Well that didn't take long

[quote]It’s practically Biblical.
[/quote]

I think I heard a rooster crow...

Too bad, the Regents made an "Intelligent Designed" decision!

'Gonzalez called the vote a "major blow to academic freedom."

"If academic freedom doesn't defend the professor with minority viewpoints, what good is it?" he said.'

Academic freedom? I thought this was a tenure appeal. So what's he suggesting here? That academic freedom only comes with tenure? AFAIK he's still a faculty member at ISU, so does he have no academic freedom now? Or is it that professors with "minority viewpoints" must be granted tenure automatically?

Why doesn't he just go to Liberty U and be done with it, or is he going to pull a Dembski and forever seek that elusive brass ring of respectability and legitimacy?

Just follow the money and this decision falls right into line.

Big science is a trillion dollar business world wide and certainly in the U.S. is controlled by the evolutionary jihadist element regularly posting here.

Anyone who cannot properly execute the darwin goose-step, shout heil darwin, and repeat by memory the latest and most blasphemous version of the humanist manifesto (it's better to be an actual signatory of course) is certainly on the hit list of the NCSE and their allies.

No university held hostage by the evolutionary SS could possibly place anyone or anything above the taxpayer largess they receive in grant funds, so no other decision was possible.

It's difficult to imagine that a hostile workplace suit will not be pursued as a civil action given the trove of emails and other evidence. But perhaps this result can still be dubbed into the Expelled movie.

Money, greed, power, political intrigue, special interests, secular humanism...it's a lot to contend with, but then there's always the truth...it just takes a while to work out.

The ink isn't dry yet but Casey Luskin is already chastizing ISU on the DI site for failure to recognize Gonzalez as "... an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field...” Luskin concluded. “Instead, they caved in to political pressure and threw academic freedom to the wind.”
How sad these ID people are.

I wish real life was as fun as the troll Keith believes it is. We evil evolutionists don't even get to wear cowels. :(

David: The ink isn't dry yet but Casey Luskin is already chastizing ISU on the DI site for failure to recognize Gonzalez as "... an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field...”

They’ve denied his due process rights throughout this entire appeal,” Luskin continued.

Well, of course we already know that the only relevant criterion to the DI (and to our new troll) is ideological purity. Praise Jeezus, and it simply does not matter how incompetent you are or how totally you fail to accomplish a single one of your (known, published, required) career goals. You are being discriminated against for your religion.

So specifically, what doesn't matter IF AND ONLY IF you wrap yourself in Jeezus, includes publications, funding, teaching, and community service. The lack of any of which deservedly disqualifies you on the merits if you absent-mindedly left your Jeezus at home.

It's really a shame that someone as initially promising as Gonzalez couldn't be bothered to do any science, but the negative correlation we've now seen between "finding ID" and doing honest work suggests this is far more than coincidence.

So Casey Luskin (and our resident but repetitive troll) may have a point. If it was religious faith that caused this handful of formerly productive scientists to abandon their duties, then their faith does come into play when considering their scientific merits. Creationism seems to be a very specific cure for scientific merit.

But I don't worry too much about Gonzalez' future. It may be nonexistent at Iowa State, but his newly-found incompetence should incite a bidding war on the part of the Bob Jones, Liberty U, BIOLA, etc. crowd. After all, they would not WANT him adding to the store of human knowledge; knowledge is their committed enemy.

Keith Eaton: Just follow the money and this decision falls right into line. Big science is a trillion dollar business world wide and certainly in the U.S. is controlled by the evolutionary jihadist element regularly posting here. Anyone who cannot properly execute the darwin goose-step, shout heil darwin, and repeat by memory the latest and most blasphemous version of the humanist manifesto (it's better to be an actual signatory of course) is certainly on the hit list of the NCSE and their allies. No university held hostage by the evolutionary SS could possibly place anyone or anything above the taxpayer largess they receive in grant funds, so no other decision was possible. It's difficult to imagine that a hostile workplace suit will not be pursued as a civil action given the trove of emails and other evidence. But perhaps this result can still be dubbed into the Expelled movie. Money, greed, power, political intrigue, special interests, secular humanism...it's a lot to contend with, but then there's always the truth...it just takes a while to work out.

my irony mete just broke

"They’ve denied his due process rights throughout this entire appeal,”

isn't the appeal process (by definition/ univ charter) due process?

Venus Mousetrap: We evil evolutionists don't even get to wear cowels. :(

Nigel D: .... What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID? Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming? Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? Do you agree with Behe that much of the diversity we observe in nature is due to evolution? (He just claims that it cannot all be due to natural processes). If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time? Place your answer in the context of the source that you quoted which describes macroevolution as “consisting of extended microevolution”?

Jackelope King: Since you seem to be interested in academic freedom and open discussion, do you agree or disagree with the Texas Education Agency's politically-motivated attacks against and firing of Christine Comer? If you're not familiar with the specifics, you can find a fair summary of it in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html When can we expect you to cry foul on Christine Comer's behalf?

David: The ink isn't dry yet but Casey Luskin is already chastizing ISU on the DI site for failure to recognize Gonzalez as "... an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field...”

(hugging knees, rocking back and forth, eyes closed) donotfeedthetrolldonotfeedthetrolldonotfeedthetroll...

Didn't his track record pretty much prove Gonzalez was what the Texans call "all hat and no cowboy"? Kinda like the -mmff! (see above).

Another quick (mostly) on-topic question: I know that the tenure track at a university in a science department puts a premium on peer-reviewed papers and grant money, but how does the tenure review process normally look at non-peer-reviewed books and the like?

I ask because I'm unsure of how much of a discrepancy there is between humanities departments (where it seems like writing books is more favored) and science departments (where peer-reviewed work that brings in grant money is more valued).

In the fundie creobot mind, apparently "They’ve denied his due process rights" = "He didn't get his way".

Damn the facts, full BS ahead!

As far as I am concerned complete academic freedom only occurs once tenure is granted. I know that the AAUP attempts to provide untenured faculty with some rights, but in practice...

Just follow the money and this decision falls right into line

Keith wrote:

"Anyone who cannot properly execute the darwin goose-step, shout heil darwin, and repeat by memory the latest and most blasphemous version of the humanist manifesto (it’s better to be an actual signatory of course) is certainly on the hit list of the NCSE and their allies."

Keith, why would an astronomer have to "execute the darwin goose-step"? Do physicists and chemists and mathematicians have to sign a pledge as well? In fact, is there any university where you have to sign a pledge to conform to the mojority religious view in order to join? Is it ISU? Can you say projection?

Jackelope King: You promised Stacy S. over a week ago to do so, but when I asked, you seemed to suggest that I wasn't a Christian (to remind you, Keith, I'm Roman Catholic), among other insults to myself and practicing scientists the world over.

And back on topic, what is the likelihood that Gonzales will try to take this to court? My familiarity with law in this area is nil, but it looks Gonzales essentially met zero of the normal benchmarks for receiving tenure. Would he even have a leg to stand on, or is this simply more flailing and screaming on the DI's part?

David Stanton said: In fact, is there any university where you have to sign a pledge to conform to the mojority religious view in order to join? Is it ISU? Can you say projection?

You don't suppose that the main reason why Mr Gonzalez's appeal for tenure was turned down for a second time because he hasn't done anything scientifically notable since he suggested the "Habitability Zone" hypothesis?

I haven't laughed this hard since I watched that L Ron Hubbard interview! Man, you should go into comedy. Seriously.

L. Ron didn’t actually believe his own BS - did he

Steve : NGL

I haven't laughed this hard since I watched that L Ron Hubbard interview! Man, you should go into comedy. Seriously.

Yebbut, L. Ron didn't actually believe his own BS - did he ? Steve

And clams...Don't forget the CLAMS, man!

Wikipedia quote "Hubbard said that the galactic ruler Xenu transported his victims to Earth in interstellar space planes which looked exactly like Douglas DC-8s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Jackelope King: I ask because I'm unsure of how much of a discrepancy there is between humanities departments (where it seems like writing books is more favored) and science departments (where peer-reviewed work that brings in grant money is more valued).

Lee H: In most science departments, peer-reviewed work and grant money are ALL that matters.

If you haven't read up on Scientology you're missing out on some quality comedy. Think of Scientology as the next logical step for Intelligent Design. Scientology provides the pathetic level of detail that ID omits. Both are completely absurd and neither has a shred of evidence to support it's claims.

Mr_Christopher: If you haven't read up on Scientology you're missing out on some quality comedy. Think of Scientology as the next logical step for Intelligent Design. Scientology provides the pathetic level of detail that ID omits. Both are completely absurd and neither has a shred of evidence to support it's claims.

No university held hostage by the evolutionary SS could possibly place anyone or anything above the taxpayer largess they receive in grant funds, so no other decision was possible.

Not surprisingly, the powers that be have turned down Dr. Gonzalez's tenure, but Dr. Gonzalez comes out the winner anyway.

First, the malodorous motives of the Iowa State evolutionists in denying Dr. Gonzalez's tenure, have been well-exposed in the public media past any reasonable doubt.

Second, Dr. Gonzalez himself has written an excellent and influential book that rationally explains and rationally supports to the intelligent design hypothesis (The Privileged Planet) from a genuinely scientific perspective.

Furthermore, he also came up with an excellent educational film based on the book.
(The film even was allowed to be shown at the Smithsonian Institution, and originally won the Smithsonian's actual endorsement, before the evolutionists began putting the usual thumb-screws to the Smithies.)

That's why Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure. His scientific work on The Privileged Planet, work that lends rational support to the ID hypothesis, is the real reason.
ISU evolutionists have already admitted that much in public.

And they won't be able to take their admissions back. The public knows the real deal already.

******

So honestly, my guess is that the astronomer Dr. Gonzalez will land on his feet; in fact he'll probably do a lot better than that.

No matter at what university Dr. Gonzalez pursues his scientific career from this point, he has already established himself as a genuine scientist with a genuine backbone (a rare macro-evolutionary development, it seems!)

Most of all, his book and film will continue to attract many readers; continue to inspire people to think and reflect about what certain aspects of our world and universe might just mean; and most of all, continue to create public doubts about the dominant paradigm of Darwinism.

Dr. Gonzalez's example and sacrifice will very likely serve to inspire many future non-Darwinist scientists (and others). Therefore.....

Get ready for MORE, not less, non-Darwinist scientists applying for tenure at our nation's universities!!

FL :)

Get ready for MORE, not less, non-Darwinist scientists applying for tenure at our nation’s universities!!

The creationist coward hiding behind the username FL wrote: "...Dr. Gonzalez himself has written an excellent and influential book that rationally explains and rationally supports to the intelligent design hypothesis (The Privileged Planet) from a genuinely scientific perspective."

FL: I reject your reality and substitute my own.

[quote]That’s why Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure. His scientific work on The Privileged Planet, work that lends rational support to the ID hypothesis, is the real reason. ISU evolutionists have already admitted that much in public.[/quote]

They have admitted no such thing. Besides, Gonzalez put his book on his CV as work he had done. The board was within their rights judging the scientific merits of the book, which they judged to be without scientific merit. The fact that Gonzalez had no funding, had not even applied for funding, was not graduating students, and was not doing research was the death knell for any chance at tenure. Gonzalez may go down in history as the laziest martyr of all time.

Edit in: A more detailed news release can be found here

"The requested article is not available."

FL: No matter at what university Dr. Gonzalez pursues his scientific career from this point, he has already established himself as a genuine scientist with a genuine backbone (a rare macro-evolutionary development, it seems!)

Stanton said:What career?

Get ready for MORE, not less, non-Darwinist scientists applying for tenure at our nation’s universities!!

I think the likelihood this will ever go to court is essentially nil. The Disco Institute isn’t interested in trying to actually resolve anything - all they want to do is, as you say, flail and scream.

silverspoon:

Stanton said:What career?

Martyr is a career at the DI.

I'm still waiting :-(

Stacy S.: I'm still waiting :-(

Stanton: I recommend you take up a hobby, perhaps knitting piano cosies or sweaters for horses?

Big science is a trillion dollar business world wide and certainly in the U.S. is controlled by the evolutionary jihadist element regularly posting here.

Stacy S.:

Stanton: I recommend you take up a hobby, perhaps knitting piano cosies or sweaters for horses?

I hate knitting. Besides - a sweater for a horse in Florida would probably be considered "Animal Cruelty". Are you trying to get me locked up? I am going to have to come up with a better idea!

I think you might be a little warped! LMFAO!!!

What I want to know is, where do I get in on this “big money” I keep hearing about?

Raven displays a level of ignorance typical of evolanders outside the confines of a dissected frog.

No on has been a flat earth proponent after 500 BC when the mid-eastern peoples first measured the earth's circumference to a few percent error, since people sailed the Mediterranean Sea and observed the earth's shadow on the moon during lunar eclipse.

One thing of interest to the taxpayer that Expelled will bring our is the high cost of education for so little instruction by other than 2nd year grad students brought about by the desire to be tenured which requires not excellence in teaching but rather how many taxpayer dollars can be brought in via grants.

The instant case is not about denial of tenure but the clear imposition of a hostile work environment in a federally funded organization and discrimination on the basis of religious faith. The evolander morons at ISU have even handed the attorney evidence of actual intent, purpose with knowledge, and malice with forethought in the emails and other correspondence already in discovery. That spells out punitive damages in big letters.

I sure would hate to be their EEOC officer, usually a VP or higher, as the law permits heavy personal as well as institutional fines and possible penal time.

Just so the 3rd tier cretinists here don't misunderstand, I never implied that any of you were involved in any significant way in the Big Science scam or were leaders of the evo-reich, no you're more the brownshirt or foot-soldier mentality....just smart enough to be dangerous, but certainly not capable of original thought, strategy, or even tactics. Goodness reading the posts of this bunch of intellectual wannabees would never suggest any capacity for causing ID people any problems, that would require actual talent and ability.

Goodness knows being cruel to inferior intellects would not be in line with my character and since no one here can actually compete in that arena you're all pretty safe.

I wonder if Expelled will rival the Gibson film all the atheists hated and predicted would flop, just before it grossed 600 million.

The time of the evolander mafia and its hit-men is drawing to a close.

L. Ron Hubbard was an evolutionist and so are his followers.

Keith Eaton: No on has been a flat earth proponent after 500 BC when the mid-eastern peoples first measured the earth's circumference to a few percent error, since people sailed the Mediterranean Sea and observed the earth's shadow on the moon during lunar eclipse.

"It's practically Biblical!"

Hooo-weee! I'll bet that smarts.

Keith Eaton: One thing of interest to the taxpayer that Expelled will bring our is the high cost of education for so little instruction by other than 2nd year grad students brought about by the desire to be tenured which requires not excellence in teaching but rather how many taxpayer dollars can be brought in via grants.

Keith Eaton: no you're more the brownshirt or foot-soldier mentality....

It was always important to answer your superiors ...

Nigel's questions:

….

What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID?

Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming?

Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old?

Do you agree with Behe that much of the diversity we observe in nature is due to evolution? (He just claims that it cannot all be due to natural processes).

If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time? Place your answer in the context of the source that you quoted which describes macroevolution as “consisting of extended microevolution”? ...

Please don't make me start sticking horses with needles!!

Catherine the Great liked horses, but I don't ...

Keith, you asked me to do some homework - I did it. You wanted me to believe that there is "Proof That DNA is Designed by a Mind" ... and I gotta tell ya - Here's what I found -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now, how about those answers.

Keith, you asked me to do some homework - I did it. You wanted me to believe that there is "Proof That DNA is Designed by a Mind" ... and I gotta tell ya - Here's what I found -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now, how about those answers.

Keith Eaton: One thing of interest to the taxpayer that Expelled will bring our is the high cost of education for so little instruction by other than 2nd year grad students brought about by the desire to be tenured which requires not excellence in teaching but rather how many taxpayer dollars can be brought in via grants. The instant case is not about denial of tenure but the clear imposition of a hostile work environment in a federally funded organization and discrimination on the basis of religious faith. The evolander morons at ISU have even handed the attorney evidence of actual intent, purpose with knowledge, and malice with forethought in the emails and other correspondence already in discovery. That spells out punitive damages in big letters.

L. Ron Hubbard was an evolutionist and so are his followers.

Nigel D: .... What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID? Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming? Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? Do you agree with Behe that much of the diversity we observe in nature is due to evolution? (He just claims that it cannot all be due to natural processes). If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time? Place your answer in the context of the source that you quoted which describes macroevolution as “consisting of extended microevolution”?

Jackelope King: Since you seem to be interested in academic freedom and open discussion, do you agree or disagree with the Texas Education Agency's politically-motivated attacks against and firing of Christine Comer? If you're not familiar with the specifics, you can find a fair summary of it in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html When can we expect you to cry foul on Christine Comer's behalf?

Raven displays a level of ignorance typical of evolanders outside the confines of a dissected frog. No on has been a flat earth proponent after 500 BC when the mid-eastern peoples first measured the earth’s circumference to a few percent error, since people sailed the Mediterranean Sea and observed the earth’s shadow on the moon during lunar eclipse.

talkorigins.org: Claim CH131: The Bible says the earth is round, showing that its authors were inspired to understand science beyond their time. Source: Morris, Henry M., 1986. Science and the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, pp. 13-14. Jeffrey, Grant R., 1996. The Signature of God. Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, p. 114. Response: The passage saying the earth is round is Isaiah 40:22: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. This passage may reasonably be interpreted as referring to a flat circular earth with the heavens forming a dome above it. Such an interpretation is consistent with other passages of the Bible which refer to a solid firmament (Gen. 1:6-20, 7:11; Ezekiel 1:22-26; Job 9:8, 22:14, etc.). It is also consistent with the cosmology common in neighboring cultures.

The View discusses science. Sherri Shepherd does not believe in evolution, and thinks the Earth might be flat.Do people really think the Flintstones was a ...

raven:

The View discusses science. Sherri Shepherd does not believe in evolution, and thinks the Earth might be flat.Do people really think the Flintstones was a ...

Since the bible says the earth is flat and the heavens are a dome with the stars stuck on it, a few fundie Xians and Orthodox Jews claim that...the earth is flat and the stars are lights stuck on a dome. The inerrant bible is never wrong, of course.

It seems both links to Iowa news sources have been changed, and now give "Page not found" errors.

I found this article by starting at the Iowa State Daily home page.

Dave

Keith failing his Thetan ghost exorcism: L. Ron Hubbard was an evolutionist and so are his followers.

Wikipedia: Scientologists believe that seventy-five million years ago, Xenu was the ruler of a Galactic Confederacy which consisted of 26 stars and 76 planets including Earth, which was then known as Teegeeack. The planets were overpopulated, each having an average population of 178 billion.[1][2][3] The Galactic Confederacy's civilization was comparable to our own, with aliens "walking around in clothes which looked very remarkably like the clothes they wear this very minute" and using cars, trains and boats looking exactly the same as those "circa 1950, 1960" on Earth. Xenu was about to be deposed from power, so he devised a plot to eliminate the excess population from his dominions. With the assistance of "renegades", he defeated the populace and the "Loyal Officers", a force for good that was opposed to Xenu. Then, with the assistance of psychiatrists, he summoned billions[1] of his citizens together to paralyze them with injections of alcohol and glycol, under the pretense that they were being called for "income tax inspections". The kidnapped populace was loaded into spacecraft for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). The spacecraft were identical to the Douglas DC-8 with the exception of having different engines. When they had reached Teegeeack/Earth, the paralyzed citizens were unloaded around the bases of volcanoes across the planet. Hydrogen bombs were then lowered into the volcanoes and detonated simultaneously. Only a few aliens' physical bodies survived. Hubbard described the scene in his film script, Revolt in the Stars:

Re: The use of Nazi allusions in smearing contributors of this site: "evo-reich, no you’re more the brownshirt or foot-soldier mentality".

It's good to remember that many fundamentalist/evangelical Christians believe that most Jewish victims of the Holocaust are now burning in hell because they never converted to Christianity. And that they will be so tortured for infinity. And that this is a just punishment, absolutely required by their God.

So who are the Nazis again?

Keith and FL chanted together: Oceania has always at war with Eastasia!

Pertinent question: Is there ever such a thing as an honest creationist or a sane ID supporter?

Repeatedly confirmed answer: No.

been. It's my long lost German heritage, leaving the verb until last.

Big science is a trillion dollar business world wide and certainly in the U.S. is controlled by the evolutionary jihadist element regularly posting here.

Xenu, the Galactic Overlord, used earth to dump his excess, unruly population and bombed the planet back to the stone age with hydrogen bombs killing tens of billions.

For what it's worth, Hubbard did believe in evolution of a sort, though his idea of it was rather different from the scientific theory. In his book _The History of Man_, for instance, he traces the evolution of the human "genetic entity" through the clam (which he blames for various "engram" problems in humans today). The infamous Piltdown Man also plays a role.

Russell Miller's biography _Bare-Faced Messiah_ has more on Hubbardian evolution, particularly chapter 12, which is online at

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfm12.htm

The inerrant Bible also states that hyraxes (or hares, if you believe that the King James’ Bible is the one true voice of God) chew cud

— Stanton

Stacy S.: It was always important to answer your superiors ... Nigel's questions: …. What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID? Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming? Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? Do you agree with Behe that much of the diversity we observe in nature is due to evolution? (He just claims that it cannot all be due to natural processes). If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time? Place your answer in the context of the source that you quoted which describes macroevolution as “consisting of extended microevolution”? ... Please don't make me start sticking horses with needles!!

Man, you should go into comedy. Seriously.

— NGL

What I want to know is, where do I get in on this “big money” I keep hearing about? I mean, I do Lord Darwin’s evil bidding, sacrificing evangelical babies with a rusty garden trowel (which rhymes with cowl) every third new moon and deflowering underage chimpanzees, yet I’m still earning a pittance. It’s not fair. I’m just as evil as the next scientist! Gonzales will get himself a cushy tenured position at Liberty or Bob Jones and never again have to get his hands dirty with research, but he’s EXPELLED? I don’t have a Luskin to cry rivers of tears when one of the primers I design and pay for all by myself doesn’t work. Who weeps for the hours I spend on fruitless attempts at amplification? Whose going to offer me a job if I fail to the extent that Gonzales fails while I’m attempting to actually do science?

— Mike ORisal

Stacy S.:

Keith Eaton: No on has been a flat earth proponent after 500 BC when the mid-eastern peoples first measured the earth's circumference to a few percent error, since people sailed the Mediterranean Sea and observed the earth's shadow on the moon during lunar eclipse.

I'm smart enough to find this link! http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//

So who are the Nazis again?

— hje

Meanwhile, trying to get back on-topic...

Gonzalez knew what he was letting himself in for when he applied for tenure. He knew the process, and he knew it was tough. He should have known that his recent track record (in publications, acquisition of grants and sponsoring raduate students) was insufficient. If he did not know, this is purely his failure to do the necessary background research. Gaining academic tenure is probably the biggest event in the life of an academic scientist (unless they win a Nobel prize). One would have expected an intelligent person to do a bit of research.

A cynic might suppose that Gonzalez applied for tenure, not because he believed he deserved it, but so that the DI could exploit his inevitable failure to be granted it.

Nigel D: .... What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID? Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming? Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? Do you agree with Behe that much of the diversity we observe in nature is due to evolution? (He just claims that it cannot all be due to natural processes). If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time? Place your answer in the context of the source that you quoted which describes macroevolution as “consisting of extended microevolution”? Jackelope King: Since you seem to be interested in academic freedom and open discussion, do you agree or disagree with the Texas Education Agency's politically-motivated attacks against and firing of Christine Comer? If you're not familiar with the specifics, you can find a fair summary of it in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html When can we expect you to cry foul on Christine Comer's behalf?

There's a horse outside my window loking at me funny. I'm starting to get a little nervous.

There's a horse outside my window looking at me funny. I'm starting to get a little nervous.

Stacy Hon, Ever think about expanding your reading outside the TO library of Newspeak? There's a whole world out there of real knowledge and mind expanding information...well beyond ..gee Nigel look at this frog heart..wow!

The flat earth society is a comedic group of clown-heads. Would you care to identify any extant IDer or Creationist scientist that believes in the flat earth? Didn't think so.

The bible has a significantly higher claim than science on mankind. It was written to communicate those purposes to mankind for all recorded time in language any adult could comprehend and of course uses all forms of literary expression.

If misconstruing God's intents and purposes is another form of blasphemy you evolanders enjoy please continue, but don't expect me to rise to the bait.

I'm sure the home work Stacy performed included the Alvin Plantinga's essays on the failures of methodological naturalism, especially the reference to the TO manifesto.

I understand the economic shortfall the 3rd rate scientists that populate these sites, but all of us can't achieve professional and monetary success. I could make you a payday loan Nigel, if it would help.

The best thing is to be satisfied to be a lesser, rather insignificant player, enjoy your brown-bag lunch, watch for the bargains at Walmart, and get your little ego pumped by backslapping with your pitiful peers on these sites.

I understand their editing the latest from ISU into Expelled...every little bit helps.

Hitler was a Christian in the biblical sense...and the historical evidence for this is...citations please.

Hitler was a Nordic God and paranormal freak who believed that the Nordic mythology had real elements of influence on the destiny of the Arian ideal, the destiny of Germanic people and that He was the direct representative of such.

The only racist and bigot pertinent to these posts was Charles Darwin, the avowed atheist, manic depressive, and bi-polar recluse.

Keith - Answer the questions please ... you promised.

Keith Eaton: Stacy Hon, Ever think about expanding your reading outside the TO library of Newspeak? There's a whole world out there of real knowledge and mind expanding information...well beyond ..gee Nigel look at this frog heart..wow!

Keith dissembled thusly: If misconstruing God’s intents and purposes is another form of blasphemy you evolanders enjoy please continue, but don’t expect me to rise to the bait.

Keith,

That was another classic fact free post.

Could you provide answer to Nigel’s questions?

Gonzalez didn’t come close to fulfilling the criteria for tenure. Specifically he was missing: (1) the first author peer reviewed journal articles, (2) successful new proposals and grants, (3) prospering graduate students.

This is what I see Keith. It's quite simple really -

Dodge, dodge, dodge, dodge, dodge, dodg, dod, do, d, ...

effing horse ... I'm getting my knitting needles.

From www.truechristian.com The Earth ISN'T Round!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I know it is hard to not be dogmatic, but please be open minded before you read this, instead of checking out your brains at the entrance door. Since the dawn of time, man has always known the Earth was flat. Then man (the majority) was closer to God. They would burn people at the stake for proposing that the Earth was round, or that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe (it is). These were the days when Logic and Reason where popular, where the idiots, witches, Satanists, Faggots, atheists, and Scientists would be executed by the Word of God for their blasphemy and hatred of God and His Word. May I ask why Christians suddenly would give up a well known belief to follow the trends of the Satanic process called Science? I mean the Bible is 100% correct no matter what since it says in the Bible that it is correct, and the Bible is God's Word, this is a well known Law of Nature and a Law of God that EVERYONE in the universe knows as truth. Anyone who says different is a liar. The Earth IS flat! If you disregard the "dome" (the atmosphere), the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat (which it is), a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...” Think about it, how could Jesus see EVERYTHING on Earth from one point if the Earth was round? It's impossible, thus we can safely conclude with the astonishing evidence that the Earth is flat. Though I know you want to see a model, so I will show you one:

I guess they are the one's that don't believe that space travel is real either.

raven:

Oh, come on. Check out this page. And tell me tongue isn't solidly buried in cheek. I thought this was hilarious, but far far far from serious.

Raven ... I just went to the home page - http://www.truechristian.com/index.html -

The site you reference IS a spoof. It's the guy that played 'Borat' - (I can't think of his name at the moment. But play the video. LOLOLOL...!!!

The time of the evolander mafia and its hit-men is drawing to a close.

— Keith Eaton

Stacy S.: Raven ... I just went to the home page - http://www.truechristian.com/index.html - The site you reference IS a spoof. It's the guy that played 'Borat' - (I can't think of his name at the moment. But play the video. LOLOLOL...!!!

The site you reference IS a spoof.

Raven, I'm pretty sure that truechristian.com is a parody website. See http://www.truechristian.com/soldiersofgod.html (I wasn't sure it was a parody until I saw that part of the website). See also for example http://www.truechristian.com/apes.html where the author says "Do you know what DNA stands for? It stands for DeoxyriboNucleic Acid. I'm not into doing Acid like these Sick Jew Scientists are, but that's a big word and I'm a Christian. These big words hurt my brain and only the Fag Media can support such ridiculous Satanic Lies."

Now there are modern geocentrist creationists. See for example http://www.fixedearth.com/ and http://www.geocentricity.com/ . Indeed, geocentrism is so common that AIG has felt a need to respond to it see http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp .

Flat earthism is much rarer, and I'm not aware of any extant flat earth group although I've been told that flat earth beliefs exist in some third world countries. The last flat earth society in the modern world appeared to more or less fall apart in 2001. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society for more details (the article also gives examples and links to a variety of other flat earth believing groups, most no longer extant).

@Stanton - Yes! That's right.

I'm still tooling around on the website. There is a FANTASTIC video (movie really) here

http://www.truechristian.com/endofatheism.html

- on the site. Who am I to suggest watching something? but this is great! And.. it's about science vs. religion!!

Nigel D: .... What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID? Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming? Do you agree with Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? Do you agree with Behe that much of the diversity we observe in nature is due to evolution? (He just claims that it cannot all be due to natural processes). If there is a qualitative difference [between micro- and macro- evolution], by what mechanism is microevolution prevented from becoming macroevolution in time? Place your answer in the context of the source that you quoted which describes macroevolution as “consisting of extended microevolution”? Jackelope King: Since you seem to be interested in academic freedom and open discussion, do you agree or disagree with the Texas Education Agency's politically-motivated attacks against and firing of Christine Comer? If you're not familiar with the specifics, you can find a fair summary of it in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html When can we expect you to cry foul on Christine Comer's behalf?

....are we to assume Luskin is as dumb about the law as he is about science.

Well, he's already demonstrated his tenuous grasp of copyright law -- twice in two weeks! So yeah, I think "dumb" works fine.

I understand the economic shortfall the 3rd rate scientists that populate these sites, but all of us can’t achieve professional and monetary success. I could make you a payday loan Nigel, if it would help.

— Keith Eaton

Mr_Christopher: If you haven't read up on Scientology you're missing out on some quality comedy. Think of Scientology as the next logical step for Intelligent Design. Scientology provides the pathetic level of detail that ID omits. Both are completely absurd and neither has a shred of evidence to support it's claims.

... Oh well - the movie turned political. It started out being pretty good.

Ironically, if the Disco Institute’s “teach all views” strategy were to actually work, the Scientologists would likely be one of the first groups pounding on the school-room door to have “equal time” for their views. And how many Christians would want that? ;)

— Matthew Lowry

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf is an adequate description of my thoughts on ID theory.

Common decent within holobaramin or kind is true by observation and untrue otherwise.

I remain unconvinced that the earth is 4 billion years old; but it's not the most critical issue for me.

A lot of adaptation and diversity has occurred since creation and within holobaramin rm and ns has played a minor role. The 21st century views of James Shapiro are much more interesting and demonstrable than the 100 year old anachronism espoused by evolanders here.

Darwin clearly laid out two complimentary theories the Special theory or micro-evolution and the General theory or macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution has never been demonstrated and is founded on a biased view of fossil evidence and imagination. The principal objection to a continuous gradation of change across the major groups or holobaramin is the requirement not just to alter existing functional and physical traits but to create entirely new functional and physical traits for which there were no original homologous precursors in the ancestral lineage.

You are a lying crazy fuck Keith. Einstein had a special theory and a general theory, not Darwin.

Start using your left hand, your right palm has gotten really hairy.

So then how come no baraminologist has bothered to define what all of the original holobaramins are/were and how does this play into Gonzalez being denied tenure because he has not done any scientific research, demonstrated a lack of desire to get grant money, or the fact that Intelligent Design does not even recognize Baraminology?

Keith Eaton, I'll ignore for a moment that your latest post is composed almost entirely of lies, and all your arguments were debunked decades ago. What I want to know is this:

Are you physically capable of answering a question?

Nigel D and Jackalope King have been asking you the same questions for days now, and you have not even pretended to give an answer, despite promising Stacy that you would.

Every sane person reading this knows you're a liar. But you're so transparent you're not even a GOOD liar.

Keith Eaton: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf is an adequate description of my thoughts on ID theory.

First, a bacterium or insect that has immunity to a toxin is still the same bacterium or insect; it is not a new life form or a new species. Nothing new has been “created.” Second, these organisms did not “gain” resistance; they “lost” sensitivity. They contain mutated or damaged proteins that fail to bind to or fail to take up toxic chemicals that would cause normal varieties to die. So no new ability was gained; normal function was lost.

I remain unconvinced that the earth is 4 billion years old; but it’s not the most critical issue for me.. That makes you incapable of any scientific effort. If you are neither willing, not able, nor interested to study the age of the earth, a basic topic in science, your journey in science is stuck right at the starting block. Try CRS, UD.

For what its worth, in 1979 I flew around the globe, generally west to east.

Also, on a different, so-called polar, flight I was able to observe the curvature of the earth's surface.

But much, much easier is to watch a ship put out to sea: first the hull disappears, then the superstructure and lastly the mast. Anyone living near a large body of water, as soon as sailing was invented, must have surmised that 'the earth was round'. Maybe even with big dugout canoes...

So I doubt that 500 BCE is the appropriate date, that being just from when surviving writings about the matter exist.

Every sane person reading this knows you’re a liar. But you’re so transparent you’re not even a GOOD liar.

Keith Eaton: "I remain unconvinced that the earth is 4 billion years old; but it's not the most critical issue for me. A lot of adaptation and diversity has occurred since creation..."

I remain unconvinced that the earth is 4 billion years old; but it’s not the most critical issue for me.

— Keith Eaton

But it has become a “critical issue” for us, so please answer the question: In your view, how long has it been since creation?

— Paul Burnett

Mike Elzinga:

Every sane person reading this knows you’re a liar. But you’re so transparent you’re not even a GOOD liar.

In fact, he appears to be a persona. Everything he has been posting on several threads appears to be deliberately provocative, off-topic, and inane. He then repeats the shtick over and over. I suspect he is just playing games, trying to get a kick out of derailing threads and making people mad. He probably isn’t even religious (no god would have him anyway). The only other alternative explanation is that he is completely insane. He will eventually end up on the Bathroom Wall again. Ignore him.

Stanton --- Shenanigans!

David B. Benson: Stanton --- Shenanigans!

Flunkys of the ID crowd can help put up a new loonroll for GG on the lines of WAD's UD.com. This one will be named uncommonascent.com

Everything he has been posting on several threads appears to be deliberately provocative, off-topic, and inane. He then repeats the shtick over and over. I suspect he is just playing games, trying to get a kick out of derailing threads and making people mad.

It does seem that Keith and his responses have taken up a significant proportion of the posts in this thread despite generally having very little to do with the actual thread topic.

Stanton: "...Keith is a maleficent ne'er do well whose sole purpose here is to foment trouble through insults, lies and the suggestion of poorly formulated paranoid conspiracy theories.

Keith said...
"I remain unconvinced that the earth is 4 billion years old; but it’s not the most critical issue for me."

A YEC that supports ID.
What were the chances of that happening?

(giggle)

Keith, is ID a scientific theory?
Yes or No?

:)

Shenanigans! == Call to have him banned.

Keith wrote:

"... the requirement not just to alter existing functional and physical traits but to create entirely new functional and physical traits for which there were no original homologous precursors in the ancestral lineage."

A new low, even for this guy. So let me get this straight, in order for him to accept that evolution is true, one must prove that a new trait sprung up out of nowhere with no homology to any existing structure and no precursor in any ancestral lineage. Well, that would be the definition of special creation not evolution. So I guess we have to prove evolution wrong for him to accept it! Man I never thought of that approach before. I wonder what the odds are that he would really be convinced anyway?

Evolution works by tinkering with what already exists. No trait can arise out of nowhere without any homology or ancestral precursor. Mutations in preexisting pathways can occur that create new functions, that is how new functions arise.

Of course this guy can always say that the immune system involves loss of susceptability to pathogens rather than the acquisition of resistance, so you see nothing new rreally evolved. Man, you can't argue with that logic. No really you can't.

I'm not going to ask Keith any questions. We have all seen the futility of that approach. Just want to note that he still hasn't answered anyone yet. Why he keeps posting blatant nonsense I don't know. I guess he will not be granted tenure either.

The response to my my posts reveals the very reason that the movie Expelled, the DI, and it's sister organizations are sorely needed to combat the intolerant, cynical, and mentally disturbed extreme element of science represented by the evolander community.

The vapid, obtuse, vacuous, and uninformed sophistry that passes for debate on your team is rather pitiable.

In every university library one will find perhaps 200 books all called some variant of the theory of evolution and will be in points of importance as much in disagreement as can be imagined.

Yet one reasonable essay on the ID theory is supposed to be all encompassing as to explanation.

I wish every American had a few minutes to examine TO and PT and acquaint themselves with the sewer people, mental midgets, and psychologically demented personalities who lurk therein.

The intellectual community does need a few of you wannabees to carry our water and do our bidding from time to time so we probably will continue a certain level of tolerance and sympathy. But you do need to be careful you do not get too far out of line...Expell is designed to disclose how close you are to our tolerance line.

The vapid, obtuse, vacuous, and uninformed sophistry that passes for debate on your team is rather pitiable.

Actually the monarch butterfly issue which I presented and stuck up your collective noses a while back is a perfect illustration, among many, of the appearance of features, traits, and capacities without any evo explanation. That's why in the precise paper cited by the evolanders on The Origin of Metamorphosis in Insects the paper states that the pupa phase is formed de novo without any homologous source in prior life cycle stages.

I don't need any employment with ID or anyone else. My mission is expose the BS and hubris that passes for science in the evolander community, the high cost the American taxpayer is paying for worthless attmpts to prove God doesn't exist, faith is useless, and religion is the enemy of the civilized world. I think Dawkins and his sychophantic slaves like BobC are completely representative of the cult of true believers of this dogma and my careful archiving of Bob's posts for the Expelled people I trust will prove useful.

It's not difficult to manipulate the less gifted Bill, but it is enjoyable, if one can just avoid the slobbering. And I agree that debate is not a part of the evolander community because it's dogma and metaphysics and has no counterpart in any other area of real science, past or present.

Your tribe of underlings is just the price we pay for getting some menial tasks performed. Sort of like the generals who observe the privates through heavy lenses from offshore.

It's just that of late you seem to be exercising some privileges we haven't agreed to permit, like thinking your theory has some real merit in practical terms, like believing we owe you some elevated status in society or some improved economic status. I think you people need to remember your place and go back to your labs in quiet servitude.

As long as we continue to see real benefit from actual science for us we don't mind you having a little pleasure in your vain imaginings, but don't start thinking for yourselves.

Dear Lord, this bozo is laying it on so thick he's gotta be racking up loki points out the wazoo!

Keith projected: The vapid, obtuse, vacuous, and uninformed sophistry that passes for debate on your team is rather pitiable. ... I wish every American had a few minutes to examine TO and PT and acquaint themselves with the sewer people, mental midgets, and psychologically demented personalities who lurk therein.

A YEC that supports ID. What were the chances of that happening?

— Cedric Katesby

And the Pot-calling-the-Kettle-black award goes to…the delusional loon sitting on the far right

Keith,

Way to go creolander, way to address the issues. I see you still can't answer any questions, arguments or logic except with insult and complete lack of substance. I totally demolished your nonsense for the retarded ignorance it was and how did you respond, with only insults. Well bite me you siberian snow pimp. (See I can be insulting too. Apparently this type of stuff doesn't get you banned around here and Keith apparently thinks it is some kind of convincing argument).

OK creolander, try this on for size. The pupal stage of the monarch butterfly is not a new feature that arose de novo without any ancestral state. In fact, it is not a new feature at all. It is simply the loss of movement during a stage in development. See there, it is a loss not a gain, so by your own logic it should be perfectly possible for this to evolve. So either your logic is twisted and useless or else you have to admit that Monarch development is not a problem for evolution. Either way you still have to explain why the monarch is so similar to every other butterfly genetically, why it has the same mitochondrial gene order, etc.

We'll be holding our collective breaths for you to answer these simple questions. I know you can do it, just try. By the way, got any thoughts on the Gonzalez case, or don't you even know what this thread is supposed to be about. Let me guess, it's all just one big conspiracy right?

Ethan Rop --- Can you arrange to have the troll banned? He's usurped your thread...

"The vapid, obtuse, vacuous, and uninformed sophistry that passes for debate on your team is rather pitiable."

Heh.

Projecting much, Keith?

Way to go creolander...

— David Stanton

Gonzalez groupies, consider this:
A young lawyer joins a firm as an associate with good references and a solid background of achievement. Over the next few years, his output gradually diminishes, and his billing hours dwindle to a quarter of what they were at the start. Does he make partner when the time comes?

A young physician joins a practice group after a solid performance in residency. His productivity dwindles steadily, he alienates patients to the extent that they don't come back, and he's frequently unavailable to cover on-call and skips out early from his office because he's running a botox clinic on the side. Do you allow him to buy into the practice when the time comes?

BTW, Keith, re: "Yet one reasonable essay on the ID theory is supposed to be all encompassing as to explanation."

WHAT ID theory????

T. Bruce McNeely: Gonzalez groupies, consider this: A young lawyer joins a firm as an associate with good references and a solid background of achievement. Over the next few years, his output gradually diminishes, and his billing hours dwindle to a quarter of what they were at the start. Does he make partner when the time comes? A young physician joins a practice group after a solid performance in residency. His productivity dwindles steadily, he alienates patients to the extent that they don't come back, and he's frequently unavailable to cover on-call and skips out early from his office because he's running a botox clinic on the side. Do you allow him to buy into the practice when the time comes? BTW, Keith, re: "Yet one reasonable essay on the ID theory is supposed to be all encompassing as to explanation." WHAT ID theory????

http://www.detectingdesign.com/antibioticresistance.html

This misconception [about antibiotic resistance and evolution] may be partly due to the fact that even many science graduates believe that the mechanism of antibiotic resistance involves the acquisition of new DNA information by accidental mutations... But resistance does not normally arise like this.

Loss of control over an enzyme's production can engender antibiotic resistance. Take for instance penicillin resistance in Staphylococcus bacteria. This requires the bacterium to have DNA information coding for production of a complicated enzyme (penicillinase), which specifically destroys penicillin. It is extremely unlikely that such complex information could arise in a single mutation step, and in fact it does not. Mutation can cause the loss of control of its production, so much greater amounts are produced, and a bacterium producing large quantities of penicillinase will survive when placed in a solution containing penicillin, whereas those producing lesser amounts will not. The information for producing this complicated chemical was, however, already present 1

Also, although no one has ever observed the de novo evolution of a penicillinase enzyme, evolutionary scientists present evidence for the original evolution of penicillinase from existing bacterial genes - but this still remains hypothetical until such proposed evolutionary pathways can be demonstrated in real time. So far, not even a single hypothesized step in the pathway of penicillinase evolution has ever been demonstrated to actually evolve in any bacterium (see appendix).

A neutral change is a change in the genetic sequence (genotype) that cannot be distinguished by natural selection from different genetic sequences that have that same function (phenotype). The problem is that with every additional neutral mutation that is required along a path toward new function, the average time required to traverse this path increases exponentially. This neutral gap problem seems to be the most likely source of "limited evolutionary potential" when it comes to evolving novel functions - like single protein enzymes (i.e., penicillinase).

So yes, it is statistically possible but improbable that penicillinase evolution is responsible for anything as far as “de novo” penicillin resistance within a newly resistant population. Penicillinase, when detected in a bacterial population, was most likely already there before the selection pressures of penicillin antibiotics were applied to that population. In other words, penicillinase most likely existed in the genomes of bacteria long before Alexander Fleming came on the scene.

The same can probably be said of many plant, insect, rodent, and other “weed and pest” resistance to the chemicals used to kill them off. Consider the following quote from the geneticist Francisco Ayala:

The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.3

As additional support for this statement, consider that bacteria recovered from historical isolation have been found to be resistant to modern antibiotics. In 1988 bacteria were recovered from the colons (intestines) of Arctic explorers who froze where they died in 1845. Many decades later, these explorers where found and various studies where done on their bodies. Bacteria from their intestines were actually grown and subjected to various modern antibiotic medications. Many of the bacterial colonies grown were found to be resistant to many modern antibiotics, proving that this resistance did not evolve over just the past 60 years or so since the antibiotic age began, but where already present before humans started using antibiotics to fight bacterial infections. 4

For all cellular functions there is a minimum part requirement consisting of amino acids in specific sequences. If changed beyond this minimum requirement, all function is lost. All genes and all proteins are in fact, “irreducibly complex.” Despite the fact that many genes and proteins are quite flexible in their sequencing, all of them have a limit beyond which all beneficial function is lost. These limits may overlap with other genes and proteins, in which case, evolution or change between two functional genes or proteins is possible in a relatively rapid manner. However, as the level of functional complexity increases, the average neutral gaps between potentially beneficial proteins also increase. With the increase in neutral gaps comes a decrease in functional overlap between various sequences. At this point, multiple neutral mutations are required before a new beneficial function can be realized. These multiple mutations are invisible to the powers of natural selection. That is why such changes are called "neutral". They are neutral with respect to functional change and this makes them neutral with respect to any selective advantage that nature might provide.

So, the traversing of such a gap requires a truly random walk. And, as we all know, it is much faster to go from point A to point B by following a straight line. Walking along a random curvy path will take a whole lot longer. This is what happens with evolution when the pathway is neutral with regard to any sequentially selective advantages. The evolution of new functions at such levels requires exponentially greater amounts of time.

Clearly then, these neutral gaps present insurmountable blockades to the evolution of new functions beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity - even for such large populations and such rapid generation turnovers as are realized in bacterial colonies (and we are talking trillions upon trillions of years for the crossing of neutral gaps averaging no more than a couple dozen residue changes wide). Since such isolated functions of higher and higher levels of complexity do in fact exist in the natural world, it seems extremely difficult for the theory of evolution or any other purely naturalistic theory based on mindless naturalistic processes to explain their existence outside of deliberate design.

SO we have the limits to microevolution accumulation and power tied together for convenience with the actual explanation for anti-biotic resistance just so the explanations are succinct and easy for evolanders to comprehend.

I dropped my evolander in the dirt ,

I asked the babies ..did it hurt?

But all they said was wagh! wagh! wagh!

You know vaseline is pretty cheap.

This is like shooting fish in a small barrel with a shotgun.

Can we please ban Keith?

At least have the decency to place that which you quote verbatim in appropriate quotes. Seems you cannot even make your own arguments against evolution.
Pathetic...

Keith sputters Sort of like the generals who observe the privates through heavy lenses from offshore.

It's called the rule of best evidence and its been used by philosophers, scientists, lawyers, and all of us intellectuals for several hundred years.

Of course, I could offer lesser arguments by pulling crap out of my butt like the evolanders and just asserting its truth without an ounce of credibility, but I prefer to be well read, rational, able to evaluate evidence, and let the most qualified opinion be advanced.

Another term is expert witness, perhaps you've heard of it.

Banning seems to be one of your best defenses against your intellectual failures...hmmmmmmm!

Keith Eaton: It's called the rule of best evidence and its been used by philosophers, scientists, lawyers, and all of us intellectuals for several hundred years. Of course, I could offer lesser arguments by pulling crap out of my butt like the evolanders and just asserting its truth without an ounce of credibility, but I prefer to be well read, rational, able to evaluate evidence, and let the most qualified opinion be advanced. Another term is expert witness, perhaps you've heard of it. Banning seems to be one of your best defenses against your intellectual failures...hmmmmmmm!

Thank you, Keith, for clearly demonstrating that, in fact, you are NOT physically capable of answering a question.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4058

1987 – First refereed paper published in Solar Physics.
1993 – Received Ph.D. from University of Washington in astronomy.
1995 – Conducted postdoctoral research at the Indian Institute of Astrophysics in Bangalore; observed solar eclipse, prompting him to formulate what would later become the privileged planet hypothesis.
1999 – Appointed Research Assistant Professor at University of Washington.
2001 – Left University of Washington to become Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University (ISU).
2001 – Co-authored cover story in Scientific American.
2002 – Feature story on Gonzalez’s research published in Nature.
Began construction of new telescope attachment to discover extrasolar planets.
2004 – Feature story on Gonzalez’s research published in Science.
The Privileged Planet published.
ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society sponsored campus forum to attack The Privileged Planet. Event featured religious studies professor Hector Avalos.
2005 – The Privileged Planet film screened at the Smithsonian Institute and begins airing on PBS stations around the nation.
Petition signed by more than 120 ISU faculty members urging “all faculty” at ISU “to uphold the integrity of our university of science and technology” by “reject[ing] efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.”
2006 – ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society co-sponsored another campus event attacking intelligent design.
Cambridge University Press published second edition of college textbook Observational Astronomy, co- authored by Gonzalez.
Gonzalez’s research on the moon as the earth’s “lunar attic” highlighted on National Geographic Channel.
Gonzalez submitted application for tenure.
2007 – Gonzalez published his 68th peer-reviewed scientific paper and is denied tenure by ISU President Geoffroy.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/733rlosv.asp

According to a Smithsonian/NASA astrophysics database, Gonzalez's scientific articles from 2001 to 2007 rank the highest among astronomers in his department according to a standard measure of how frequently they have been cited by other scientists. He has published 68 peer-reviewed articles, which beat the ISU department's standard for tenure by 350 percent. He has also co-authored a standard astronomy textbook, published by Cambridge University Press, which his faculty colleagues use in their own classes.

However, writing in the Des Moines Register, Professor John Hauptman, another department colleague, honestly admitted that he voted against Gonzalez because of The Privileged Planet; Hauptman conceded that the rejected professor "is very creative, intelligent and knowledgeable, highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher."

Normally, it is not especially difficult to attain tenure at ISU. In 2007, 91 percent of tenure applications were approved, including that of Hector Avalos, a religious-studies teacher. Avalos, was elevated to a full professorship despite wildly anti-religious statements in a 2005 book (Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence) which compared the Bible unfavorably with Hitler's Mein Kampf. Avalos wrote, "Mein Kampf does not contain a single explicit command for genocide equivalent to those found in the Hebrew
Bible. . . . Thus, if all of Mein Kampf is to be rejected simply for its implied genocidal policies, we should certainly reject all of the Bible for some of its explicit and blatant genocidal policies."

Of course any smart lawyer knows you have to be able to show you exhausted all civil remedies available to your complaint when you go to trial. That has now been accomplished and ISU has put themselves in the worst possible light by denying him the opportunity to present an oral argument to the board.

I look for either a sizable settlement or a few million dollars up to say 20 million if it goes to a jury trial.

Their provost is the idiot that got fired at CU.

More KE insults: "I wish every American had a few minutes to examine TO and PT and acquaint themselves with the sewer people, mental midgets, and psychologically demented personalities who lurk therein."

When you can't argue your point, you demonize people. It worked so well for the Nazi guys you keep alluding to. Your hate-filled screed is sure impressive--I'm sure "every American" would see that you have taken the moral high ground.

Let's ask you this, KE, if you were in power, what you do to people who are "Darwinists"? Put them in re-education camps? Conduct some sort of inquisition of torture to save their souls? Or implement some sort of final solution to cleanse the earth of the people you despise? Tell us what you think--don't edit yourself.

The most pathetic thing of all is that it is obvious that you consider yourself a Christian, and in all likelihood you of the evangelical or fundamentalist persuasion. But the thing that seems to best characterize American evangelical/fundamentalist Christians of last 25 years is their hate-filled rhetoric, intolerance, and hypocrisy. According to the Barna Group (an evangelical polling group), this is the perception--not of some mythical secular elite--but young evangelical Christians! You may think you are winning the battle with your "take-no-prisoners" approach, but in the end it looks very much like you have already lost the war for hearts and minds of the next generation. You may notice that the political power of the religious right is quickly slipping away. Big surprise since all you seem to offer is a message of venomous hatred for those who do not think like you.

And you know you don't believe that the universe is more than 10,000 years old. Why do equivocate or prevaricate? It's so un-Christian.

hje: Why do equivocate or prevaricate? It's so un-Christian.

Being scolded or judged by the people on this PT site is a compliment and an honor.

The fact that I don't suffer fools well is a fault no doubt, but fortunately my faith is not performance based.

You have placed your faith in the person of Charles Darwin an avowed atheist, demented intellect, manic depressive, bi=polar recluse, bigot, and racist. His legacy is social darwinism, the science and social policies of the 3rd Reich, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Good luck with that!

Hey KE: Now release your anger, and your journey to the dark side will be complete!

And I think your Mom's calling you--she wants you to get off the internet and take out the garbage.

Jackelope King: Since you seem to be interested in academic freedom and open discussion, do you agree or disagree with the Texas Education Agency's politically-motivated attacks against and firing of Christine Comer? If you're not familiar with the specifics, you can find a fair summary of it in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html When can we expect you to cry foul on Christine Comer's behalf?

Keith Eaton: You have placed your faith in the person of Charles Darwin an avowed atheist, demented intellect, manic depressive, bi=polar recluse, bigot, and racist. His legacy is social darwinism, the science and social policies of the 3rd Reich, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Hello. I have a question about Gonzales. From what Keith posted, it looks like he (Gonzales) was publishing. So what exactly wasn't he doing right? If its true that he was discriminated against for having different beliefs, that
sounds wrong to me. Am I missing some info?

That being said, Keith, when someone proclaims themselves to be an intellectual I have serious doubts its true.
I have been reading a lot of your posts here and what I see most are insults. Unsupported insults.
While its true there are regular posters here who do the same (I don't approve) there are some who actually support their insults with explanations. Well thought-out explanations with their own words, not links.
I don't know why you post here, but if you are trying to convince people you are right you aren't going about it the right way. Just my 2 cents.

Re comment 142618 - what a flurry of misdirection:

2001 – Co-authored cover story in Scientific American. 2002 – Feature story on Gonzalez’s research published in Nature. Began construction of new telescope attachment to discover extrasolar planets. 2004 – Feature story on Gonzalez’s research published in Science. The Privileged Planet published. ...2005 – The Privileged Planet film screened at the Smithsonian Institute and begins airing on PBS stations around the nation...Cambridge University Press published second edition of college textbook Observational Astronomy, co- authored by Gonzalez. Gonzalez’s research on the moon as the earth’s “lunar attic” highlighted on National Geographic

None of this is more than a minor consideration for tenure. The "68 peer-reviewed papers" were almost entirely based on his post-doc work. He was doing SFA by the time he came up for tenure. Keith, you have certainly worked hard to dodge the issue I raised, that Gonzales' productivity steadily dwindled to nothing over the years he was on the tenure-track. I guess ISU is discriminating against prospective tenured drones. How dreadful.
Gonzales didn't deserve tenure on the grounds of stupidity alone. He was taking part in a competition where success is evaluated on peer-reviewed publications and grants. By that measure, he basically sat on his ass after his postdoc research. What did he think was going to happen?

BTW, exactly WTF is the Theory of Intelligent Design (again)?

Eric, the information Keith posted is misleading. As noted, the vast majority of his publications were written prior to his arrival at ISU. Once he arrived, his publication rate dropped precipitously. All of the articles published in 2001, plus half the articles published in 2002, were written while at his previous place of employment. When you remove these papers from consideration, his citation rate drops to below that of his colleagues during the same period. The departmental guidelines for tenure state that only the last four years of publications are to be evaluated. Therefore, only those publications dating from 2003 or later were considered by the committee (in early 2007), the period of paucity and low citation rates. Additionally, several of those publications are not classified as peer-reviewed research under the departmental guidelines, further reducing the number of publications that the committee was allowed to consider. Furthermore, the department guidelines specifically state that the number of publications is merely a guideline, and not a guarantee of tenure. It should also be noted that his publication rate was less than that of another professor in the department who was granted tenure at the same time he was denied tenure.

Gonzalez was unable to secure any significant funding while at ISU. He had two pre-existing grants at the time he took the position. The first was a $58,000 grant from the Templeton Foundation, with which he was supposed to write peer-reviewed articles on sun-like stars. Instead, he only received about $43,000, only half of which while he was at ISU, and produced the book The Privileged Planet. What happened to the peer-reviewed articles and the remaining $15,000 (and does the lack of one explain the other)? He was also the last of 26 co-investigators on a grant from NASA awarded to a team of astronomers from UW, his prior university, awarded before he took the position at ISU. He claims that his portion of the grant was $64,000 - but he also admits that all that money went to a grad student at UW. ISU did not process the grant nor did it benefit from it in any manner. Additionally, this project was a five-year project, but Gonzalez's participation in it was abruptly ended after only three years, despite plans for additional research. As a desperation move, the DI, of which he is a Senior Fellow, gave him a $50,000 grant, but between the clear conflict of interest and the lack of structure in the grant, it did not meet ISU's stated criteria for administering grants. In the end, ISU only recognized $22,661 for tenure purposes (I am of the personal belief that almost all of that was from the Templeton grant). The previous four professors in his department to be awarded tenure landed over $225,000 each during their time as tenure-track - 10 times what Gonzalez did, including the guy granted tenure last year. The university and college tenure guidelines include grants as a criteria for tenure.

Another problem Gonzalez faced was the lack of new data. He did not take nor supervise the collection of new data after 2002. All of his papers relied on that or older data, or re-evaluation of data gathered by others. Furthermore, he had filed the paperwork for gathering the data while still at UW. He was unable to arrange for any telescope time after accepting the position. He spent the most important portion of his probationary period re-hashing old data.

Rebuttal Keith?

Keith Eaton: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf is an adequate description of my thoughts on ID theory.

Common decent within holobaramin or kind is true by observation and untrue otherwise.

I remain unconvinced that the earth is 4 billion years old; but it's not the most critical issue for me.

A lot of adaptation and diversity has occurred since creation and within holobaramin rm and ns has played a minor role.

The 21st century views of James Shapiro are much more interesting and demonstrable than the 100 year old anachronism espoused by evolanders here.

Darwin clearly laid out two complimentary theories the Special theory or micro-evolution and the General theory or macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution has never been demonstrated and is founded on a biased view of fossil evidence and imagination.

The principal objection to a continuous gradation of change across the major groups or holobaramin is the requirement not just to alter existing functional and physical traits but to create entirely new functional and physical traits for which there were no original homologous precursors in the ancestral lineage.

Gonzalez’s research on the moon as the earth’s “lunar attic” highlighted on National Geographic

Dale Husband:

Keith Eaton: You have placed your faith in the person of Charles Darwin an avowed atheist, demented intellect, manic depressive, bi=polar recluse, bigot, and racist. His legacy is social darwinism, the science and social policies of the 3rd Reich, Mao, and Pol Pot.

That alone proves Keith Eaton to be a liar, because it goes against all historical accounts. What more proof do we need that he is a troll who can't be honest?

Being scolded or judged by the people on this PT site is a compliment and an honor.

— Keith Eaton

Universal common descent (note the spelling, Keith) has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

— Nigel D

Hi, Keith--

Can you give me your definition of what a "baramin" is and how you determine what critter goes in which baramin? Thanks!

http://lists.paleopsych.org/pipermail/paleopsych/2007-July/007218.html

Mr. Gonzalez's publication record, however, does list 21 papers
since 2002, many in top journals. "It looks to me like
discrimination," said one astronomer, who did not want to be named,
fearing a backlash for speaking up in favor of an intelligent-design
proponent. "They can't say that he doesn't have a decent publication
record, because he absolutely does," said the astronomer of Mr.
Gonzalez's scholarship.

Mr. Gonzalez also published a textbook, through Cambridge University
Press, that is being used by other faculty members in the
department. Mr. Gonzalez cites that book as evidence that "teaching
is not an issue" in his tenure case.

Mr. Gonzalez said that none of his scientific publications mention
intelligent design, aside from The Privileged Planet. He co-wrote
the book with a $58,000 grant from the John Templeton Foundation,
which paid 25 percent of his salary for three years. The Templeton
Foundation, a philanthropy devoted to forging links between science
and religion, is perhaps best known for an annual $1.5-million prize
that is awarded "for progress toward research or discoveries about
spiritual realities."

"Iowa was, in a way, endorsing the project through administering the
grant," Mr. Gonzalez said. His book carries publicity blurbs from
Owen Gingerich, a noted astronomer at Harvard University, and Simon
Conway Morris, an influential paleontologist at the University of
Cambridge.

The department's promotion and tenure guidelines do not explicitly
list external financial support as a requirement for tenure, he
said. But Iowa's Mr. McCarroll said that the tenure-review process
does consider how many research grants scientists have rec
eived.
Mr. Gonzalez said he is not deterred. "I'm convinced I've satisfied
the departmental requirements for tenure," he said. He has not
planned out what his next move will be, should his appeal fail

"I'm so sorry Mr. Newton but that work you did on gravitational attraction and the mathematical innovations were all performed before you applied for tenure and the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics chairmanship is simply out of the question." - Kevin Vicklund would be EE and power factor expert.

I am so impressed with Kevin, Power Factor, Vicklund, recent EE student at some vo-tech diploma mill, that I have arranged for him to get a job with our local public utility carrying their watt meter around when they do power factor work at the local rod mill.

I wonder if being a paid shill for the evolanders is as lucrative as say being a Vegas pimp on the strip.

The email evidence alone which was not permitted at the hearing will be enough to sink ISU in a civil trial.

Can you give me your definition of what a “baramin” is and how you determine what critter goes in which baramin? Thanks!

— Wolfhound

I think it's the fact that most evolanders are rather narrow in their intellectual pursuits and the fact that I have a near encyclopedic depth across a wide spectrum of technical, cultural, and historical subjects such that the opportunity to be enlightened is overwhelming.

It's ok if anyone wants to refer to me as the PT Renaissance Renegade, adulation is something I'm used to.

I'm still curious about that monarch butterfly paper that the Stanford people wrote and the evolanders cited. Now how was it that RM and NS worked on the two intermediate stages where the stages had no sex organs, couldn't reproduce, and therefore had no offspring. Guess that's why they borrowed our term, "de novo".

I think its also called the hop , skip , and jump hypothesis that Kevin, BobC, and Nigel developed at summer camp on Fire Island last year.

I can’t figure out this “magic” that Keith has, that all the other anti-evolutionists/trolls lack, that makes so many people want to ask him - but almost none of the others - the simple questions that anti-evolutionists/trolls love to evade.

Keith,

I'll be more than happy to answer your questions. Of course you know exaclty when that is going to happen don't you. Just ask Nigel. Until then, why don't you just Gish gallop your self-inflated ego somewhere else.

Even if anyone here were at all convinced by your arguments to stop worshiping Saint Darwin, your example of Christian brotherly love has made it mush more likely that they would turn into Satan worshipers.

I wonder if it is because he comes across as more literate than most so people feel that he might be capable of a rational answer? Personally, I got the impression from his first comment that he is off his trolley and there is no point in responding.

— Richard Simons

Jackelope King: Since you seem to be interested in academic freedom and open discussion, do you agree or disagree with the Texas Education Agency's politically-motivated attacks against and firing of Christine Comer? If you're not familiar with the specifics, you can find a fair summary of it in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html When can we expect you to cry foul on Christine Comer's behalf?

Keith Eaton said:

I think it’s the fact that most evolanders are rather narrow in their intellectual pursuits and the fact that I have a near encyclopedic depth across a wide spectrum of technical, cultural, and historical subjects such that the opportunity to be enlightened is overwhelming.

It’s ok if anyone wants to refer to me as the PT Renaissance Renegade, adulation is something I’m used to.

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you're so smart, then why can't you spell?

BTW, out of those 21 papers since 2002, Gonzales was first author on 3. That's pretty piss-poor.

Keith Eaton parroted thusly: ...this still remains hypothetical until such proposed evolutionary pathways can be demonstrated in real time.

I think it’s the fact that most evolanders are rather narrow in their intellectual pursuits and the fact that I have a near encyclopedic depth across a wide spectrum of technical, cultural, and historical subjects such that the opportunity to be enlightened is overwhelming.

Bill Gascoyne wrote: Dear Lord, this bozo is laying it on so thick he's gotta be racking up loki points out the wazoo!

KE sez: "It’s ok if anyone wants to refer to me as the PT Renaissance Renegade, adulation is something I’m used to."

LOL! Good luck with that.

Hey have you every heard about the "pride preceding a fall" theory? Lots of evidence for it. But alas, the smug glow of self-congratulation--it gives you such a warm feeling inside.

Unfortunately, Keith IS an effective troll. He knows how to push our buttons. If he leaves every time with an accusation that we don't answer, it looks like we can't answer it and that it must be true. If we answer him he just does the same again. If we ban him he can claim expulsion (thanks, DI, you childish wankers, for that trick).

Just send him to the Bathroom Wall until he's prepared to communicate properly. No one is on his side anyway.

That’s why it’s so perplexing to me; I doubt that anyone thinks that Keith is “more literate,” “more capable of a rational answer” or “less off his trolley” than the average anti-evolutionist/troll, let alone than the truly literate and articulate ones like, e.g. Sean Pitman. Yet Sean (semi-regular on Talk Origins if not here) is routinely let off the hook. And critics constantly take his bait and keep the debate on his terms - i.e. defending evolution in such detail that it constantly provides him with quotes to mine, terms to redefine, and concepts to bait-and-switch.

VM said: "Unfortunately, Keith IS an effective troll."

I think it's more like having a bug in a jar.

"Mom, can we keep him?" "Yes, but poke some holes in the lid so he can get some air."

hje: VM said: "Unfortunately, Keith IS an effective troll." I think it's more like having a bug in a jar. "Mom, can we keep him?" "Yes, but poke some holes in the lid so he can get some air."

It also brings to mind a song by the Offspring:

"You know it‘s kind of hard
Just to get along today
Our subject isn‘t cool
But he fakes it anyway
He may not have a clue
And he may not have style
But everything he lacks
Well he makes up in denial."

"So don‘t debate, a player straight
You know he really doesn‘t get it anyway
He‘s gonna play the field, and keep it real
For you no way, for you no way
So if you don‘t rate, just overcompensate
At least you‘ll know you can always go on Ricki Lake
The world needs wannabe‘s
So do that brand new thing."

I bet he is pretty fly for a white guy.

I think it’s the fact that most evolanders are rather narrow in their intellectual pursuits and the fact that I have a near encyclopedic depth across a wide spectrum of technical, cultural, and historical subjects such that the opportunity to be enlightened is overwhelming.

— Keith Eaton

Let's see I have asked now about 27 times for an evolutionary explanation of the metamorphosis of the monarch, read your cited seminal 1999 Stanford paper, noted its de novo explanations, provided a view of ID compatible with my own, noted the physical, logical and rational barrier between micro and macro evolution as prohibitive neutral gaps (the random search across a dozen such mutations would require a trillion or more years of generations) thus it never happened and now will review the Texas case and comment below.

So either your team can't read, is stalling for time or expulsion, and can't provide an answer to a question requiring, say long division.

Having been associated with two of the largest civil suites in US history, schooled by the best lawyers around, opposed in deposition similarly, I can assure ISU is up the creek without a paddle...seriously. Their only hope is to get a summary judgment and avoid a jury trial of his peers. The odds of a jury trial on one of the several issues sure to be in the petition are greatly in his favor. The ISU stonewalling reminds me of Nixon's team and we all know how that came out (emails vs tape gaps, same thing).

It appears Ms. Comer violated the Texas State Policy concerning use of the State email and internet access and usage policy which is congruent with those replete in the public sector. Succinctly, these policies prohibit an employee from accessing the internet or the organization net for purposes not consistent with their work assignment, promoting a personal view, acting as an advocate for a petitioners position where such advocacy is in conflict with stated policy.

Usually such actions are grounds for dismissal, probation, or reprimand at the organization's discretion.

The fact that several related transgressions of policy had proceeded the instant issue means she had likely been warned, possibly disciplined in times prior, and was well aware of the policy and chose to ignore it.

I am unaware of her exercising the appeal of such state actions, but rather chose to resign.

She of course can file a civil suit but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Any parallel with the ISU issue is completely illusory.

Really, why is Panda's Thumb obligated to tolerate destructive trolls such as Keith Eaton, FL or PoleGreaser? All of these individuals have made it crystal clear that they have absolutely no intention of making any positive contribution, and they have elucidated, repeatedly, that their goals here revolve around spreading malicious misinformation and promoting ill will in the alleged name of Jesus Christ. They are not here as a clique of ambassadors from "the other side." With their abominable social skills, the only two forms of dialogs they are physically capable of participating in are lying and insults.

I can not see why banning someone because they are completely physically incapable of interacting with other people in a polite, civilized manner should be considered a stigma.

hje: It also brings to mind a song by the Offspring: "You know it‘s kind of hard Just to get along today Our subject isn‘t cool But he fakes it anyway He may not have a clue And he may not have style But everything he lacks Well he makes up in denial." "So don‘t debate, a player straight You know he really doesn‘t get it anyway He‘s gonna play the field, and keep it real For you no way, for you no way So if you don‘t rate, just overcompensate At least you‘ll know you can always go on Ricki Lake The world needs wannabe‘s So do that brand new thing." I bet he is pretty fly for a white guy.

It looks like Keith has been doing his shtick for a while.

You have already noticed that he will answer no questions. That is part of the tactic.

— Mike Elzonga

In fairness I should say "why almost only him?" On the "Wistar" thread, I'm not the only one bugging Paul Nelson, one of the few actual DI fellows who stop by here on occasion. One of my questions was whether he is a true YEC - as most people assume - or an Omphalos Creationist, as was suggested in another comment.

No answer of course, but we're still waiting for his answer to a question about "Ontogenetic Depth" that was asked in 2004.

Seeing the question about Christine Comer above, it occurred to me just last week that I haven't seen any questioning of the DI about their double standard of defending Gonzalez and ignoring Comer. Surely they have a typical DI "apples and oranges" cop-out, but I'm more perplexed by how poorly they are being held accountable in the first place than the double standard we expect from them.

Oy,

Mike, I owe you another apology for the misspelling. At least I didn't call you Mark Hausam.

Eaton: Common decent within holobaramin or kind is true by observation and untrue otherwise.

Keith being delusional: I think it’s the fact that most evolanders are rather narrow in their intellectual pursuits and the fact that I have a near encyclopedic depth across a wide spectrum of technical, cultural, and historical subjects such that the opportunity to be enlightened is overwhelming.

So, as in any reasonable discussion when a group refuses to respond to your answers and of course your questions, one simply assumes that the ensuing white noise is disguised intellectual surrender. In which case I accept, although I would have preferred at least a re joiner.

Regarding SLOT, it definitively guarantees a finite life and beginning to the universe as acknowledged by Hawking, Penrose and other prominent physicists and cosmologists.

Evolanders make the freshman mistake of saying that the 2nd law only applies to closed systems, which is dead wrong, and then compound their stupidity by saying the fact that the Sun's energy makes the biosphere an open system. Their poor understanding of certain basic definitions is embarrassing.

First open and closed in thermodynamics refers to whether or not MASS is transferred from the surroundings exterior to an arbitrary boundary across the boundary into the system being analyzed (open) or no mass is transferred (closed).

Energy can be transferred into any system from the surroundings or another system unless it is an ISOLATED system.

See Page 3 chapter one of the book Thermodynamics by Lay , Merrill 1963 among perhaps 100 confirming alternate sources.

Further, evolutionary biological processes operate uphill often against the free energy arrow of the required reactions because they are given activation energy through ATP, enzymatic catalysts, etc. all of which require energy conversion mechanisms of sufficient complexity to cause them to be defined away by hand waving as in abiogenesis. Try getting a straight answer on just how photosynthesis came into function by natural means such being critical to perhaps 99 percent of all life on earth. It is indeed the conversion mechanism for the oft mentioned sun’s energy in so called (open) systems.

For the animal kingdom metabolism is the conversion mechanism of course being again complex.

The only neg entropy seen is via the financing of same through rectified energy not raw sun energy and such rectification via complex unexplained mechanisms.

I can assure you a rose plucked from the earth and laid in the bright sunshine is absolutely dead and the sun will do nothing more than make it HOT.

As regards abiogenesis the 2nd law and entropy are barriers of some enormity because no conversion mechanism existed. Thus even the formation of polymers from biomers will not spontaneously occur because the free energy is against it. And if spurted into form by properly rectified energy will quickly disassociate, unless energy is continually provided, back to equilibrium. All of the requisite reactions are highly reversible and tend always to the disassociated state and equilibrium particularly in water, free oxygen, and of course ultraviolet energy.

The correct term for biological systems is neither open nor closed but rather controlled volume flow-through systems permitting both energy and mass to enter the system. The energy conversion/rectification mechanisms of photosynthesis and metabolism are absolutely critical to the neg-entropy processes seen in biological life on a local frame.

It would be of some value to add a few advanced math, physics, chemistry and thermo classes to the nations undergrad biology degree programs and thus avoid such embarrassing expositions as appear on the subject from time to time.

The unresolvable issue of stereo specificity in amino acids of life and proteins of life is of course a slot related issue in that it is the identical configurational entropy status of the levo dextro forms that result in statistical 50/50 racemic mixtures of the aminos in every pre-biotic effort.

Of course if one adds genetic information (l-brucine) via say some deadly nightshade molecules then one can chemically separate the forms by weight and centrifuge for, I believe alanine... of course the l-brucine rna and dna was required for the experiment.

I say take Raven's advice, but don't abandon the questions. Just use them on others who pretend to have "the" alternative to "Darwinism."

Keith Eaton said:

So, as in any reasonable discussion when a group refuses to respond to your answers and of course your questions, one simply assumes that the ensuing white noise is disguised intellectual surrender. In which case I accept, although I would have preferred at least a re joiner.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Can you say "projection"? I knew you could!

Oh yes, I'll be glad to give you a "re joiner", genius, if you'll tell me what a "re joiner" is.

What a maroooon.

As I mentioned in another thread, KeithE has been on this since the mid 90’s. I strongly doubt he’s a parody because of the amount of time devoted. Completely unchanged modus operandi, employed for the reasons Elzinga laid out above.

Oy, Mike, I owe you another apology for the misspelling. At least I didn’t call you Mark Hausam.

Call me when PT decides to stop being Keith Eaton's personal bulletin board. I'll be over at Pharyngula where trolls don't get to take over whole threads with angry, incoherent religious screeds.

Instead you should try to get him going on the SLoT. Ensuing hilarity guaranteed.

Keith Eaton in one sentence:

"I can pose questions for which science either lacks answers, or has answers beyond my ability to comprehend, therefore I get to make shit up and pretend I've been impressive."

He reminds me of the grown man in that ad who puts together a baby's toy and does an end-zone dance afterward.

Keith Eaton: I can assure you a rose plucked from the earth and laid in the bright sunshine is absolutely dead and the sun will do nothing more than make it HOT.

I only traipse into SLOT and thermo from the point of view of someone classically trained both from the engineering perspective and the physics side, statistical mechanics, etc. Note, I did not object to the entropy being locally decreased at the expense of coupled energy being fed continuously into the processes under consideration since the entropy of the arbitraty system and the surroundings is increased in net.

I just observe that evolanders don't even comprehend the nomenclature of systems defintions when they attempt to make their arguments and of course have no concept of the insurrmoutable SLOT problems tied to origins and abiogenesis.

I only meant to give a little free lecture and inform you so that if the subject comes up again in the future somewhere on the net you would not continue to bark out the evolander nonsense definitions. Some people don't even appreciate intellectual charity when its given to them!!!!!!!!!!

If I were you I would leave this aspect of the issue alone as well and go drink a little cool-aid in my foil hat.

With you people I sort of think of the guy who attempts to put the child's toy together and having failed , hides in the closet with a bottle of cheap gin.

I gotta go to dinner now and my arm is tired from giving out lashes to wimpering have-nots at this point.

Stacy , read the posts even if they don't reference your name. I assure my opinion of your intellect is immutable at this point so don't get concerned about name recognition...though I understand your team lives off small elements of recognition.

I am concerned about why large horned animals are so attracted to you, but let's let that slide.

Now Keith resorts to faking his credentials, and he can't even do that convincingly. Another shibboleth.

Maybe you're right Keith. Maybe I'm not that smart. Maybe I need you to answer the questions simply, so that a simple minded person like me can understand your answers! Can you do that for me please? I've been waiting so long?

No feedin', no "Eaton". 'Nuff said?

I just feel so chagrined about my inadequate posts and all those captivating responses are so devastating......there's nothing so powerful as 'I could, but I wont', 'I don't have the time', 'its not worth responding'...etc.

Have you tried blank posts in response...I would be absolutely devastated by that and in character as well.

The collective wisdom is just deafening...or is it absolute silence.

It’s called the rule of best evidence

The general rule is that secondary evidence, such as a copy or facsimile, will be not admissible if an original document is available.

and its been used by philosophers, scientists, lawyers, and all of us intellectuals for several hundred years. [My emphasis.]

I won’t bother to inform him what is wrong with his argument. I would rather it remain a shibboleth. But it is funny.

Oh, and if anyone not accustomed to thermodynamics is surprised because we laugh at the new house troll, even an encyclopedia has the right description.

Wonder why the troll hasn't?

Oh, right, creationism is a scam based on its general members ignorance.

Stanton wrote: "The inerrant Bible also states that hyraxes (or hares, if you believe that the King James’ Bible is the one true voice of God) chew cud, that wheat seeds die prior to sprouting, that the mustard plant produces the smallest seed (even though orchid seeds are far smaller), that bats are birds."

Silly man.

Everyone knows that bats are bugs -- the biggest bugs in the world (Calvin, 1989).

Reference:
http://www.s-anand.net/calvin_89.html [start at ch891027.]

Keith Eaton: I can assure you a rose plucked from the earth and laid in the bright sunshine is absolutely dead and the sun will do nothing more than make it HOT.

I say we create a bot that auto-responds to KE's nonsense--then we all split and abandon him to this thread forever. He really gets off on this form of mental masturbation, so let him knock himself out.

Or just send his comments to /dev/null.

Wonder why the troll hasn’t?

"This current one seems have been (or is) associated in some way with Oklahoma City Community College; hardly a working scientist or recognized “intellectual” in any sense."

There is a Keith Eaton associated at some time with OCCC that is described as a "Workforce Development Consultant." May or may not be the same as the guy posting here. But there is one person who can certainly confirm or deny this.

I do note that many of KE's lame insults revolve around money and career choices. Things that make you go hmmm.

Maybe after the “Big Tent” collapsed, the mental cases escaped and are on a rampage.

— Mike Elzinga

Only an evolander believes that you can grow roses by pulling them from the ground and laying them on an asphalt parking lot.

The wikipedia article supports everything I said 100%" regarding SLOT, precisely the opposite of the rhetoric of the thermo illiterates that populate these sites. YOu can't even get the definitions right.

My recommendation to academia stands.

"My recommendation to academia stands."

Something tells me you'd be in favor of doing to academics what Pol Pot did to academics (or even people who wore glasses).

There is a Keith Eaton associated at some time with OCCC that is described as a “Workforce Development Consultant.”

So either your team can’t read, is stalling for time or expulsion, and can’t provide an answer to a question requiring, say long division.

— Keith Eaton demonstrating stupendous hypocrisy

I’d like to believe the encouraging words from you, Lenny Flank and a few others, but the only place I see the tent collapsed is in the courts. People on the street are still parroting sound bites like “the jury’s still out.” Unless there have been some drastic changes in the past year, at least one poll suggests that the big tent strategy has greatly increased those in the “I don’t know” camp.

hje: ""This current one seems have been (or is) associated in some way with Oklahoma City Community College..." There is a Keith Eaton associated at some time with OCCC that is described as a "Workforce Development Consultant." May or may not be the same as the guy posting here. But there is one person who can certainly confirm or deny this."

I am a retired person from two companies in the Fortune 500 and also from the Okla Higher Ed where I indeed spent six years at OCCC... no longer working for anyone.

What that has to do with this post site I have no idea..but, if you interrogate private personnel records, by any method, from any former employer, through any agent.. my attorney and the EEOC will be most interested. Anyone can be traced and IDed if one has the means, I assure you.

This sort of thing is prima facia evidence for why the Expelled movie is right on the money...your seeking some leverage through a former employer to threaten me. Unfortunately for you, I am absolutely untouchable by the Evolander mafia by any legitimate and lawful methods.

What is wrong with you people...absolutely psychotic!

I am detecting an undercurrent of backlash against the political influence of the religious fanatics. Hopefully it will be a big factor in the upcoming election (if the corruption of the religious wrong hasn’t already rigged it).

— Mike Elzinga

It's called the Freedom of Information Act Keith - "The hippies got smething right. " There are measures that actually intelligent people can do to prevent their personal information from being accessed. I could help you, but I'm not gonna 'cuz' you never answered the questions.

middle name - Ray? perhaps?

Stacy,

I answered your questions and you chose to ingore the answers, but I urge you people to go for it and I intend to monitor the situation closely, I have many friends at each of my former workplaces...it won't be any surprise.

Anyway this entire episode and the now archived posts are already an establishment of intent to threaten, intimidate, and illegally seek private information... a long distance phone call is hardly a legal filing of any kind.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/

"The FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies."

Looks like maybe you were one of those hippies, except you know less about the law than you do actual science.... a real stretch of the imagination.

Oh! I once got a speeding ticket on the Golden State Freeway in L.A. , about 1968.... you can use that.

LOLOLOL!!! LMFAO!!!

I only traipse into SLOT and thermo from the point of view of someone classically trained both from the engineering perspective and the physics side, statistical mechanics, etc.

As long as we have pseudoscientific snake oil salesman peddling everything from astrology, to alternative this, to all-natural that, and a public that is both unreasonably suspicious of science and uncritical of any sound bite that pushes their buttons, some form of anti-evolution activism will have a market. I think we have discussed this before, but as usual, I write mainly to the lurkers.

Mike Elzinga: When followers of these movements start quoting their leaders without comprehension, they look like fools. They may be angry that they are being discriminated against, but that comes with being a con artist of any kind. I don’t feel sorry for fakes, and no amount of whining on their part can justify leniency for their crimes. And being a “religious” criminal or fool is no excuse either. Jesus may have forgiven prostitutes and thieves, but he didn’t let them hijack his ministry either.

OT - Has anyone here EVER heard me claim that I know anything about science or the law? ... hmmmmm ... I think I have demonstrated that I know how to use search engines.

That being said, how can G. Gonzalez claim “religious discrimination” if the reason why he was rejected in the first place was because he demonstrates that he clearly lacks the drive to do anything scientifically notable? What religion did Gonzalez join that allows him to be a scientist, but forbids him from doing actual science?

What state licenses their engineers with cereal box-top from Wheaties and five dollars... other than yours?

Every cubic nanometer of the entire universe is under the SLOT without exception because all of it is part of an isolated system called the universe. Arbitrary boundaries can and are drawn for problem solving purposes where the effects on the surroundings are inconsequential to the processes under analysis. No one thinks much about the sun when their designing a hydro-cracker or a heat exchanger, but you can damn well bet they understand that efficiencies are capped by SLOT considerations. Heat pumps don't work very well when the outside temperature falls below about 20 degrees F.

If you think the earth's being an open, not isolated system exempts it from SLOT then you are a moron.

Does heat flow from a cold body to a hot one spontaneously on the "surface of the earth"? No other law of thermo 1st or 3rd prohibits it , only slot.

Can anyone including you super genius design a ship that extracts heat energy from the ocean and use it to propel said ship across the ocean? The sun sure has an effect on the temperature with all that free radiant energy.

Where is your patent on a perpetual motion machine that works on the "surface of the earth" ...being exempt from SLOT?

Since you apparently can't read for understanding I repeat the on-going processes and reactions of life do operate against free energy hills via energy flows from food to energy via metabolism or photosynthetic conversion of sunlight to chemical energy in molecules. The issue is of course how did these conversion mechanisms come to be naturally since no methods could have been available to make raw energy usable.

The macro-molecule polymerization of DNA, RNA, and enzymes from amino acids will never occur spontaneously in pre-biotic conditions because the free energy of the reactions is toward disassociation and equilibrium unless sustained by the steady inflow of additional reactants and a usable form of energy for activation greater than the free energy barrier. Beyond that even the energy financed reactions will never produce other than a racemic mixture of levo and dextro forms of the amino acid molecules, useless to the molecules of life which are optically pure.

http://www.secondlaw.com/

"Every organic chemical of the 30,000 or more different kinds in our bodies that are synthesized by non-spontaneous reactions within us is metastable. All are only kept from instant oxidation in air by activation energies. (The loss or even the radical decrease of just a few essential chemicals could mean death for us.)
Living creatures are essentially energy processing systems that cannot function unless a multitude of "molecular machines", biochemical cycles, operate synchronously in using energy to oppose second law predictions. All of the thousands of biochemical systems that run our bodies are maintained and regulated by feedback subsystems, many composed of complex substances.
Most of the compounds in the feedback systems are also synthesized internally by thermodynamically non-spontaneous reactions, effected by utilizing energy ultimately transferred from the metabolism (slow oxidation) of food.
When these feedback subsystems fail -- due to inadequate energy inflow,
malfunction from critical errors in synthesis, the presence of toxins or
competing agents such as bacteria or viruses -- dysfunction, illness, or death results: energy can no longer be processed to carry out the many reactions we need for life that are contrary to the direction predicted by the second law."

Since you apparently can’t read for understanding I repeat the on-going processes and reactions of life do operate against free energy hills via energy flows from food to energy via metabolism or photosynthetic conversion of sunlight to chemical energy in molecules. The issue is of course how did these conversion mechanisms come to be naturally since no methods could have been available to make raw energy usable.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/isu_department_faculty_acknowl.html

Boy I'd hate to be the ISU lawyer on this deal.

It is worth pointing out that in early 2004 Gonzalez's department nominated him for an "Early Achievement in Research" award for an outstanding record in research. So what changed between 2004 and 2006 when Gonzalez submitted his tenure application? Well, 2004 was the year The Privileged Planet was published. Dr. Gonzalez continued to publish peer-reviewed journal articles, and even co-authored the Cambridge University Press textbook in 2006, but his department seems to have soured on him just as the controversy over intelligent design heated up on the ISU campus and around the nation. Coincidence... or design?

Maybe after the “Big Tent” collapsed, the mental cases escaped and are on a rampage.

there is something crucial missing in that article that all ID/Creationists don’t understand, and it is the thing that keeps the ID/Creationist crowd off balance when they use this argument.

middle name - Ray? perhaps?

— Stacy S.

Here it is; the major misconception that flunks all ID/Creationists.

The wikipedia article supports everything I said 100%” regarding SLOT

@Frank - No,reference to Mr. Martinez, I'm afraid. Just Mr. K.E.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: Oh dear, I will never get how to speak "creationish".

Hmm, you got me. Hopefully it is because I don’t think well in “creationish”.

Gotta admit, though, the clown is good at baiting. Might even call him a master... heh heh.

What state licenses their engineers with cereal box-top from Wheaties and five dollars… other than yours?

Can anyone including you super genius design a ship that extracts heat energy from the ocean and use it to propel said ship across the ocean?

stevaroni: Keith, since you're obviously of an experimental I'd point out that you could easily investigate whether living creatures like you really do defy the 2LOT?

All you have to do is put yourself into a sealed 55 gallon drum in the back of a cool closet - thereby turning you into a closed system by cutting you off from all external sources of chemical energy – for, say, a week.

Why is it that Creationists think that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics forbids evolution to occur, and yet, simultaneously allow reproduction and growth to occur?

Well Keith Eaton said the first thing that I agree with--he does have a right to his privacy. It is very bad form to put someone's telephone number and address on a blog. The conservative blogger Michelle Malkin did something like that last year and I found it equally irresponsible.

Keith's statement above verifies what a simple Google search easily finds on the public web site of a college--thank you KE for being more forthcoming. But having said that, I also think you have a *responsibility* to establish your credentials in regards to science, especially when you recklessly malign the credentials of others. You can't have it both ways.

Keith Eaton: Can anyone including you super genius design a ship that extracts heat energy from the ocean and use it to propel said ship across the ocean? The sun sure has an effect on the temperature with all that free radiant energy.

It is very bad form to put someone’s telephone number and address on a blog.

Evolander responses:

I could provide the argument to refute you, but it's too much trouble.

I saw your specific answers and I choose to ignore them because
they illustrate the inadequences of our dogma.

It's much easier to gather my pack of self-congratulatory mates and together reassure ourselves of our supreme posiution in the universe.

PT - A support group for evolanders in crisis.

"It is worth pointing out that in early 2004 Gonzalez’s department nominated him for an “Early Achievement in Research” award for an outstanding record in research. So what changed between 2004 and 2006 when Gonzalez submitted his tenure application?"

Early achievement is not always a good indicator of long term success in academia (or guarantee of tenure). And the most critical time in building a case for tenure are the final years before a bid is made. Research universities are looking for publications in first-rate journals (originating from the primary investigator's work while at the university), success in graduating and placing students in good post-docs, and finally, establishing a pattern of getting money from the big funding agencies. Success in teaching is not a major criterion for receiving promotion and tenure at research universities, nor is outreach to the public through popular books and lectures. Another type of input evaluated by promotion and tenure committees are letters of evaluation written by faculty peers outside the university.

Why all the fuss about granting tenure? One big reason is that the university wants a return on its investment--having often invested from $100K upward in setting up a new faculty members lab. They expect to get that money back through indirect costs, and if they don't ... then there's usually trouble ahead.

Any one who has gone through the promotion and tenure process has to feel a little bad for Gonzalez, but it is my opinion that some individuals outside the university gave him very bad career advice. Whoever advised him to spend his time writing a popular book and submit it for tenure did him a disfavor. Carl Sagan did not make a career of writing popular science books until after he was tenured. One article in Icarus is worth ten Cosmic Connections.

Can anyone including you super genius design a ship that extracts heat energy from the ocean and use it to propel said ship across the ocean?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7234544.stm

I'm probably very wrong, but would this count?

Ahh bugger, Cronk got there first

I could provide the argument to refute you...

"Given this massive influx of energy, how can you classify the surface of the earth as a closed ( isolated / impermeable / sealed / independent / self-contained / self-sufficient / disassociated / disconnected / distinct / off in a secure, undisclosed location somewhere ) system, as required for application of the 2LOT?"

See red herrings and strawmen don't work. This proposition says slot doesn't apply to open systems like the surface of the earth. And every process on the earth whether biological or mechanical or petrochemical...anything and everthing is absolutely limited in its operation and efficiency by slot.

I have stated now twice that given the current processes available such as metabolism and photosynthesis and the intimate connection to the sun's energy that biological chemical and physical reactions and processes can indeed operate in a negentropy fashion at the expense of entropy increases in the surroundings of greater amount. Yet the intense intellectual dishonesty here keeps repeating the erroneous old saw. It remains unrefuted that SLOT applies everywhere on the surface of the earth and that no one has ever seen a process where it was not the limiting factor in operation and efficiency.

So the system defined by the hurricane rotation is an open system with the sun, space, earths surface, the ocean, and atmosphere (the elements necessary for a hurricane) being the surroundings that taken together form a closed system does not obey SLOT even though the energy supplied to feed and maintain a hurricane is much greater than the energy contained in the hurricane and the moment the energy is unavailable in sufficient quantities the hurricane dissipates into thunderstorms, etc. You don't have a clue.

Forming amino acids spontaneously as useless racemates has zip to do with polymerizing them into stereospecific forms called enzymes, RNA,and DNA with the critical optical purity required.

"Except for efficiency" which is controlled/limited by SLOT and thus no one has or will successfully drive a ship using purely the heat energy in the ocean.

Does the 1300 watts/sq m energy flux that operates all the time work at night?

DNA in a geologically closed fossil system and inside a fossilized dinosaur bone (as in bone marrow) is in what way the same as a batch of amino acids in a lab at room temperature exposed to free oxygen.

The last time I looked the human race and all living things are subject to slot over a sufficient lifetime and certainly reach equilibrium and rather complete disorder because the processes deteriorate over time. Thus slot governs direction, duration, efficiency, and possibility, even of the processes of life and never fails in the long run.

Well I guess we'll just stop using petrol or coal or nuclear power say in the Navy since the brains here know how to just move them off the sea's heat energy. Guffaw!!

Oh and could we also generate our on-shore electric power using the same oceanic heat sink and your magic process.

Wonder why all those engineers in the ship-building business haven't done that up to now and saved trillions in fuel costs.

I am ill from laighing at this level of ignorance.

Or maybe we can harness all the hurricans , those super complex , highly ordered systems, and put them on the grid as well.

Mike said: "If you go that site where the number was available, you will note that Keith supplied it to the website on which he was carrying on his diatribes there. What his purpose was in doing that is for him to explain."

While that may be true, still additional specific information like home address and phone number were posted on this blog. These ARE available in easily accessible databases on the web or in the other blog--that is indeed true, but re-posting that information in this context could be misconstrued as intimidation, even though I KNOW that the intent was to establish the credentials of a persistent and often belligerent critic.

However the incident where Malkin posted contact info for student protestors and then had her contact info posted on the web in retaliation--should serve as a cautionary tale. It is one thing to say so-and-so was a retired professor of business at college X, but it is quite another to say this is exactly where he lives and this is how to contact him by phone. I think most of us prize our privacy. I know I do. As they say, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog ; }

KE statement's made in the context of his work for OCCC seem completely reasonable and professional. But given some of the vitriol expressed here under his name, it was reasonable to wonder whether the poster was the same person or someone spoofing him. I really had the poster pegged as a high school or college student based on his lame insults and braggadocio. He's clarified that point now, which makes all of the comments even more surprising. I certainly hope I have better things to do when I retire.

Hey Keith, if you want to be a gentleman, you could apologize for that particularly nasty comment you made about Stacy (even though she can easily defend herself). That comment was not some general broadside aimed at PT contributors, it was very personally directed and completely uncalled for. It would be a good opportunity for you to demonstrate the credibility of your religious beliefs.

"Well I guess we’ll just stop using petrol or coal or nuclear power say in the Navy since the brains here know how to just move them off the sea’s heat energy. Guffaw!!"

Sigh. Plausibility does not necessarily mean practicability, for a warship, say.

Before you discount a idea, you should read up on it a little more. The Woods Hole site has a good overview: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=37008&ct=162

So if it works, as it apparently does, how then does it work? Explain it to us.

Every cubic nanometer of the entire universe is under the SLOT

but you can damn well bet they understand that efficiencies are capped by SLOT considerations

No other law of thermo 1st or 3rd prohibits it , only slot.

energy can no longer be processed to carry out the many reactions we need for life that are contrary to the direction predicted by the second law.

anything and everthing is absolutely limited in its operation and efficiency by slot.

It remains unrefuted that SLOT applies everywhere on the surface of the earth and that no one has ever seen a process where it was not the limiting factor in operation and efficiency.

The last time I looked the human race and all living things are subject to slot…

But given some of the vitriol expressed here under his name, it was reasonable to wonder whether the poster was the same person or someone spoofing him.

When it comes to you, don’t give it away.

Our troll is playing the game of “prick the ego of the evolutionist”.

The troll just wants validation

See red herrings and strawmen don’t work.

This proposition says slot doesn’t apply to open systems like the surface of the earth.

I have stated now twice that given the current processes available such as metabolism and photosynthesis and the intimate connection to the sun’s energy that biological chemical and physical reactions and processes can indeed operate in a negentropy fashion at the expense of entropy increases in the surroundings of greater amount.

Does the 1300 watts/sq m energy flux that operates all the time work at night?

but I believe a PT commenter once made a very thorough walk through of the ‘fisherman psychology’ of a troll. The longer it takes between reinforcing rewards (i.e. any response at all), the larger the reward will be. Meanwhile the troll will usually have increased the ranting to up the ante

the troll has now started to reject reversible reactions, which is a new one. At this rate, he will singlehandedly pull chemistry apart.

— Torbjörn Larsson, OM

Too late. I did that already. ;-)

Oh to be sure I believe in reversable reactions most in life processes are and they want very badly to reverse to their products.

I find it very telling that this team asks the question what stereo specificity has to do with the question...unbelievable.

A hurricane is proposed as a highly complex, highly ordered system that somehow relates to the formation of the stereo specific molecules of life from racemic mixtures of spontaneously formed amino acids. This too is very telling.

You can keep saying my only argument is that evolution can't occue, mutations can't occur, blah, blah, blaf because of SLOT. I have specifically said the opposite and explained why.

What I did say is that evolution can't even get started (abiogenesis) because of SLOT in the absense of photosynthersis, metabolism and anarobic respiration.

Anyway I have adequately documented the silliness of the earth is an open system bathed in the sun's energy and SLOT only operates where there is a closed system. The totally ignorant rant of the uninformed evolander.

According to the evolanders if a million people jump off the roof of their houses ( incompletely converting PE to KE ) that the ensuing increase in the entropy will permit, somewhere on earth, all the molecules of air in your den to occupy the upper half of the room. As long of course as the net entropy increases of course.

Is this level of ignorance truly representative of the evolander community?

Keith Eaton: What I did say is that evolution can't even get started (abiogenesis) because of SLOT in the absense of photosynthersis, metabolism and anarobic respiration.

I was going to point out the parallel between Keith's use of the word "evolander" and the certain country's right-wing loon chant of "Auslanders aus!" (foreigners out), but that would just be wrong. Good thing I didn't bring it up. I wonder where he stole it though, like all his other ideas.

There doesn't seem to be any thread or subject which Keith Eaton--and apparently PT--thinks is unfit for posting his endless off-topic diatribes against the supposed evils of evolution. While the patience here with his off-kilter commentarrhea is I guess commendable, it leaves little room for discussion of anything else.

May I suggest someone create a dedicated thread for Keith over at AtBC and invite him there (while uninviting him from here) to try to support his theses, while excusing him from his habitual derailments of PT threads? There are plenty of people over there who I think would be happy to take on Keith's arguments and evidence at length (assuming he can and will distill his vitriolic blather to such). Should he demonstrate protracted unwillingness to do that, he could be also uninvited from there, we could all go back to discussing the evolutionary science he hates so much, and he can go back to church or wherever it is that people find his anti-science contributions constructive.

Keith:
Why cells?

Why make something out of repeatable little building blocks rather than out of a single growing whole?

Why DNA? Why couldn't the knowledge just exist in the ether? Why this complicated, error-prone (look up genetic disorders in humans if you don't think it's error prone) mechanism that -if anything- prevents human perfection by encouraging variation?

Why us? Why not make us so special that we don't have organs or cells or anything like what's around us?

If the answer to all of these is something like "to test our faith" - then you've demonstrated a foregone conclusion is guiding your line of inquiry.

So is GG ggonna sue or not? I hope he does, I'd love to see the ID creationist movement lose yet again!

Keith Eaton: Evolander responses: I could provide the argument to refute you, but it's too much trouble. I saw your specific answers and I choose to ignore them because they illustrate the inadequences of our dogma. It's much easier to gather my pack of self-congratulatory mates and together reassure ourselves of our supreme posiution in the universe. PT - A support group for evolanders in crisis.

http://www.secondlaw.com

"Of course, this is the kind of coupled process (i.e., a spontaneous + a non-spontaneous) that nature uses – taking a tiny bit of sunlight energy and, with the aid of extremely complex processes in organisms like plants, changing lower-energy carbon dioxide and water and traces of minerals into thousands of higher-energy substances."

"We can take in concentrated energy in the form of oxygen plus food and use some of that energy unconsciously to synthesize "uphill" complex biochemicals and to run our bodies, consciously for mental and physical labor, excreting diffused energy as body heat and less concentrated energy substances."

"Similarly, we can effect millions of non-spontaneous reactions -- getting pure metals from ores, synthesizing curative drugs from simple compounds, altering DNA:"

" Every organic chemical of the 30,000 or more different kinds in our bodies that are synthesized by non-spontaneous reactions within us is metastable. All are only kept from instant oxidation in air by activation energies. (The loss or even the radical decrease of just a few essential chemicals could mean death for us.)"

"Most of the compounds in the feedback systems are also synthesized internally by thermodynamically non-spontaneous reactions, effected by utilizing energy ultimately transferred from the metabolism (slow oxidation) of food."

"When these feedback subsystems fail -- due to inadequate energy inflow,
malfunction from critical errors in synthesis, the presence of toxins or
competing agents such as bacteria or viruses -- dysfunction, illness, or death results: energy can no longer be processed to carry out the many reactions we need for life that are contrary to the direction predicted by the second law."

"However, we must always be aware that the most sensational downhill spreading out of solar energy (entropy increase) is the small fraction that is coupled with the uphill process of photosynthesis. Our whole lives -- almost all life totally depends on that capture of solar energy as it disperses."

Since everything this guy says is in agreement with me and dead set in opposition to the quasi-illiterate screeds the evolanders post, I think it only appropriate that you people compose a form letter sort of post acknowledging the compassion and charity I have illustrated by providing a succinct overview of SLOT writ large thus preventing your future embarrassment occasioned by continuing to spout absolute nonsense on the subject of SLOT. I think in fairness each each one should post it to me for the record. I don't have any specific wording in mind but the correct spelling of 'magnanimous' would be appreciated.

Of course one can assume Dr. Lambert will now be put on the evolander hit list, maybe calling Occidental to see if they will disclose his personal information, filing a FOI request and writing lots of ad hominem posts about him not being a biologist.

I just noticed a waterspout in my pool so while it lasts I think I'll turn off my house lights and let the spout power my house for a few minutes and save a few mills on my utility bill. LOL!!

I only traipse into SLOT and thermo from the point of view of someone classically trained both from the engineering perspective and the physics side, statistical mechanics, etc.

What I did say is that evolution can’t even get started (abiogenesis) because of SLOT

Anyway I have adequately documented the silliness of the earth is an open system bathed in the sun’s energy and SLOT only operates where there is a closed system.

According to the evolanders if a million people jump off the roof of their houses ( incompletely converting PE to KE ) that the ensuing increase in the entropy will permit, somewhere on earth, all the molecules of air in your den to occupy the upper half of the room.

While the patience here with his off-kilter commentarrhea is I guess commendable, it leaves little room for discussion of anything else.

[Prepares coffee cup - this could take a fresh brain. The problem I face is compounded by that it is so much basic science the troll doesn’t get, which simultaneously is standard creationish. Like almost everything.]

I find it very telling that this team asks the question what stereo specificity has to do with the question…unbelievable.

Seems to be an appropriate place to leave another plug for the provocative book

Into the Cool

which if more had read, would raise the level of the discussion of thermodynamics and life. IMHO.

Keith Eaton: http://www.secondlaw.com "...energy can no longer be processed to carry out the many reactions we need for life that are contrary to the direction predicted by the second law.” everything this guy says is in agreement with me one can assume Dr. Lambert will now be put on the evolander hit list

Keith Eaton: since the brains here know how to just move them off the sea’s heat energy. Guffaw!! And could we also generate our on-shore electric power using the same oceanic heat sink and your magic process?

stevaroni: can anyone out there in genetics tell me what “optical purity” has to do with this?

• Vajda T, Hollósi M. Protein Pept Lett. 2007;14(9):854-8. Freezing Effect on Chirality Generation of DL-Alanine-N-Carboxy-Anhydride Oligomerization in Aqueous Solution. • Yang P, Xu R, Nanita SC, Cooks RG. J Am Chem Soc. 2006 Dec 27;128(51):17074-86. Thermal formation of homochiral serine clusters and implications for the origin of homochirality. • Root-Bernstein R. Bioessays. 2007 Jul;29(7):689-98. Simultaneous origin of homochirality, the genetic code and its directionality. • Nanda V, Andrianarijaona A, Narayanan C. Protein Sci. 2007 Jun 28; Epub The role of protein homochirality in shaping the energy landscape of folding. • Deamer DW, Dick R, Thiemann W, Shinitzky M. Chirality. 2007 Jun 27; Epub Intrinsic asymmetries of amino acid enantiomers and their peptides: A possible role in the origin of biochirality. • Plasson R, Kondepudi DK, Bersini H, Commeyras A, Asakura K. Chirality. 2007 Jun 8; Epub Emergence of homochirality in far-from-equilibrium systems: Mechanisms and role in prebiotic chemistry. • Cristobal Viedma Astrobiology. Apr 2007, Vol. 7, No. 2 : 312 -319 Chiral Symmetry Breaking and Complete Chiral Purity by Thermodynamic- Kinetic Feedback Near Equilibrium: Implications for the Origin of Biochirality • Nery JG, Eliash R, Bolbach G, Weissbuch I, Lahav M. Chirality. 2007 Mar 12; Epub Homochiral oligopeptides via surface recognition and enantiomeric cross impediment in the polymerization of racemic phenylalanine N-carboxyanhydride crystals suspended in water. • Han D, Chen W, Han B, Zhao Y. Sci China C Life Sci. 2007 Oct;50(5):580-6. A new theoretical model for the origin of amino acid homochirality • Cataldo F, Brucato JR, Keheyan Y. Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2006 Nov 28; Epub Gamma-Radiation Induced Polymerization of a Chiral Monomer: A New Way to Produce Chiral Amplification. • Gleiser M, Thorarinson J. Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2006 Nov 22; Epub Prebiotic Homochirality as a Critical Phenomenon. • Dmitriev A, Spillmann H, Stepanow S, Strunskus T, Woll C, Seitsonen AP, Lingenfelder M, Lin N, Barth JV, Kern K. Chemphyschem. 2006 Sep 6; Epub Asymmetry Induction by Cooperative Intermolecular Hydrogen Bonds in Surface-Anchored Layers of Achiral Molecules. • Klussmann M, Iwamura H, Mathew SP, Wells DH Jr, Pandya U, Armstrong A, Blackmond DG. Nature. 2006 Jun 1;441(7093):621-3. Thermodynamic control of asymmetric amplification in amino acid catalysis. • Thirumoorthy K, Nandi N. J Phys Chem B Condens Matter Mater Surf Interfaces Biophys. 2006 May 4;110(17):8840-9. Comparison of the intermolecular energy surfaces of amino acids: orientation-dependent chiral discrimination. (The study, for the first time, reveals clear homochiral preference of alanine pairs without use of parameters, which was unobserved in previous detailed simulations but predicted by theory.) • Brandenburg A, Andersen AC, Hofner S, Nilsson M. Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2005 Jun;35(3):225-41. Homochiral growth through enantiomeric cross-inhibition. • Meierhenrich UJ, Thiemann WH.Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2004 Feb;34(1-2):111-21. Photochemical concepts on the origin of biomolecular asymmetry. • Gridnev ID, Serafimov JM, Quiney H, Brown JM. Org Biomol Chem. 2003 Nov 7;1(21):3811-9. Reflections on spontaneous asymmetric synthesis by amplifying autocatalysis. • Chen Q, Richardson NV. Nat Mater. 2003 May;2(5):324-8. Enantiomeric interactions between nucleic acid bases and amino acids on solid surfaces. • Durand DJ, Kondepudi DK, Moreira PF Jr, Quina FH. Chirality. 2002 May 5;14(4):284-7. Generation of molecular chiral asymmetry through stirred crystallization. • Cintas P. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2002 Apr 2;41(7):1139-45. Chirality of living systems: a helping hand from crystals and oligopeptides. • Cristobal Viedma Orig Life Evol Biosph. 31 (6): 501-509, December 2001 Enantiomeric Crystallization from DL-Aspartic and DL-Glutamic Acids: Implications for Biomolecular Chirality in the Origin of Life • Saghatelian, A., Yokobayashi, Y., Soltani, K., & Ghadiri, M. R. Nature 409, 797 - 801 (2001). A chiroselective peptide replicator. (This cited by PvM in a previous Keith thread, to no avail) • Hodyss R, Julian RR, Beauchamp JL. Chirality. 2001;13(10):703-6. Spontaneous chiral separation in noncovalent molecular clusters. • Pontes-Buarque M, Tessis AC, Bonapace JA, Monte MB, Souza-Barros FD, Vieyra A., An Acad Bras Cienc. 2000 Sep;72(3):317-22. Surface charges and interfaces: implications for mineral roles in prebiotic chemistry • Welch CJ. Chirality 2001 Aug;13(8):425-7 Formation of highly enantioenriched microenvironments by stochastic sorting of conglomerate crystals: a plausible mechanism for generation of enantioenrichment on the prebiotic earth. • G. Palyi, C. Zucchi, L. Gaglioti Advances in BioChirality. 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. ISBN: 0 08 043404 5. • Radu Popa, Journal of Molecular Evolution V 44, N 2 February, 1997 A sequential scenario for the origin of biological chirality • Bolli M, Micura R, Eschenmoser A. Chem Biol. 1997 Apr;4(4):309-20. Pyranosyl-RNA: chiroselective self-assembly of base sequences by ligative oligomerization of tetranucleotide-2',3'-cyclophosphates (with a commentary concerning the origin of biomolecular homochirality). (Keith was presented this last many years ago)

Nature 419, ppp.346-7 (2002) Siegel J "In such cases of symmetry breaking in achiral mixtures, a small deviation from the achiral state is coupled to a process that is self-perpetuating and expotentially self-amplifying - that is, autocatalytic. Singleton and Vo were hoping to observe spontaneous achiral symmetry breaking for a reaction that occurs completely in homogeneous solution. "The authors were following up on the work of the Japanese chemist Kenso Soai, who reported an autocatalytic reaction in which a slight excess of one hand in the product suffices to direct any future product to that same handed form (5,6). ...in their reacting two achiral compounds and obtaining a chiral product they... deduced that chiral impurities in the reaction solvent - at the level of parts per billion and too small to be detected directly - were at the root of the phenomenon. Their results corroborate Soai's report of the effect of minor amounts of chiral additives in this reaction and emphasize the extreme sensitivity of the autocatalytic reaction. "Singleton and Vo's study, in conjunction with Soai's work, supports the idea that abiological autocatalysis could be the process by which randomly generated trace chiral influence was amplified. Then, in the prebiotic world, examples of dominant molecular handedness were already likely to have been abundant."

Chemical & Engineering News (11 August 2003) Hooks G "Serine - unlike other alpha-amino acids - forms unusually stable octamers in which all members of the complex are the same enantiomer. These complexes also undergo enantioselective substitution reactions. Other amino acids could replace serines in the complex but only if they were of the same chirality. Homochirality in life is a result of three processes: chiral selection (also known as symmetry breaking) which selects the dominant enantiomer; chiral accumulation; and chiral transmission (to other molecules).' "Chiral selection began with serine because of its unique chemical properties. After a symmetry-breaking event took place, serine's unique chemical properties took over and provided the chiral accumulation and transmission steps. Serine forms adducts enantoselectively with glyceraldehyde, the simplest aldose sugar. These complexes are exactly what is seen in life: L-amino acid and D-sugar. They also observed that this adduct could dimerize to form C6 D-sugars. Serine complexes also bind phosphoric acid and transition-metal ions, which could have led to prebiotic oxidation and phosphorylation reactions."

Pizzarello S, Weber A Science v. 203, p. 1151 (20 Feb. 2004): "Certain aminoacid racemization is primarily caused by the presence and easy removal and reattachment of a hydrogen atom on the alpha-carbon. "L-Isovaline (L-2-amino-2-methylbutyric acid) lacks this hydrogen, allowing for the early Earth to have been supplied with a unique, optically stable catalyst for sugar synthesis under prebiotic conditions. Two amino acids, alanine and isovaline (commonly found in carbonaceous meteorites) were used in a water-based prebiotic sugar synthesis model with glycolaldehyde and formaldehyde. The chirality of the amino acid directly influenced the chirality of the sugars (threose and erythrose) produced. "It is interesting also to note that an RNA analog involving D-threose instead of D-ribose in the phosphate backbone. These threofuranosyl oligonucleotides (TNAs) form stable double helices. The ready formation of D-threose from L-isovaline in this study gives support to an extraterrestrial chirality origin yielding first TNAs, then RNAs after enzymes came into existence to produce D-ribose."

Eaton: [prattle about requiring protein enzymes/catalysts]

stevaroni I’ve often wondered about the psychology of trolling... Does anyone have a good link to some data on the mindset? (and I mean that seriously...

I was a regular at "Deltiod", enjoyed the climate data there. Then Deltoid got taken over by trolls, each comment had 5 or more additional and useless troll comments. I very seldom visit there anymore. Don't let this happen to PT, please!
PRETTY PLEASE!

Can anyone including you super genius design a ship that extracts heat energy from the ocean and use it to propel said ship across the ocean?

JohnK:

stevaroni I’ve often wondered about the psychology of trolling... Does anyone have a good link to some data on the mindset? (and I mean that seriously...

Study cult psychology - the ability to ignore, compartmentalize, project, etc. Coupled, in Eaton's case, with colossal ego and the enormous reinforcement he receives from being the BigScienceWheel in his local church/family/community, and from his online experience in fora which are full of creationists. He is a psychological mirror image of that well-known YEC, Jonathan Sarfati.

Mike Elzinga To Keith Eaton:

I find it very telling that this team asks the question what stereo specificity has to do with the question…unbelievable.

You raised it. Why don’t you explain it to us? You apparently want to.

Too late. I did that already. ;-)

it will be ufdah all the way to the bottom.

I recommend all of you invest your life savings in the quite optimistic 2-3% efficiency of those seawater plants that so far have generated a net of 40 kw output with a ROR somewhat less than the cold fusion project a few years back.

Of course you left out the big success of that super scientist Marlon Brando who installed an island based system about 20 years ago in the South Pacific. Marlon Brando, thermodynamicist. I think he used it to charge his electric water pipe batteries.

I can't understand why utilities haven't jumped on this project since its only an order of magnitude less efficient than current fossil fuel approaches. 3% vs 30% and that ideally.

I think the logic of evos that demonstrates their dishonesty and irrationality most clearly is to list a stream of papers concerning a number of experimental results that illustrate under intellect, guidance, expertise, controlled lab conditions, expending significant monetary resource some unrelated variant of the chiral problem can be demonstrated.

Not one of these experiments demonstrate a resolution to the actual problem of abiogenesis or the closed loop process in life today which provides optically pure separation of levo and dextro forms used in the cell for their hand in glove fitting.

These papers don't refer to a primal pre-biotic simulation that results in the spontaneous formation of the 20 amino acid molecules of life being other than racemic mixtures and you know it. Amplification of an existing phenomenon is paraded about as though it resolved the problem of the original separation of forms perfectly. We call this assuming the answer.

These are no more appropriate to the actual issue than the classic Miller mythology...period.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: Btw, "Oy vey" is both funny and memorable. Which is why I suspect the very common exclamation "Oj" may derive from it. That is probably what I would say. "Oj!"; "[See the previous step.]"; "[See the previous step.]"; ...

Say, is this the famous staircase theory of creationism?

"Stop saying the word! He said it again! OH! Now I've said it! Aauurrgh!"

Of course one can assume Dr. Lambert will now be put on the evolander hit list, maybe calling Occidental to see if they will disclose his personal information, filing a FOI request and writing lots of ad hominem posts about him not being a biologist. I just noticed a waterspout in my pool so while it lasts I think I’ll turn off my house lights and let the spout power my house for a few minutes and save a few mills on my utility bill. LOL!! .

Is Keith Eaton forbidden by the second law? :-)

Postings from that name more and more resemble the ramblings of a banal random-number-generator-based sentence writing computer program.

It’s my understanding that “abiogenesis” has absolutely “squat” to do with evolution.

— Stacy S.

Boy THAT took a long time didn't it?

Yes Stacy, the only connection between evolution writ large and abiogenesis is that if there were no abiogenesis event (the chance formation of a carbon based biological entity from individual molecules of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc., and so configured as to be capable of extracting and transducing energy continuously from its surroundings, using that energy to sustain its far from equilibrium chemical status in a likely hostile environment of water, free oxygen, and solar radiation, replicate itself with sufficient accuracy to avoid extinction, and then evolve via RM and NS, then the entire construct of evolutionary theory from a single or small population of such entities is by definition impossible.

Thus there has to have been such an event the story goes, it's just that no one has ever elucidated a hypothesis capable of escaping guffaws by the evolutionary and scientific community at large let alone demonstrate it in the lab.

Other than these minor dependencies there is no relationship.

Close parentheses?

Thus there has to have been such an event the story goes, it’s just that no one has ever elucidated a hypothesis capable of escaping guffaws by the evolutionary and scientific community at large let alone demonstrate it in the lab.

Thus evolution does not need a theory of abiogenesis (as in how it occurred), but anti-evolution positions that deny common descent completely depends on one to explain the origin of “kinds.”

Yes its just a matter of 100 years of such attempts to demonstrate abiogenesis without a scintilla of success which is strange because there are no physical laws that resist such.

I for one don't understand why we don't observe it constantyly in the physical world even today..there is no reason it doesn't ..correct?

I mean the fact that the spontaneous formation of amino acids is always resulting useless racemic mixtures of both life useful and unrelated to life molecules is not a consequence of identical configurational entropy status of levo and dextro forms ,in agreement with the SLOT directionality to inhabit all available states consistent with conditions and boundaries.

I'll bet it's just bad luck that the first million tries have all resulted in this barrier.

And then that pesky free energy barrier to those aminos forming polypeptides like RNA and DNA spontaneously in
less than a billion years absent catalysts to supply adquate activation energy.

Yes its just a matter of 100 years of such attempts to demonstrate abiogenesis without a scintilla of success which is strange because there are no physical laws that resist such.

"Your ignorance is not evidence."

I really want that T-shirt.

Stacy S.: Close parentheses?

"Yes its just a matter of 100 years of such attempts to demonstrate abiogenesis without a scintilla of success which is strange because there are no physical laws that resist such."

So the vast quantities of organic molecules in molecular clouds, comets, meteorites, in planetary atmospheres or on their surfaces are God's way of testing us? Given that the building blocks of living things exist in vast quantities throughout the universe (Comet Halley ejected about 8 tons of organics per second when active), why wouldn't God use them? If he creates all of the molecules of life ex nihilo to form cells and organisms, why should there be any organics apart from those on Earth? Seems kind of devious to leave all those amino acids, etc. in carbonaceous chondrites--racemic mixtures or not. Are these a kind of cosmic red herring? Or some kind of divine joke?

Ironically, the original focus of this thread (Guillermo Gonzalez, remember him?), proposes that we look on the Moon for evidence concerning the origin of life on Earth, quoting him from an ISU article entitled "Earth's attic" @ http://www.las.iastate.edu/newnews/gonzalez0909.shtml :

"There are very few places you can go on this planet that preserves the clues to the origin of life because of the Earth's activity geology," Gonzalez said.

"Rain, wind, tides, plate tectonics and other natural forces have largely eroded any clues the Earth may have held."

"That got Gonzalez to thinking that maybe some clues may exist elsewhere."

"I thought since we're having a hard time studying the origin of life on Earth there must be some other way to look at this problem," he said. "And it just occurred to me that the Moon is the perfect place to preserve any clues."

So does this interest in abiogenesis make a theist like Gonzalez a heretic? He sounds a lot like one of those "Evolanders" to me. Should he be "Expelled" for his heretical beliefs? There are worse things than being denied tenure--like being burned at the stake for heresy by religious fanatics.

His belief in an ancient Earth and Universe would be ample evidence of heretical thinking for the likes of Ken Ham and Duane Gish. He certainly couldn't be trusted to teach astronomy to impressionable young people at some Christian college, now could he?

J. B. Phillips had an apt description of your theology: your god is too small.

Let's see how things turn out research-wise 100 years from now. Unfortunately your beloved SLOT will prevent you from ever knowing the answer should you even care.

“That got Gonzalez to thinking that maybe some clues may exist elsewhere.” “I thought since we’re having a hard time studying the origin of life on Earth there must be some other way to look at this problem,” he said. “And it just occurred to me that the Moon is the perfect place to preserve any clues.”

"Ideas like the one for which Gonzales is claiming as originally his were “in the air” for many decades before he came along. Attempting to rewrite history in this instance is not a good strategy for Creationist supporters of Gonzales to follow."

While perhaps not original to Gonzales (and I do seem to remember reading similar proposals before he recently popularized the idea), it does indicate that he is thinking very differently than many of those that he has chained his destiny to. To many of the YECs, he is indeed a heretic--but a useful heretic nevertheless.

Personally I've always liked the proposal by Freeman Dyson of searching for life in Europan oceans by looking for frozen Europan fish in orbit of Jupiter--launched into orbit by large impacts on this icy moon.

Another irony is that a separate origin model requires more abiogenesis events that does the current theory. So to anybody who pays any attention to logic, a low probability of abiogenesis favors the current theory over any kind of separate origin of “kinds”.

— Henry J

That's a pretty cool idea! (Looking on the moon)

When are we going to see the movie?

Evolution claims to be a big tent where all sorts of disagreements as to methods, rates, interpretations of data, ad finitum are not just tolerated but encouraged and the very essence of what makes science work, so long as methodological naturalism is the governing presupposition.

Of course, there are tens of thousands of scientists worldwide who are theists, are creationists in a continuum from limited first involvement by God through the most literalistic YE. Yet evolanders parade a monolithic straw-man of the creationist and ID camp displaying a knowing dishonesty.

I suspect that most evolanders are horrified by the irrational displays of people like Dawkins, Harris, even Scott.

I find it revealing that a group of people choose to rant, rave, attack personally, and misrepresent the character of Dr. Gish, particularly now that the man in well into his 80's and is no longer even actively involved in the debate. It's a clear display of hatred by a group of people 85% of which have zero allegiance to any system binding them to truth.

The funny thing is one of the two or three most revealing and credible writings in the debate was written by Michael Denton..one of your own. Gish ranks about 5-6 in the list of authors I find credible.

While roughly 2/3rds of the American public are "creationists" , your straw-man presents the most ardent YECS as the entirety. The illogic of that position is quite apparent, but let's spell it out.....YECS and OECS are a tiny minority in a post Christian country.

You people need a new playbook as the evidence says most people, unrelated to religion whatsoever, don't buy your story.

I am sure you don't get it, but the subject of this debate in the most all encompassing sense is what Christians refer to as a minor, not a major disagreement. It's being in the family of Faith that is the determinative issue for 90% of Christians.

Dr. Gonzales is no heretic in the broad Christian community, I assure you.

The modern alchemists in the evolander camp.

It is a well self-documented fact that Newton was an avid and long active alchemist and believed he was practicing a purely scientific pursuit in his attempt to turn say mercury into gold.

But after a hundred years of real scientists and charlatans making the attempt, the scientific evidence was all against the possibility of making gold from base metals.

Thus, present company excepted, there is a precedent, plenty of them actually, for agreeing that if all the laws of nature are against a certain proposition, all the experimental attempts by very credible people have failed utterly and completely, and every analytic calculation points to the phantasmagorical improbability of realizing the proposition as a result of all such efforts............the proposition is abandoned and you move on.

Sometimes as in alchemy or the luminiferous ether or phlogiston, reality sets in and additional time is never going to result in a demonstration of the sought after result.

Tell us, how many of the evolanders are still playing around with lead?

Gish ranks about 5-6 in the list of authors I find credible.

But of course Gish isn't found credible because anything he says accords with reality, but because it accords with religious convictions. And when reality refutes religious convictions, reality is wrong. Not credible.

Keith lied: Of course, there are tens of thousands of scientists worldwide who are theists, are creationists in a continuum from limited first involvement by God through the most literalistic YE. Yet evolanders parade a monolithic straw-man of the creationist and ID camp displaying a knowing dishonesty.

Science Avenger,

I just stopped reading his posts when he refused to answer my questions. Apparently it is a good thing I did't waste my time. Seems like the horse he rode in on is now Gish galloping away at the speed of light.

He IS a liar! No doubt! He has refused to answer simple questions (simply and directly, for simple people like me that ADMITTEDLY know very little about science) even though he promised to do so.

" Stacy S. said:
Hey Keith! I’m a newcomer - you didn’t answer Nigel’s questions. That’s what I’ve been waiting for. "

" Stacy S. said:
Keith - Please read the “Does science disprove religion” thread. (I think you will enjoy it - no joke) "

" Keith Eaton said:
Stacey S

I will and how about your read the two essays on methodological naturalism I referenced. "

He never did it and never intends to do it - that is sooo apparent. Get rid of him.

His arguments are old and tired and I have already heard them all already - the reason is that even my simple mind was able to see the simple answer to the simple question.

So when will GG be teaching bible courses with Wilbur Dembski?

Stacy S.: He IS a liar! No doubt!

Acts 1:15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, 1 John 2:11 But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes. 1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 1 John 4:20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Not sure why it took me this long to think of it, but since Paul Nelson spent a few days last week on another PT thread (ignoring my questions of course), Guillermo Gonzalez must be aware of this one. Most people I know - including classic creationists - would jump at the chance to come here and defend himself. Why is he avoiding this opportunity to shine?

While perhaps not original to Gonzales (and I do seem to remember reading similar proposals before he recently popularized the idea), it does indicate that he is thinking very differently than many of those that he has chained his destiny to.

" Dr. Gonzales is no heretic in the broad Christian community, I assure you."

No? All he would have to be is Catholic to make him a heretic to many Protestant religious fundamentalists. This is something that has been often overlooked as evangelicals have sought political power in the US. For many of these people (and I know this first hand, because it was taught as dogma in every Baptist church I ever attended as a child), Catholics are not true Chrisitians. Their fate is imagined to be no different than Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc. But all of this has been swept under the rug in a marriage of convenience during the rise of the religious right in America. Once these dominionists achieve real secular power (which they lust for), then they can deal with heretics. Yes heretics, because heretics are usually religious individuals who have the "wrong" beliefs as assessed by those who are "orthodox." All you have to do is to look at the last hundred years of American history to see the deep distrust and hatred fundamentalists (evangelicals are merely fundy-lite) have had for Catholics. The anti-papist rhetoric of the 19th century was just as vitriolic as the attacks here on "Evolanders." But fundamentalists like to think they are operating in some kind of stealth mode that makes their true motives invisible to scrutiny--however their cloaking device is not as effective as they think.

"Gish ranks about 5-6 in the list of authors I find credible."

Now the truth comes out. Are you really are a young earth creationist at heart? Are you ashamed of a belief in a 6000 year old Earth or a global flood? Or are you saying that there were no dinosaurs on the Ark? No vapor canopy? Were there Edenic carnivores, not pineapple-eating tyrannosaurs? Was the SLOT operating before the Fall? Or is the jury still out on these matters too?

"YECS and OECS are a tiny minority in a post Christian country."

Really, that's not what polls have generally found. If anything, a large proportion of Christians lean toward young earth creationist beliefs. A recent Gallup Organization survey found 47% of the general public agrees with "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." The "I ain't descended from no monkey" belief is hardly rare in your so-called post-Christian America. The only thing post-Christian about America is the wholesale abandonment of core Christian principles in favor to materialism-- and i do mean the conspicuous consumption type of materialism (Hummers, multi-million dollar mega-churches, etc.).

"The modern alchemists in the evolander camp."

Here we go off on yet another tangent. The Gish gallup. Hi ho Silver, away!

But were back to the same old dilemma. Do we engage the troll to show lurkers how he sidesteps such inconveniences, and pretends that the onus is on “evolutionists” instead of anti-evolution activists? Or do we just ignore him?

About two decades ago I went to a well-attended 'debate' wherein Gish did his Gallop.

So he is famous for one thing: Propagating the misdirection and obfuscation style called the Gish gallop.

The only liars on this post are on your team. I will concede you win the crude language, hate-mongering, intellectual dishonesty, mass psychosis, and sophistry and BS award

Its so amusing (and I admit a little bit of an ego builder) to have spent a month or so kicking butts and taking names from a bunch of third class intellects who somehow believe their combined IQ's are additve..like entropy. The truth is that the concatenation of 20 people with IQ's of max 120 all yelling and back patting are like interference patterns in an optics experiment...they sum to 120 and it really shows, believe me.

It's a shame you all can't wear white nylon lab coats like the guys on tv in the 60's selling Absorbine Jr. and use little internet cameras to impress people, or more likly each other.

Score Keith 96 Evolanders 3 (and that's generous)

Be sure and sign the new DI and Expelled joint venture petition on the net today.

Stacy , that's not a moose, it's your blind date.

Gish retired because his legs gave out from kicking the evolander BS artists all over the stage at debates. I can sympathize with him after handing out the beatings daily non-stop on this site..it's exhausting.

Would you care to have the internet address for the audio tape of another creationist Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (deceased) when he pounded Dawkins into the floor at Oxford years ago? I have my own copy to enjoy every time the evolanders mention the Dawkins scumbag as their genius spokesperson.

You people have cornered the market on losers.

For anyone lurking here who is not familiar with the Gish Gallop, here it is in its bare essentials.

1. Taunt an “evolutionist” into a debate using anything that will work (prick the ego, throw out deliberate misconceptions, flood the media with misinformation, name-call, whatever).

2. When the debate starts, load up the agenda with a lot of possible science-sounding topics. Forbid any discussion of religion.

3. If you are debating novices, keep up the flustering by changing the subject at frequent intervals and in the middle of any ongoing topic.

4. If you are trounced by an expert on any point, don’t answer or show any emotion. Move on and throw out a lot more garbage over a broad spectrum. Do this at every trouncing.

5. At the debate summary, if the expert summarizes all the information where he has beaten you, simply say that he hasn’t been able to answer even a small fraction of your arguments. Declare victory.

6. If your opponents walk away in disgust, declare victory.

7. In any case, declare victory.

8. Pad your résumé with your “victories” over all the famous scientists you have debated.

Notice that Keith is a close disciple of Duane Gish; not Jesus.

Mike Elzinga: Notice that Keith is a close disciple of Duane Gish; not Jesus.

Stacy , that’s not a moose, it’s your blind date.

Evolanders,

Define away any issues that you are intellectually incapable of dealing with as irrelevent. (abiogenesis, metamorphosis, etc.)

Stall for time on aspects of the debate where you're side is a 100% loser by trotting out tired meaningless phrases like gish gallop, god of the gaps and other trivail BS phrases devoid of intellectual content. Or the everready "we just need a little more time and we'll have that resolved" as in perhaps alchemy.

Pretend you didn't receive responsive posts and whine like a three year old.

Pat your peers on the back , brag on them, accept their mutual love pats with due humility, appeal to authorities like TO BS artists as though they were an objective source of information.

Use lots of insulting language, cussing, ad hominems, and sarcasm ...anything but attempts at rhetorical debate based on critical thinking.

Threaten to contact employers and seek personal information to harass opponents, use any networking available to pursue ways to effect adversely the opponents employment and professional reputation.

At some point of frustration and failure in every respect, use banning or equivalent to avoid futher personal embarrassment.

As in "let's not debate anymore, not ever (Dawkins after WilderSmith buttkicking) those guys don't play by my rules.

Poor babies..sorry I made you cry.

Hey Mike,

How can you tell which opponent is the weakest among a herd of pseudo-intellectual wannabees?

I mean just because I ranked you at the bottom of the barrel, maybe tied with BobC as the easiest pushover I have seen since Steven Shaffersman, Houston bone brusher extraordinaire.

When I read your posts I have to pinch myself to believe anyone so obtuse can actually have a job in science.

Does you mommie know your on the net?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Now there's a good Christian, Keith. I imagine Jesus himself would behave just as you have. viz. Matt 7:12, Luke 6:27ff.

Shame on you, sir.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz…..

"Stacy , that’s not a moose, ..."

Is that all you have old man? That's pathetic. You reveal more of your true character with each and every additional post. You're trapped in this thread now, and you can't find the exit ... and your frustration is growing as you fire off your missives in all directions. But like a poor marksman, you keep missing the mark.

"Poor babies..sorry I made you cry."

Dream on. In the words of are James Tiberius Kirk, "[We are] laughing at the "superior intellect."

hje: In the words of are James Tiberius Kirk, "[We are] laughing at the "superior intellect."

Gee looks like the only people trapped here are the 30 people who have been firing and falling back for a month seeking reinforcements and taking oxygen.

I'm as free as can be to come or to go because I've accomplished my goals:

Determine if the evolanders are still in the left behind intellectuallly group of science....for sure.

See if their vapid arguments have remained the same ..........for sure.

Measure the degree of panic in their camp since ID has captured the public attention.........the meter is pegged.

Gotta go as I'm organizing a local Expelled event next week and it takes quite a bit of time and effort.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

Keith Eaton: Gotta go as I'm organizing a local Expelled event next week and it takes quite a bit of time and effort.

KE: "Gotta go as I'm ..."

Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.

But I'm invincible. Have at you!

— Keith, the Black Knight, essentially

All right then, we'll call it a draw. Oh, running away are you? You yellow bastard, come back here and take what's coming to you, I'll bit your legs off!

Gotta go …

Mike Elzinga:

Gotta go …

And may Gish go with you.

Er, isn’t that The Gish?

Let's put all this Gish-bashing in perspective. Sure he invented many of the tactics that brought creationism from a mere honest, but mistaken belief to a pure pseudoscience. But he at least had the guts to take a stand on the age of the earth and common descent, and even debate OEC Hugh Ross. Just try to get those weasels at the DI to do that.

Frank J: Let's put all this Gish-bashing in perspective. Sure he invented many of the tactics that brought creationism from a mere honest, but mistaken belief to a pure pseudoscience. But he at least had the guts to take a stand on the age of the earth and common descent, and even debate OEC Hugh Ross. Just try to get those weasels at the DI to do that.

Man I hope this thread never ends.

This is the most fun I've had since we put the dress and earrings on the goat and sent him in to wake up grandpa.

Keith Eaton: As in "let's not debate anymore, not ever (Dawkins after WilderSmith buttkicking) those guys don't play by my rules.

Exactly. They seem to be ashamed of many of their beliefs, so they cloak them in equivocation (“the jury’s still out”).

— hje

:"If you mean that their private beliefs are that we’re right, I agree."

I mean their belief in biblical literalism. They may personally believe in a 6000-year old earth, a global flood, etc. but they know that this goes in the face of common sense and empirical data. So they try to finesse answers to queries about their belief by saying things like "I don't know, the jury's still out on that question." In doing so, they try to appear to be critical and rational. I would argue that many of them do indeed know what they believe, but they still crave acceptance & legitimacy in the secular marketplace of ideas. In contrast, others like Gish, Ham, Hovind et al. have set about constructing a bizarre alternate universe in which biblical claims can somehow make sense--if you can accept all of their deus ex machina type of explanations. This latter group are the true believers--they will concede nothing because they have no doubt that they are right.

Keith, finally tellings the truth: Gotta go as I’m organizing a local Expelled event next week and it takes quite a bit of time and effort.

I can only imagine the effort it would take to get even one person with two brain cells to rub together to waste an hour or two of his time watching that paranoid, disingenuous, inartistic bore of a film.

It is a well self-documented fact that Newton was an avid and long active alchemist and believed he was practicing a purely scientific pursuit in his attempt to turn say mercury into gold.

But after a hundred years of real scientists and charlatans making the attempt

the scientific evidence was all against the possibility of making gold from base metals. Thus, present company excepted, there is a precedent, plenty of them actually, for agreeing that if all the laws of nature are against a certain proposition, all the experimental attempts by very credible people have failed utterly and completely, and every analytic calculation points to the phantasmagorical improbability of realizing the proposition as a result of all such efforts...the proposition is abandoned and you move on.

I find it revealing that a group of people choose to rant, rave, attack personally, and misrepresent the character of Dr. Gish, particularly now that the man in well into his 80’s and is no longer even actively involved in the debate.

"Imagine a theocracy run by these people."

Not difficult to imagine, albeit frightening. Jesus may have said: "My kingdom is not of this world," but there have always been Christians who would beg to differ.

Consider the execution of Giordano Bruno for heresy (in part for scientific beliefs that contradicted the dogma of the Roman Church). Burned at the stake during the Roman Inquisition. Real painful martyrdom, not the kind of "persecution" claimed by some American Christians when confronted with their intolerance or hypocrisy.

Or to be equal opportunity for Protestants, the torture and execution of political enemies of John Calvin in Geneva, for either for daring to challenge his authority or for religious heresy.

Ironically, another consequence of theocratic rule is the persecution of religious minorities. Roman Catholics and Protestants both persecuted the Anabaptists for their perceived heresy. Oddly some of the Anabaptist beliefs are shared by Protestant fundamentalists/evangelicals--a small but significant fraction of which would love to institute a theocracy in the US ("No King but Jesus!"). Individuals like the late D. James Kennedy would have gladly welcomed what would have been effectively an American theocracy. The prospect of a Christofascist state (although I think it unlikely to ever come to pass) should scare the crap out of everyone--including theists. The warning to the religious right should be clear: be careful what you wish for.

"I’d sooner submit myself to an Ishtar/Gigli double feature."

ROFL!

What is Keith Eaton? Psilocybin mushrooms? Peyote?

They may personally believe in a 6000-year old earth, a global flood, etc. but they know that this goes in the face of common sense and empirical data.

— hje

I would argue that many of them do indeed know what they believe, but they still crave acceptance & legitimacy in the secular marketplace of ideas.

— hje

hje:

My guess is that the YECs you cite, unlike the DI gang, truly believe YEC, whether or not they believe that the evidence supports their position. Unlike IDers they do challenge OECs. Similarly, OEC Hugh Ross challenges YEC. Unlike these "classic creationists," "ID creationists" are a whole 'nother "kind" of "animal," despite the similarities in how they attack the strawman of "Darwinism,"

hje: Ironically, another consequence of theocratic rule is the persecution of religious minorities. Roman Catholics and Protestants both persecuted the Anabaptists for their perceived heresy.

The warning to the religious right should be clear: be careful what you wish for.

Shebardigan: One of my fondest fantasies was putting Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell into a time machine and sending them back to the Virginia of 1710. There they would have been subject to fine and imprisonment for public expression of the doctrines they have belched forth without restriction in this time of dire "persecution" of Christians.

Unlike these “classic creationists,” “ID creationists” are a whole ‘nother “kind” of “animal,” despite the similarities in how they attack the strawman of “Darwinism,”

Mike,

Thanks for the encouragement. As you probably know, however, most of the main contributors to PT, Talk Origins, NCSE, etc. know far more about the intricacies of the various anti-evolution strategies than I do, not to mention knowing more biology. In fact I learned most of what I know starting with them, although anti-evolution activists themselves helped, much to their chagrin. All I do is try to emphasize the types of criticism that I think are underemphasized (e.g. the pseudoscience angle vice the religion angle).

Frank J: Unlike these "classic creationists," "ID creationists" are a whole 'nother "kind" of "animal," despite the similarities in how they attack the strawman of "Darwinism,"

Is Mr Eaton a “classic creationist” as he appears to argue against evolution purely on the basis of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The “ID Creationists” seem to accept a direct appeal to the 2nd Law cannot stand in the face of the existence of biological life, so instead they claim (without evidence) the existence of arbitrary limits to entropy (eg that UK “Truth in Science” lot,) “complexity” (Behe) and “specified information” (Dembski.) Come to think of it Mr Eaton’s activation energy argument would be “ID Creationist” if he properly understood what “enthalpy”, “entropy” and “Gibbs free energy” were, and how they, and the First Law of Thermodynamics trump his 2nd Law argument. Since it’s unclear which side of the fence Mr E is on, maybe he belongs to a third category. Perhaps he’s a transitional fossil.

Kevin B --- But Keith Eaton only understands

Gish free energy.

Since it’s unclear which side of the fence Mr E is on, maybe he belongs to a third category. Perhaps he’s a transitional fossil.

— Kevin B.

Gish free energy

Kevin B — But Keith Eaton only understands Gish free energy.

Gee looks like the only people trapped here are the 30 people who have been firing and falling back for a month seeking reinforcements and taking oxygen. I’m as free as can be to come or to go because I’ve accomplished my goals...

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Matthew 7:6

This is quite like the mid-90's case of Michael Udall Derbyshire at Oxford. I have mentioned it in more detail at:

http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/02/07/

Sad. It is so irrational, but, after all, it is just as noted in the book of Numbers 1: 41-42 and Numbers 3: 14-15.

God Bless, BS!

Sincerely,

Mark Witt

(provisional founding council member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT 06437

Mark E. Witt: (provisional founding council member) Intelligent Design, Institute of Theory New Haven, CT 06437