stop opening your mouth only to change feet. And if you have any integrity as a scientist you will go learn some physics.

Comment #32867

Posted by Savagemutt on May 31, 2005 08:16 AM (e) (s)

Eww…Someone threw feces all over the Wall again.

Comment #32879

Posted by Alan on May 31, 2005 09:43 AM (e) (s)

Thank you Professor, that was almost civil.

So where do you get biodiversity from with your model? Was it front-loaded by the Creator? In which case where does your hypothesis get us,or is that the point; that you agree with IDers in that “God did it, end of story.”

Comment #32882

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 31, 2005 09:57 AM (e) (s)

It’s typical Groupthinkese. You’re a credit to Panda’s Pathetic Pollex, also known as Esley Welsberry’s last stand, the Alamo of Darwimpianism.

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

“When all think alike, no one thinks very much”
Walter Lippmann

Has anyone noticed that Davison actually believes in chromosomes, genes, meiosis, and other groupthink?  He’s even published establishment science in establishment journals.  Yet he accuses others of groupthink for accepting the rest of science.

Well, how do you like them pots calling the kettles black?

(Btw, whether or not he “should” be banned, he at least shouldn’t be simply allowed to flout a ban that is entirely within PT’s rights to effect)

Comment #32884

Posted by Paul Flocken on May 31, 2005 10:06 AM (e) (s)

Bejeebies, I go on vacation and all hell breaks loose.  davison gets his own thread, then manages to get himself banned, and then reappears with a George Lucas reject of a name:  the new jar-jar clone-meigormekill.  davison, can’t you exhibit even one percent of the discipline your new granddaugter fails to show when she poopies her diaper.

Paul P.
davison doesn’t know or care to properly use the terminology in physics for basic stuff like Galileo’s discovery of the constancy of gravitational acceleration.  There is no way you will be able to get him to admit to the bovine flatulence he claims as knowledge for the finer points of Quantum Theory.

By the way davison, to answer you, in the cgs system there is a unit called the galileo(gal for short), abbreviated g, which is the unit of measure of acceleration.  1g=1cm/sec/sec.

Stephen Elliot.  You didn’t approve of my harshness (although I think that apology you made was directed to me for misreading my comment, thank you), but please tell me why davison deserves better?  You are correct though about Galileo and Newton.  They were both genuises and nobody IS disputing that.  What the ignorant davison is suggesting is straight off the crackpot index.  He thinks that HE is, by claiming to demolish modern evolution, comparable to Galileo in tearing down the Aristotlean framework.  He also disputed comparing Darwin to Newton as the seminal figures of unification for their respective disciplines.  Those were his ignorant points, and I should have been more direct about demonstrating that.

Do I get any points for showing a new crackpot index listing for davison(40 points for comparing oneself Galileo)?  It’s worth a toaster atleast;^)

davison, you are a third rate bungler to whom Darwin would have shown pity by giving you thruppence for blackening his boots.

And yes, this from a fourth rate bungler who would be only to happy to have had the chance to shine Einstein’s shoes.

To paraphrase the immortal Yosemite Sam
“Trolls is so stupid”

Comment #32886

Posted by Paul Flocken on May 31, 2005 10:16 AM (e) (s)

By the way davison, to answer you, in the cgs system there is a unit called the galileo(gal for short), abbreviated g, which is the unit of measure of acceleration.  1g=1cm/sec/sec.

If you think this has anything to do with the 9.8m/s/s of g, whatever.
insincerely,

Comment #32888

Posted by Curious on May 31, 2005 10:33 AM (e) (s)

Question: If someone denies that the neo-Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to explain the fact of evolution, can she be refuted?

As I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong), there is evidence for the fact of evolution (i.e., that all life is descended from common ancestors), and there is evidence that neo-Darwinian mechanisms effect “micro-evolution.” Is there also evidence that neo-Darwinian mechanisms effect “macro-evolution”?

Comment #32889

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on May 31, 2005 10:36 AM (e) (s)

Well, 1g = 980gals…

Comment #32891

Posted by Paul Flocken on May 31, 2005 10:41 AM (e) (s)

from Aureola,
“Well, 1g = 980gals…”

LOL, thanx

I realize I still said that backwards,
“If you think this has anything to do with the g of 9.8m/s/s, whatever.

Comment #32896

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 31, 2005 10:56 AM (e) (s)

Is there also evidence that neo-Darwinian mechanisms effect “macro-evolution”?

Is there evidence that known evolutionary mechanisms effect “micro-evolution”?  If so, then ask yourself if one can really distinguish between “micro-” and “macro-” evolution, or if the nearly the same genetic evidence apparently exists for both?  Some macroevolutionary processes (essentially, speciation) do appear to differ somewhat (for instance, in being chromosomal changes) from the point mutations that generally characterize “microevolution”, but it isn’t even easy to see how the basic mutation plus natural selection processes would fail to effect “macroevolution”, either through the accumulation of microevolutionary changes, or through chromosomal mutations (for example) being selected “naturally”.

To put it all more clearly:  the genetic clock ticks roughly the same in both “macroevolution” and in “microevolution”, and the genetic clock is calibrated against the fossil record of evolutionary change (some problems appear to exist, but they’re not breathtakingly large “discrepancies”).  Given the present genetic, morphological, and fossil evidence, which is roughly the same for both “macroevolution” and “microevolution” (in fact there has never been a distinct line possible to draw between the two), asking if there is evidence that “Darwinism” can account for macroevolution as well as microevolution is about like asking if the geologic column could be produced mostly by the same processes that we see around us today.  The fact is that the evidence for microevolutionary change via mutation and various selection processes (natural selection being the most crucial) is the same type of evidence that exists for macroevolution occurring through the same, and similar, mechanisms.

If someone can come up with a way to show a difference in the evidence that exists for “macroevolution” that deviates from “Darwinian mechanisms”, then science has an obligation to take notice.  Until then, science does best to treat similar evidence in a similar manner.

Comment #32902

Posted by Steverino on May 31, 2005 11:55 AM (e) (s)

JAD has big balls for someone who’s ideas haven’t been proven to hold water….which is why have can sit back and cast stones.

Of course, if he really were serious, he would test his ideas but, that would mean we would know for sure…and that’s not something he wants.

He is like the playground bully…all tough and full of himself until someone tests his metal…

His entire logic is…until it’s tested, it’s true.  Is that how real science works?

Comment #32914

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 31, 2005 01:42 PM (e) (s)

I REALLY hope we are not going to go through the whole JAD fiasco yet again.

I wrote to Reed that he had come back with a changed name.  Would somebody on PT PLEASE do a Dave Scott on Davison so we don’t have to have monkey feces flung about any more.

as to the question of macroevolution; assuming the questioner is talking about what creationists these days typically call “macroevolution” (note that this is not even a term used in science), then they speak of things like turning a weasel into a whale, say.

the answer is yes, check talkorigins.org for a good start on a grand list of transitional fossils supporting “macroevolution” in the fossil record.

Comment #32915

Posted by steve on May 31, 2005 01:43 PM (e) (s)

The behavior of The JAD Monkey, and a few others, might eventuate PT having a registration-system.

Comment #32918

Posted by steve on May 31, 2005 01:58 PM (e) (s)

The following system would be better: allow registered accounts attached to a more fixed email address. (, for instance, but not ) Maybe also allow anonymous comments. But, give the individual viewer an option to Hide All comments from a given commenter, including the anonymous ones.
I think that system would solve several problems. Alternately, a good /.-type system would be good. It also permits users to decide what level of comments they want to see.

This “everybody gets everything, and banning is really hard to implement” system is for the birds.

Comment #32925

Posted by Savagemutt on May 31, 2005 02:22 PM (e) (s)

I dunno. If the point of this blog is to educate, then restricting comment access is a bad idea. I also think a lot of good comments tend to get buried by /. style moderation (or, a lot of idiotic comments get too much publicity). I don’t think the traffic here is so overwhelming that it requires that. You gotta expect a little chaff with the wheat

And I suspect JADs appearance is very temporary. He hadn’t been IP banned before, but I’m betting he will be soon.

Comment #32926

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 31, 2005 02:25 PM (e) (s)

There is a world of difference between micro and macroevolution. I thought everybody knew that too. Microevelolution is the production of varieties and in some instances subspecies. Macroevolution is the production of true species, genera, families, orders, classes and phyla. Do you see the difference? I hope so. Write that down.

Why, for evidence that you’re a babbling simpleton?  I’ll ask again, why don’t you shut up?

Comment #32932

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 31, 2005 02:58 PM (e) (s)

So, even though you have nothing to say, except to repeat your endless prejudices without a hint of proper evidence, you intend to repeat the same nonsense even to the forums that couldn’t possibly believe it.

Let’s put what I wrote previously another way:  We have no justification whatsoever to consider the genetic, morphological, and fossil evidence for macroevolution any differently than we do in microevolution.  Never has anyone come up with an epistemologically sound basis for claiming that the divergence and randomization seen in the evidence for macroevolution (genetic divergence particularly) is not due to the same and similar processes as those occurring in microevolution. 

It’s a question of standards, can we start treating the evidence for descent with modification in HIV lineages differently from the evidence that shows descent with modification in primate lineages?  Not until we have good reason to do so, certainly.  It’s a question of whether or not we’re even going to be doing science, or if we’re going to instead decide to arbitrarily treat similar genetic evidence differently in one case than we do in another case.  If science treats evidence differently without first justifying the different treatment, then science is worthless.

Comment #32940

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 31, 2005 04:03 PM (e) (s)

You don’t have a damned thing worth writing, do you JAD?

Comment #32945

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 31, 2005 04:41 PM (e) (s)

Why didn’t you respond intelligently to what I wrote, you cretin?  I dealt with the issues, you do anything but.  You’re too stupid even to answer me, but instead bring in a bunch of extraneous nonsense, and outright lies.  God you’re an idiot!

What is this nonsense about “an epistemologically sound basis?” Epistomology is nothing but philosophical bull and has nothing to do with either experiment or observation.

What a fuck-up!  Because you are too ignorant to understand the proper role of evidence and epistemology, you simply sneer.  I wrote something of worth, and your stupidity came up with that.  If you can ever respond intelligently, then we could have a discussion.  Not about your “evolutionary ideas”, which rely strictly upon your prejudices, but at least about science, evidence, and how to reach intelligent agreement.  But you don’t want intelligent agreement, you want to force your vileness on everyone.

And this is it for me, I’m not going to spend my day arguing with a vile person who sneers whenever he doesn’t understand, which apparently is nearly always.  It’s not a promise, but probably I’ll let the disgusting old fool say what he wants without further comment.

Comment #32963

Posted by Paul Flocken on May 31, 2005 06:44 PM (e) (s)

Ok, I am going to go out on a limb here and presume that Glen did not just spend his last five comments arguing with a ghost.  May I therefore also presume that the end has come for a particular troll?
Paul

Comment #33041

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on June 1, 2005 09:19 AM (e) (s)

JAD thinks he can simply jump from one bar of his cage to another, and people will suddenly not recognize him. He forgot that the feces he flings around still stink the same, no matter what.

Comment #33052

Posted by Jeffery Keown on June 1, 2005 10:49 AM (e) (s)

I’m tired of all the bickering.  Evidence wins. Evolution wins. Liars lose. These supposed “men of science” and “men of God” are neither.  I’m sick of it.  I know what I say here matters little, but PT has made up my mind.  Let the IDers know they’ve lost me.  One down, 6 billion to go.

Comment #33063

Posted by Steverino on June 1, 2005 11:50 AM (e) (s)

Wow…how smart…he has learned to change his name…There is no end to his intelligence!

Although, he still hasn’t proved or tested to prove a single thing.

JAD is to serious science and critical thinking…what Bush is to Rocket Science.

Comment #33066

Posted by Steverino on June 1, 2005 12:01 PM (e) (s)

Dave,

I have watched this blog for a while now…and trust me, it has nothing whatsoever to do with his hypothesis…which has been pretty much disputed by everyone.

It has much more to do with his attitude and personality…or lack of both.

Comment #33067

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 1, 2005 12:08 PM (e) (s)

lol.  dave scott’s ip address itself is banned.  that’s not dave scott.  it’s the monkey with a new mask on.

it’s time to ban his ip address too.

Comment #33116

Posted by Steve U. on June 1, 2005 04:48 PM (e) (s)

Holy freaking crap.

http://ohiorestorationproject.com/plan.php

This is how script-reciting creationists are manufactured.

It’s almost too weird to be true …

See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/1/171415/3286

Comment #33152

Posted by Charlie Wagner on June 1, 2005 09:14 PM (e) (s)

Charlie Wagner plans his return to his home planet!
Leaves all his worldly possessions to the Discovery Institute.

http://enigma.charliewagner.com…

Comment #33220

Posted by steve on June 2, 2005 02:12 PM (e) (s)

“This is another piece to the puzzle, and there are a lot of them,” he said.  “Anyone who would argue that birds and dinosaurs are not related — frankly, I’d put them in the Flat Earth Society group.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8072396/…

Comment #33240

Posted by SteveF on June 2, 2005 03:52 PM (e) (s)

Confident prediction of the day #1:

YECs will trumpet this work as evidence of a young earth.

Confident prediction of the day #2:

YECs will ignore the dino-birds link.