Cordova rewrites history (again)

On Uncommon Descent (to which I decline to link)...

Scott Belyea:

On Uncommon Descent (to which I decline to link)...

Your choice. For any author that petty, I decline to read ...

Scott Belyea:

On Uncommon Descent (to which I decline to link)...

Your choice. For any author that petty, I decline to read ...

As far as public school classrooms go, there is simply no secular or apolitical reason to introduce a concept that has produced no peer-reviewed research papers as an "alternative" to any scientific finding or theory, let alone something as fundamental to biology as evolution.

As far as science goes, no body of research means ID is not science. No amount of arguing changes that fact, and since ID rests on supernatural causation, it will never produce any scientific research.

Your choice. For any author that petty, I decline to read …

Wasn't there, like, a court case over that a couple years or so back?

And isn't one of the major whines of Expelled that the educational, news, and governmental establishments have all conspired to prevent the questioning of "Darwinism?"

I'd like to be able to say that it's surprising that Cordova, long known to be intellectually dishonest, could be as brazenly dishonest as he is in that article, but I'm afraid that there are no more surprises left in ID's bag of dishonest tricks and claims.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

As I pointed out here, the real issue is whether life is designed. If so, most every other question pales in comparison.

And also lost in the Darwinist Bulverism

is whether individuals in universities will have the chance to answer the question of design for themselves

and whether these individuals will have the freedom to tell others what they discover.

So The argument is not about what should be taught in public-school science classrooms? Then the purpose of publishing the high-school/college textbook "Exploring Evolution" was to ... ??

But then if they wanted to teach IDiocy, what would they teach? Long droning boring lectures by a narcissistic BillD, or an incoherent gaggle of twitter from David Berlinski, or a clueless (how do I write a review article) speech from Nelson and Meyer? None of htese guys know any biology. Well if all else fails, we will always have Salzo Panza for the entertainment, no preparation required on his part, he will simply lecture and we will split our sides laughing. And trhen after we are done, Larry Farfarma will drone in long distancde!

One of the articles linked in your post: "Seattle's Discovery Institute scrambling to rebound after intelligent-design ruling" from the Seattle Times in 2006, was very interesting. It was neat because it showed some positions I don't often see, for instance, Hugh Ross, president of Reasons to Believe, who is unhappy that the DI are being dishonest and cowards by NOT just coming out and including God as the designer in ID. Interesting that those are probably genuine honest Religious people, and they don't quite realize the fraud DI is trying to conduct. DI *knows* straightforward, honest, God-centered creationism (whether young Earth or Behe's ID) has no chance in court.

And as we all know, Dover made DI realize ID also has no chance in court, hence the new trojan horse "Teach the Controversy".

I wonder if anyone explained to Hugh Ross their dishonest means to include an ends that I assume Hugh Ross would support?

Also, the quotes from Rush Limbaugh suggests he has no time for ID. But is Rush against ID because he backs out in the open creationism, or does he support evolution?

If Salvador Cordova wants to talk about ad hominem, I'll give him ad hominem:

He's a lying, knowingly deceitful fraud. I know it, he knows it, and he knows I know it.

Dembski's site is a good place for him.

David Merritt: If Salvador Cordova wants to talk about ad hominem, I'll give him ad hominem: He's a lying, knowingly deceitful fraud. I know it, he knows it, and he knows I know it.

Stanton:

David Merritt: If Salvador Cordova wants to talk about ad hominem, I'll give him ad hominem: He's a lying, knowingly deceitful fraud. I know it, he knows it, and he knows I know it.

David, providing an accurate description of a person, however negative and unpleasant, is not an ad hominem.

phantomreader42: As I understand it, an ad hominem would be not just pointing out his negative personal qualities, but claiming he was wrong because of those qualities rather than by the nature of his arguments. But how does that work when the negative personal qualities in question include fraud? Doesn't being a fraud pretty much guarantee his arguments will usually consist of deliberate falsehoods?

Stanton:

David Merritt: If Salvador Cordova wants to talk about ad hominem, I'll give him ad hominem: He's a lying, knowingly deceitful fraud. I know it, he knows it, and he knows I know it.

David, providing an accurate description of a person, however negative and unpleasant, is not an ad hominem.

Was Panda's and People meant for a university or something? Some university that must be!

For the record, we do not propose that intelligent design should be mandated in public schools, which is why we strongly opposed the school district policy at issue in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case once we realized those rubes aren’t as smart as we are. However, if you voluntarily choose to raise the issue of intelligent design in your classroom, it is vitally important that you read Darwinism, Design and Public Education where two of our top dogs argue for the constitutionally of teaching ID in public schools. And remember, when you school boards add language in your science standards, be sure and add “teach alternative theories”. We’ll pretend you’re talking about space aliens or time travelers, maybe even Lamarckian Inheritance. We can make ourselves believe seven impossible things before breakfast.

silverspoon: Sal doesn’t think the goal is to insert ID into public schools? If he had an ounce of integrity he’d admit that the DI’s disclaimers should read thusly:

For the record, we do not propose that intelligent design should be mandated in public schools, which is why we strongly opposed the school district policy at issue in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case once we realized those rubes aren’t as smart as we are. However, if you voluntarily choose to raise the issue of intelligent design in your classroom, it is vitally important that you read Darwinism, Design and Public Education where two of our top dogs argue for the constitutionally of teaching ID in public schools. And remember, when you school boards add language in your science standards, be sure and add “teach alternative theories”. We’ll pretend you’re talking about space aliens or time travelers, maybe even Lamarckian Inheritance. We can make ourselves believe seven impossible things before breakfast.

But then I did say IF Sal had any integrity.

It is possible for a known fraud to be correct in spite of himself.

Unwittingly, even!

Sal sez:

"As I pointed out here, the real issue is whether life is designed."

See, right there I'm confused. It implies a question, an hypothesis if you will, that needs answering: "Is life designed?". But, at the same time, it seems to be your (and others) starting assumption, "Life is designed...therefore..etc.". So which is it Sal? The former implies that you are open to it being wrong, the latter implies, well you know what it implies: it's the very epitome of unscientific.

It's been said a million times before, but creationists really do specialize in projection. "Why are you trying to make this about public school classrooms?" they whine after years of trying to get their ideas into public school classrooms. This is really just a variation on one of their standard whines: "Why are Darwinists fighting this in the courts instead of letting the science speak for itself?", after they spend years refusing to do any science and always taking their fight straight to the political and legal arenas instead. Just when I think they can't make me smack my forehead anymore with their blatant, out-in-the-open hypocrisy and dishonesty, along comes someone like Sal to prove me wrong.

Not to mention Scott Belyea, doing his own bit of projection in the first comment above.

And as far as ad hominem arguments go, I don't think anyone above got it quite right. An ad hominem fallacy is raising a completely irrelevant quality or attribute of a person to try to get people not to listen to their argument. "Don't listen to Sal, he's a Christian" or "Don't listen to Sal, his last name sounds Hispanic" would be an ad hominem (this fallacy often goes hand in hand with bigotry). Saying mean things about someone is not an ad hominem, although it might be rude or factually wrong, depending on the circumstances. And I don't think "He’s a known fraud, therefore his argument is false” qualifies as an ad hominem either - there's a logical connection between the two halves of the claim, although, again, either part could be true or false depending on the circumstances.

As I pointed out here, the real issue is whether life is designed. If so, most every other question pales in comparison.

— Salvador Cordova

Well, I think it is still an ad hominem argument, but when someone poses as some sort of authority, as Sally C does, then ad hominem is an appropriate response.

ID literature is more sophisticated than creation science literature, perhaps because it is (except for Of Pandas and People) usually directed more toward a university audience... Eugenie Scott

the Wedge’s workers have been carving out a habitable and expanding niche within higher education, cultivating cells of followers—students as well as (primarily nonbiology) faculty—on campus after campus. This is the first real success of creationism in the formerly hostile grove of academe. Barbara Forrest Creationism’s Trojan Horse

Poor Sal...

That doesn’t sound like an exclusively public high school focus to me does it?

Cordova claims ID’s efforts are directed at the universities, not public school science classes. Cordova apparently thinks that the assertion that ID proponents are interested in public education is a fallacy on the part of “Darwinists,” who supposedly misrepresent proponents of ID as wanting it taught in public school science classrooms.

Salvador,

Thanks for stopping by.

While you're here, please tell us, including the lurkers, whether you agree with Michael Behe that life on Earth is 3-4 billion years old, and that humans are related to dogs and dogwoods. If you disagree, a best guess will suffice as to the age of life on Earth, and to which species humans are biologically related, if any. Recall that "related" only means "biological continuity" (Behe's own phrase) and not necessarily that your concept of "RM + NS" drove species change.

If you have clarified that elsewhere, a link will suffice.

Frank J said: Thanks for stopping by. While you’re here, please tell us, including the lurkers, whether you agree with Michael Behe that life on Earth is 3-4 billion years old, and that humans are related to dogs and dogwoods.

If you have clarified that elsewhere, a link will suffice.

SunSpiker wrote: See, right there I’m confused.

I agree. You're confused.

It implies a question, an hypothesis if you will, that needs answering: “Is life designed?”. But, at the same time, it seems to be your (and others) starting assumption, “Life is designed…therefore..etc.”. So which is it Sal? The former implies that you are open to it being wrong, the latter implies, well you know what it implies: it’s the very epitome of unscientific.

See I think that's what a lot of us, Christian and not, have a problem with, Sal. It looks to a lot of us that the prevailing theories are either largely satisfactory or increasingly so, on the basis of observation and testing. It looks to a lot of us like you disagree not because of observation and testing but because your particular interpretation of the Bible tells you that you must, and now you're cherry picking evidence to support a pre-conceived notion, which we think gives the lie to the creationist -- sorry, ID-ist -- claim to 'follow the evidence where ever it leads'. It looks to a lot of us like you're not following the evidence, Sal, you're selecting it, and sometimes just plain inventing it. Now why would anyone do that?

I’m not convinced the Earth is young, I’d be comfortable saying there is a 50/50 chance, even though personally I think it’s closer to 85/15 in favor of a young Earth.

I think there is an 85% chance he is wrong on the age of the Earth an 100% wrong on common descent. I was also seen on C-SPAN gently criticizing Mike for giving too much credit to Darwin instead of the creationist E. Blyth for the theory of natural selection.

— Salvador T. Cordova

Salvador T. Cordova:

SunSpiker wrote: See, right there I’m confused.

I agree. You're confused.

It implies a question, an hypothesis if you will, that needs answering: “Is life designed?”. But, at the same time, it seems to be your (and others) starting assumption, “Life is designed…therefore..etc.”. So which is it Sal? The former implies that you are open to it being wrong, the latter implies, well you know what it implies: it’s the very epitome of unscientific.

I assume principally that the question of ID is worth asking and that it has not been settled decisively in favor of the Darwinists.... An investigation can accept a working hypothesis as true until falsified. It doesn't mean it is true (but for the record I think ID is true), but we can carry out the investigation using that as a working hypothesis. I'm open to being wrong, and I'm even more open to the possibility Darwinists are even wronger than me....

I assume principally that the question of ID is worth asking and that it has not been settled decisively in favor of the Darwinists….

An investigation can accept a working hypothesis as true until falsified.

I think there is an 85% chance he is wrong on the age of the Earth an 100% wrong on common descent. I was also seen on C-SPAN gently criticizing Mike for giving too much credit to Darwin instead of the creationist E. Blyth for the theory of natural selection.

But ID has no real hypotheses now does it?

— PvM

Salvador T. Cordova: First of all, I express my thanks to Dr. Hoppe for allowing me the chance to participate here at PT.

I think the universe was could have been created last Tuesday, but that would require a substantial reworking of modern physics despite the increasing convergence of data pointing to an age of billions of years. But otherwise, and with the caveat that Last Tuesdayism must currently be regarded as a complete 'fringe' idea, I personally give it an 85% likelihood and 'two thumbs up' for being true because it just feels right.

PvM:

That doesn’t sound like an exclusively public high school focus to me does it?

Who is now making strawmen arguments

Cordova claims ID’s efforts are directed at the universities, not public school science classes. Cordova apparently thinks that the assertion that ID proponents are interested in public education is a fallacy on the part of “Darwinists,” who supposedly misrepresent proponents of ID as wanting it taught in public school science classrooms.

But otherwise, and with the caveat that Last Tuesdayism must currently be regarded as a complete ‘fringe’ idea, I personally give it an 85% likelihood and ‘two thumbs up’ for being true because it just feels right.

— Unsympathetic reader

CSA asked: Where has the ID movement tried to shove its teachings into university curricula?

A mind is a terrible thing to waste….

fnxtr: See I think that’s what a lot of us, Christian and not, have a problem with, Sal. It looks to a lot of us that the prevailing theories are either largely satisfactory or increasingly so, on the basis of observation and testing. It looks to a lot of us like you disagree not because of observation and testing but because your particular interpretation of the Bible tells you that you must, and now you’re cherry picking evidence to support a pre-conceived notion, which we think gives the lie to the creationist

"Five Reasons Why Galaxies Can’t Exist" The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists. James Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe p. 55.

I recommend reading the Wedge Document. Shoving ID into public schools and university curricula is a minor portion of the strategy, if at all! The specifics of the Wedge document only mention in passing the curriculum issues…

Shoving ID into public schools and university curricula is a minor portion of the strategy, if at all!

— Salvador T. Cordova

I once believed we came from Apes. I never thought it was a sin to do so, and I don’t think is it now. Perhaps a mistake but not a willful sin….

— Salvador T. Cordova

Silverspoon,

Thank you for finding mention of the curricula changes. I stand corrected and admit my mistake...

I guess it was not a prominent part of the Wedge strategy, so I missed it. But reading the document, it is apparent, the public school issue is not the major activity of the Wedge...

Thanks

PS
I invite the readers to see the document for themselves here:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

But apparently you favor the the more extraordinary claim - that the lineages began independently from nonliving matter. As a chemist, I would be ecstatic if that were the case, but sadly I don’t see much promise there.

At this time, the Young Cosmos hypothesis is still a fringe idea….

I do not think the origin of life or even major biological forms occurred through processes in operation today any more than I would argue the universe or the laws of physics began with processes in operation today. I think that is pretty obvious…. Invoking a literal Genesis account does not provide a valid empirical or scientific deduction even if the literal account is true.

— Salvador T. Cordova

PvM wrote: In light of the vaste amount of data disproving it, it seems at best wishful thinking guided by a religious rather than scientific principle.

Salvador,

Heve you run those ideas by the old-earthers at the DI, and of course, Hugh Ross, who actually debates YECs instead of playing "don't ask, don't tell"?

Are they among the ones who give you "glib and rude dismissals"?

Frank J: With those ideas as radically different from each other as they are from mainstream science, one would expect that the first thing that proponents would concentrate on - and debate each other on - is whether those unusual processes occurred in-vivo or in-vitro.

Where has the ID movement tried to shove its teachings into university curricula?

There are about 100 university courses that delve into ID. ResearchID.org maintained a list of such courses offered in the last few years…

Sal wrote:

"That’s not to say in-vivo would be compeletely wrong, but there would no be need for that much except for things like the evolution of dogs from wolves or the variety of beetles, or the explantion for marsupial and placental convergence, etc…"

So Sal, prhaps you can enlighten us. Exactly how much "in-vivo" evolution has taken place in the last 10,000 years? Exactly how many different "varieties" of beetles are there? Did they all evolve from a common ancestor in the last 10,000 years? Or maybe weevils were created separately for some reason. How many "varieties" of weevils are there? Did they all evolve "in-vivo" in the last 10,000 years?

After you get through explaining that, perhaps you can explain why beetles all share the same mitochondrial gene order with all other insects, or the same mitochondrial genetic code, or why they are genetically similar to other insects, or why they have the same hox genes as other insects, etc, etc etc. After all, if they were created separately, there is no reason for any of these things to be true. And "common design" is not the answer since the characters cited are arbitrary and selectively neutral to a large extent. The same argument holds true for the SINE insertions shared between Artiodactyls and Cetaceans, perhaps you would like to explain that to us as well.

The evidence is quite clear. A hypothesis of separate origins is not consistent with the data. Of course, if your earth is only 10,000 years old I guess you don't have much choice now do you?

And just for the record, "physics" cannot suggest anything. However, the evidence provided by investigations in the field of phyiscs is completely inconsistent with a young earth as well. Hope this makes your personal quest for truth easier.

Salvadore: "My personal research interest is in putting closure on the age of the Earth as everything else proceeds from that. Until there is closure on the issue, there are just too many ambiguities to come to agreement."

Perhaps classwork in geology would help?

I maintain all the talk about people’s integrity is a side show to the fundamental empirical questions about our past…

Is the Templeton Foundation 'naive'? Well, they awarded Marks money which he used to bring back Dembski to BU, until Baylor realized what was happening and pulled the plug.

Salvador T. Cordova:

CSA asked: Where has the ID movement tried to shove its teachings into university curricula?

There are about 100 university courses that delve into ID. ResearchID.org maintained a list of such courses offered in the last few years...

Salvador T. Cordova: I recommend reading the Wedge Document. Shoving ID into public schools and university curricula is a minor portion of the strategy, if at all! The specifics of the Wedge document only mention in passing the curriculum issues...The Wedge Document outlines a strategy to win the ID case in the court of public opinion, not necessarily winnning school board fights...

Salvador T. Cordova: If the next generation of students in the sciences are friendly to ID, and these students are on peer-review committees, then the rest will take care of itself.

Salvador T. Cordova:I have no strong position regarding the public school science classes, and neither have I intensely lobbied for changes in the public schools.

Salvador T. Cordova:I do however, consider it a violation of civil rights to deny diplomams to pro-ID students intent on using their diplomas for ID, creationist, or religious causes. Secondarily, I'm concerned for the non-activist pro-ID students who might be victims of academic persecution.

Sal wrote:

"I do however, consider it a violation of civil rights to deny diplomams to pro-ID students intent on using their diplomas for ID, creationist, or religious causes. Secondarily, I’m concerned for the non-activist pro-ID students who might be victims of academic persecution."

Perhaps Sal is referring to the California case where high school students from religion-affiliated schools were denied entry into California Universities. Of course they weren't denied based on their religious beliefs or for their presumed intent to use their diplomas in any particular way. The University doesn't even have a mind-reading committee to determine those things. They were denied entry because they failed to meet the entrance standards. Now of course you can always claim that your own premeditated failure is "academic persecution", but that really won't cut it where academic standards are concerned. Once again, what do you think the odds are of a judge ruling against University entrance standards? Care to pay the bill for the legal costs Sal?

Or maybe he is referring to the grad student who tried to cheat and lie his way to a PhD by stacking his thesis committee. Yea, that was surely "academic persecution". That will be a sure winner in court as well.

Salvador T. Cordova:I do however, consider it a violation of civil rights to deny diplomams to pro-ID students intent on using their diplomas for ID, creationist, or religious causes. Secondarily, I'm concerned for the non-activist pro-ID students who might be victims of academic persecution.

So Sal, prhaps you can enlighten us. Exactly how much “in-vivo” evolution has taken place in the last 10,000 years?

— David Stanton

Well, it looks like our good friend Sal has taken a powder. No wonder really, since he has no answers for the last eight posters. Seems like he was caught in a web of lies and deceit once again. Oh well, I'm sure he will rewrite this history to make it look like he had all the answers, even if he didn't.

Good luck in your personal quest for truth Sal. By the way, if you don't know anything about science you really should consider that the consensus view might be correct instead of dismissing it out of hand because you prefer not to believe it. If you choose not to do that, then you must come up with a better explanation for all of the evidence and that requires that you be an expert in all the fields you seek to rewrite. Picking nits won't cut it. Good luck.

Salvador Cordova -

I asked you, knowing full well that I would not get an answer, where your ludicrous "85% probability of a young earth" came from.

I was subsequently busy with actual productive things, but I will now return to point out something that didn't come up - you are taking a "worst of both worlds" approach.

Mainstream scientific evidence shows essentially a zero percent chance of a young earth.

Some Biblical literalists, so-called, claim to believe in a young earth. However, for these people, the "probability" of a young earth is 100%. If you are walking down the street saying that it is 85% and happen to be struck by a falling anvil, you will not, according to this group of people, go to heaven.

The universe is 13.73 billion years old, give or take 120 million years, astronomers said last week.

there would have to be terporal-spatial variation to the creationist Maxwell’s celebrated equations of electrodynamics.

Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics and related theories of relativity

recent astrophysical data suggests the universe does not have the proper characteristics (I believe in terms of the appropriate form of the Riemann curvature tensor) to support the big bang.

Salvador, Heve you run those ideas by the old-earthers at the DI, and of course, Hugh Ross, who actually debates YECs instead of playing “don’t ask, don’t tell”? Are they among the ones who give you “glib and rude dismissals”?

As noted above, this weeks release of WMAP data hasn’t only confirmed big bang but put it beyond reasonable doubt.

Stanton demanded: Please explain why denying a diploma to a student who, due to religious motivation, or personal incredulity, has not, or has refused to complete required biology courses and or related science courses a “violation of civil rights”?

Salvador T. Cordova: Who said anything about not taking required courses. If a Christian studies Greek mythology, he's not required to believe in Greek gods in order to get a degree in classical studies. You misrepresent my postion, stanton, I said nothing about avoiding courses.

Salvador Cordova - I asked you, knowing full well that I would not get an answer, where your ludicrous “85% probability of a young earth” came from. I was subsequently busy with actual productive things, but I will now return to point out something that didn’t come up - you are taking a “worst of both worlds” approach. Mainstream scientific evidence shows essentially a zero percent chance of a young earth.

Salvador T. Cordova: As far as whether as whether Cheryl thinks the DI is are a bunch of scoundrels, she's welcome to her beliefs. Cheryl wants to have Darwinism shoved down the throats of kids.

Well fine. I didn't need it to get three science degrees, and I won't need Darwinism to get a fourth. Darwin couldn't even do high school algebra.

He's Not exactly a model scientist (the creationist Maxwell was a far better role model)...Even the kids wearing "I was intelligently designed" T-shirts in a creationist math and science school in Texas can do high school algebra...even I can do high school algebra! And I don't need one ounce of Darwin to do algebra, calculus, fourier transforms, classical mechanics, electrodynamcis, thermodynamics, chemistry, engineering, computer science, bio-physics, etc. Not one ounce, not one pico-gram, zero....

If Maxwell’s equations can be successfully reformulated to account for present observations as well as a temporal and/or spatial variations in the speed of light in the past, we can unify all observations about age markers in a consistent way, and the Cosmos and Earth will be empirically demonstrated to be young. If that happens, Darwinian evolution will be decisively refuted by physics, and ID will become the dominant paradigm….

And I don’t need one ounce of Darwin to do algebra, calculus, fourier transforms, classical mechanics, electrodynamcis, thermodynamics, chemistry, engineering, computer science, bio-physics, etc. Not one ounce, not one pico-gram, zero….

my work

David Berlinski is highly critical of the Big Bang

The big bang is not beyond reasonable doubt.

Torbjorn gave some good rebuttals,

it is a good bet that he doesn’t understand anything else in that list either. Anyone who has really studied these subjects would know how they are related,

Salvador T. Cordova: As far as whether as whether Cheryl thinks the DI is are a bunch of scoundrels, she's welcome to her beliefs.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: I also note that you still haven't provided any documentation showing that the DI has pushed to have ID taught as science at the post-secondary level. Thanks for effectively conceding that point. How do you explain the fact that you claim to "hold no strong position" regarding K12 science education, while at the same time you're trying to minimize the DI's attempted influence in the same?

Salvador,

You completely ignored my questions about beetles. Why is that? Please respond with a reasonable answer concerning how many "varieties" of beetles you think there are and how much "in vivo" evolution has occured in the group in the last 10,000 years. Then, please address all of my other questions as well.

Your failure to address these issues might lead some to conclude that you really have no idea what you are talking about. (By the way, responding to Stanton is not the same as responding to me, he is much smarter and usually much more polite than I am).

After Sal claimed that "There are about 100 university courses that delve into ID. ResearchID.org maintained a list of such courses offered in the last few years..." I pointed out that that was not the case. I then asked "Firstly, where is ID being taught in universities? Secondly, why do we always have to distrust everything you say?"

Now Sal is saying "As far as the demands for responses, Frank J, is one of the few that evidence he is worthy of an answer."

So, Sal, does this mean that you do not care that you are considered to be untrustworthy or is it that you are trying to avoid admitting that this time you made a mistake?

Perhaps you might also tell us why it is the slightest bit relevent to mention that Darwin said he had difficulties in high school mathematics. The message I get from it is that you are a small-minded, petty individual who enjoys pointing out minor flaws in the characters of other people.

Sal slid in

Even the kids wearing “I was intelligently designed” T-shirts in a creationist math and science school in Texas can do high school algebra.

I hear that a math and science school will be opening in Kansas in 2008 oops - 2009 . . .

(You see, Sal, anyone can make a mistake. Prov. 11:2-3)

Well, since Sal doesn't consider the rest of us worth responding to, I guess I'll just have to set the record straight. He had his chance.

There are over 300,000 named species of beetles and probably twice that number as yet undiscovered. There are over 25,000 species of weevils alone. That's a lot of evolution for only 10,000 years. If you believe in that level of genetic variation, then I guess the 1.5% genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees should only take about ten years to achieve.

Of course, the genetic evidence is quite clear. The beetles arose and diversified over the last 350 million years. As for all of the other shared characteristics, they all make perfect sense if the beetles were all descended from a common ancestor. They don't make any sense at all if God poofed fifty or sixty or one hundred or one thousand different types into existence 10,000 years ago.

So once again, Sal just seems to be making stuff up in complete ignarance of all of the facts. My guess is that that is why he didn't consider my questions worth responding to. So, why should anyone take anything he says seriously?

Actually, David, the earliest evidence of beetles dates back to the late Carboniferous, 300 million years ago, in the form of wood galleries suspiciously reminiscent of wood-boring beetles, as well as early beetle fossils from the early Permian.

See, I told you he was smarter than I am.

David Stanton: See, I told you he was smarter than I am.

Torbjorn: his erroneous assumption that the usefulness of fourier analysis implied fundamental relations between different areas of physics instead of the more basic implication of superposition and related properties

Salvador T. Cordova: ...Despite that, apparently you have no inhibition about continuing to attribute ideas to me which I never put forward. Is that the best you can do?

does this mean that you do not care that you are considered to be untrustworthy

Torbjorn: IIRC among the more humorous mistakes is that he can’t distinguish between fourier series and transform

Then can you demonstrate how a student can learn Biology, Agriculture and or Medicine without Evolutionary Theory like you were suggesting,

or produce an example of a Pro-Intelligent Design or Creationist student who was specifically denied a diploma for stating his or her beliefs?

David asked: Salvador, You completely ignored my questions about beetles.

Who said anything about not LEARNING evolutionary theory. It’s beleiving evolutionary theory that is the question. Natural Selection for the preservation of species was a creationist idea (E. Blyth), Darwin distorted this creationist idea and argued it for the origination of extremely novel species (which has never been proven)…..but in the manner of Blyth, even creationists believe in some form of evolution…

What say you to the denial of civil and constitutional rights to creationists through the denial of diplomas?

Q: or produce an example of a Pro-Intelligent Design or Creationist student who was specifically denied a diploma for stating his or her beliefs? Bryan Leonard, Marcus Ross. Marcus told me he was denied entry into various schools before finding the one that would let him through….

If researchers like Dr. Baumgardner do their work “without any form of interjection of personal dogma,” Dr. Geissman said, “I would have to keep as objective a hat on as possible and say, ‘O.K., you earned what you earned.’ ”

But if they won’t be denied diplomas, and I’m mistaken, well fine, then the Wedge of truth will move forward…

Salvador T. Cordova:

Then can you demonstrate how a student can learn Biology, Agriculture and or Medicine without Evolutionary Theory like you were suggesting,

Who said anything about not LEARNING evolutionary theory. It's beleiving evolutionary theory that is the question. Natural Selection for the preservation of species was a creationist idea (E. Blyth), Darwin distorted this creationist idea and argued it for the origination of extremely novel species (which has never been proven).....but in the manner of Blyth, even creationists believe in some form of evolution....

Salvador T. Cordova: or produce an example of a Pro-Intelligent Design or Creationist student who was specifically denied a diploma for stating his or her beliefs?

Sal wrote:

"That’s right, I did ignore your question…."

And so I answered it for you. Still no response? Perhaps you should look at my answer since you were too arrogant or ignorant to answer it yourself. How can you explain the evidence I presented when it totally demolishes your contentions? Ignoring evidence is a trick that will not fool anyone here. You are just plain wrong. You know you are wrong. Ignoring that fact won't change it.

Salvador T. Cordova:

Then can you demonstrate how a student can learn Biology, Agriculture and or Medicine without Evolutionary Theory like you were suggesting,

Who said anything about not LEARNING evolutionary theory. It's beleiving evolutionary theory that is the question. Natural Selection for the preservation of species was a creationist idea (E. Blyth), Darwin distorted this creationist idea and argued it for the origination of extremely novel species (which has never been proven).....but in the manner of Blyth, even creationists believe in some form of evolution....

Salvador T. Cordova:

or produce an example of a Pro-Intelligent Design or Creationist student who was specifically denied a diploma for stating his or her beliefs?

Bryan Leonard, Marcus Ross. Marcus told me he was denied entry into various schools before finding the one that would let him through.... But if they won't be denied diplomas, and I'm mistaken, well fine, then the Wedge of truth will move forward...

For those who are actually interested in beetle evolution (as opposed to creationist stories), there was an excellent article in Science a few months ago: Science 318:1913 - 1916 (2007). The authors sequenced three genes for 1900 beetle species and performed phylogenetic analysis with molecular dating techniques. The results: Coleoptera arose 285 million years ago (MYA), there were 36 major lineages 200 MYA, 145 lineages 140 MYA, 301 lineages 65 MYA.

There is no way in which this data can be interpreted to support any type of creationist scenario. All beetles were not created at one time. Instead, there is a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities and a dramatic increase in beetle lineages and species over time. All of the fossil and morphological evidence is also consistent with this view.

Now, I wonder why our good friend Sal chooses not to address these issues? Intellectual superiority no doubt. The man is a legend in his own mind.

For those who are really interested in beetle evolution (not just creationist stories), there was a good article in published a few months ago: Science 318:1913-1916 (2007). The authors sequenced three genes for 1900 beetle species and performed phylogenetic analysis and molecular dating. The results: the Coleoptera arose 285 million years ago (MYA); 200 MYA there were 36 major lineages; 140 MYA there were 145 lineages; 65 MYA there were 301 lineages.

These facts cannot be interpreted as supporting any type of creationist scenario. The beetles did not all arise at one time, period. There is a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities and an increasing number of lineages and species over time. The data is consistent with the fossil and morphological data as well.

Now, why do you suppose that our good friend Sal refuses to address these issues? Intellectual superiority? The man is a legend in his own mind.

Salvador T. Cordova: How about you Cheryl? Do you advocate that creationist beliefs, or the intent to discredit Darwinism in his religious activities, should be a factor in the awarding or denying of a PhD in biology, even if the student has demonstrated knowledge of the fields?

Where has the ID movement tried to shove its teachings into university curricula?

By re-writing history, you have portrayed ID’s attempts at twisting K12 science curriculum as a miniscule part of their efforts. In effect, this belies your words that you “have no strong position” on this matter. Otherwise, why would you bother?

Got evidence? [for a specific example of a pro-Intelligent Design or Creationist student who was denied a diploma specifically because of his or her beliefs]

I do have some friends who’d be interested in this, so please, could you enlighten us - to what “creationist math and science school in Texas” are you referring?

Cheryl,

Don't waste your time. Sal won't answer any inconvenient questions. I suggest we all ignore him until he starts answering questions himself.

Sorry about the double post, but it took my original submission over two hours to show up.

David, I don't expect that Sal will provide either evidence for or retraction of any of his bizarre statements.

Such scoundrelous, scurrilous behavior.

Don’t waste your time. Sal won’t answer any inconvenient questions. I suggest we all ignore him until he starts answering questions himself.

Despite that, apparently you have no inhibition about continuing to attribute ideas to me which I never put forward. Is that the best you can do?

Fourier series are

Where has the ID movement tried to shove its teachings into university curricula?

this belies your words that you “have no strong position” on this matter. Otherwise, why would you bother?

Got evidence? [for a specific example of a pro-Intelligent Design or Creationist student who was denied a diploma specifically because of his or her beliefs]

to what “creationist math and science school in Texas” are you referring?

Salvador T. Cordova: And if you Darwinsits have no intention of denying diplomas to creationists simply because they disbelieve Darwin, then fine.

what I meant is that you couldn’t distinguish between series and transforms in your first posting.

Where has the ID movement tried to shove its teachings into university curricula?

That's a "when did you stop beating your puppy type question." The DI does not try, to my knowledge, to shove teachings into university curricula. They focus on reaching the university members (students and faculty) via other means.

There can be a large majority of pro-ID students even if the public schools are monopolized by Darwinsits, but to move forward, the next generation needs to be equipped at the Univeristy level with literature and arguments which will compete with what they're indoctrinated with in the classroom.

to what “creationist math and science school in Texas” are you referring?

I seem to recall PZ reported the "I was Intelligently Designed" T-shirt school was a creationist school. It's possible I misread his report or he mir-reported the report I read.

Sal,

Any ideas about the beetles yet? How about the beatles instead? I for one won't read anything else you write until you respond to my questions. Hello? No answers huh? Guess you were just plain wrong and can't admit it. OK, but that won't fool anyone.

If you respond for the benefit of your creationist friends, I guess they can all tell that you were just making stuff up and don't really know anything about biology. Oh well, I'll keep asking every time you show up here. As Mike wrote, it is very telling which questions you choose to avoid.

me to Sal: Where has the ID movement tried to shove its teachings into university curricula? Sal's response:That's a "when did you stop beating your puppy type question." The DI does not try, to my knowledge, to shove teachings into university curricula. They focus on reaching the university members (students and faculty) via other means.

me to Sal: this belies your words that you “have no strong position” on this matter. Otherwise, why would you bother? Sal's response:When I said I have no strong position, it means I don't argue that ID should or should not be taught in the public schools. I'm simply undecided. However, I think students should explore evolution in high school....

more of Sal's response: There can be a large majority of pro-ID students even if the public schools are monopolized by Darwinsits, but to move forward, the next generation needs to be equipped at the Univeristy level with literature and arguments which will compete with what they're indoctrinated with in the classroom.

me to Sal: Got evidence? [for a specific example of a pro-Intelligent Design or Creationist student who was denied a diploma specifically because of his or her beliefs] Sal's response:: But if there is no case of diploma denial then there is none.

me to Sal: to what “creationist math and science school in Texas” are you referring? Sal's response:I seem to recall PZ reported the "I was Intelligently Designed" T-shirt school was a creationist school. It's possible I misread his report or he mir-reported the report I read.

admission from Sal: Frankly, I was hoping you'd provide evidence you're comrades were thinking of denying diplomas like John Patterson suggested at ISU (you know, where Guillermo was teaching ...

despite the fact I have degrees in 3 of those fields and am working on a degree in a fourth.

I have degrees in 3 of those fields and am working on a degree in a fourth.

A) From what I recall, Bryan Leonard was denied a PhD because the review committee discovered that he was a science teacher who was misinforming his students about Biology and Evolutionary Theory. If that is not a valid reason to deny a person a PhD, then please explain why a person who lies to children about science should receive a PhD.

B) If Marcus Ross was denied a diploma, then how did he get into a graduate program and receive a PhD for his thesis in mosasaurs?

Mike Elzinga wrote: Yup, fits the profile: a meter wide and a nanometer deep in each case.

Cheryl wrote: Should a students’ beliefs influence the grade they receive? No. Just their mastery of the course material.

Cheryl wrote: Contrast this with their behavior across the nation in trying to force ID v.2.whatever into K12 science curricula. You were wrong, absolutely wrong, when you claimed that the DI was focusing on universities instead of K12 science classrooms.

Well, my nanometer depth in math is fathoms deeper than Darwin’s as he didn’t even have the intellectual faciliity to comprehend high school algebra despite having a tutor to spoon feed it to him in university. In contrast I comprehended high school algebra while I was in high school.

That’s a pretty pathetic testament of Darwin’s aptitude in light of the fact that creationists like me have more intellectual capability than Darwin in math and physics.

As Jerry Coyne said, “In sciences pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.”

A) From what I recall, Bryan Leonard was denied a PhD because the review committee discovered that he was a science teacher who was misinforming his students about Biology and Evolutionary Theory. If that is not a valid reason to deny a person a PhD, then please explain why a person who lies to children about science should receive a PhD.

In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture. The latest deadweight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies the evolutionary roots of human behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong with this enterprise, and it has proposed some intriguing theories, particularly about the evolution of language. The problem is that evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling, including depression, homosexuality, religion, and consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural selection. In this view, evolution becomes the key--the only key--that can unlock our humanity.

Sal,

How about those beatles? Intelligently designed or what?

If you were so dramatically wrong about beetles that you couldn't even respond to the questions, why should anyone take anything you write seriously?

I don’t get it, Sal. You *lied* when you referred to TAMS as a “creationist math and science school in Texas.” How, exactly, was this supposed to bring people to Christ?

David Stanton asked: Sal, How about those beatles? Intelligently designed or what?

A) If the Beetles were so intelligently designed, then how come creative differences between its members caused the band to break up, and have blame for this unfairly placed on Yoko Ono?

B) What does Intelligent Design "theory" say about beetles? How can Intelligent Design "theory" explain the origin, anatomy, physiology, and ecological roles of beetles better than Evolutionary Theory?

Stanton: A) If the BeAtles were so intelligently designed, then how come creative differences between its members caused the band to break up, and have blame for this unfairly placed on Yoko Ono?

Richard Simmons asked: Does this mean you are backing off from your statement that “There are about 100 university courses that delve into ID.”?

Does this mean you are backing off from your statement that “There are about 100 university courses that delve into ID.”?

There are about 100 university courses that delve into ID. ResearchID.org maintained a list of such courses offered in the last few years…

— Sal

The true measure of their success will be 30 years from now when Darwinism will likely be believed only be the minority in the general population and perhaps a smaller majority amongst scientists. We will see.

That's right Sal. You refused to answer my questions about beetles, so I just changed the subject to something you would respond to. At least we agree that the rock group was intelligently designed.

Now, about the real beetles, care to respond yet?

David,

My speculation is that all beetles decended from a common ancestor beetle. Whatever the number of varieties had the capacity for variation in vivo. It's a speculation, and I don't know how at this time to construct an experiment or observation which will decide the case either way whether in vivo or in vitro.

I do not believe however natural selection was much of a factor. Salthe's corollary to Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection highlights the fact that natural selection constricts varieties, natural selection is very hard pressed to explain how a process which eliminates variations can also explain the abundance of them.

Natural selection works by eliminating less fit variations. Thus it is pretty clumsy to explain an abundance of variation, unless of course you argue the variations weren't selected against, in which case one has just argued natural selection had nothing to do with the abundance of variation!

Nei extends Kimuras very sound math arguements that varieties of adaptations cannot emerge from intensely selective environments.

I outlined the basic mathematical reasoning here (inspired by YEC Cornell Professor and renowned geneticist, John Sanford):
http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/200

Natural selection is the enemy of diversification.

Are you content to let me answer by saying I have my speculations, but am formally undecided?

I think the beetle could have been on Noah's Ark, but I'm formally undecided about those accounts at this time as well. Some experiment or observation to help decide the case would be helpful. At this time I'm undecided, though I have my strong biases given I favor the Creationist accounts, but my biases could of course be wrong....

Salvador

That’s a pretty pathetic testament of Darwin’s aptitude in light of the fact that creationists like me have more intellectual capability than Darwin in math and physics.

Salvador Cordova blathers: I think the beetle could have been on Noah’s Ark, but I’m formally undecided about those accounts at this time as well. Some experiment or observation to help decide the case would be helpful. At this time I’m undecided, though I have my strong biases given I favor the Creationist accounts, but my biases could of course be wrong….

Salvador T. Cordova: . . .Cheryl asked a "have you stopped beating your puppy" type question. Any response forces self-incrimination, even if one is innocent.

Where has the ID movement tried to shove its teachings into university curricula?

. . . and sorry, Sal, no more from me this evening. Time to go lead a review session! :P

I forced myself to read some of Cordova's words, and they were as I expected rather funny.

Hey, Salvador, did you derive all the fancy algebra and stuff that you claim to know by yourself, or did you read it in a book and get taught it at school?

guthrie: I forced myself to read some of Cordova's words, and they were as I expected rather funny. Hey, Salvador, did you derive all the fancy algebra and stuff that you claim to know by yourself, or did you read it in a book and get taught it at school?

Salvador,

Thank you for finally responding. That wasn't so hard was it? Of course you are allowed to speculate, why not.

In this case though, i have already presented evidence that completely demolishes your scenario. All of the genetic and fossil evidence directly contradicts your hypothesis. Did you read the article I cited? How can you possibly continue to hold a view so directly in conflict with all of the evidence? Of course you are free to ignore all of the evidence, however, that won't convince anyone of anything other than your completely unscientific approach to reality.

So, how about addressing some of the evidence instead of just making up stories? How about explaining the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities? How about explaining all of the other genetic evidence I presented? Claiming that natural selection had nothing to do with it won't help you. You would still need to explain the observed pattern even if none of the mechanisms were known. So, what do you believe produced over 300,000 species of beetles in under 10,000 years? Some thing more powerful that selection? Do tell.

So, let's recap shall we?

First, Sal calims that ID does not try to force it's narrow sectarian views on unsuspecting school children using gullible and ignorant teachers who really don't know any better. Of course that is absurd. Just go to the NCSE web site. They have an archive that contains documented proof of creationist political activities, including information on the individuals responsible, their affiliation with creationist organizations, the type of activity (pressuring local school boards, textbook pubishers, state legislatures, etc.) and the outcome of the cases. Just look at what is happening in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Texas and Florida to name a few. The effort has been continuous and relentless. It has been a complete falilure legally, but has succeeded fairly well at the local level.

Then, Sal tries to claim that actually ID is actually aimed at univeristies where it has been successfully inserted. Of course that is completely wrong as well. At the university level professors actually know about biology, they actually have academic freedom, they are not as susceptable to pressure from students and parents who want pseudoscience taught instead of real science.

Then Sal calims that the real issue is whether or not life is designed. Of course he presents no evidence whatsoever to suport the claim, so that can be safely ignored.

Then he tries to deflect attention from the fact that he is completely wrong about everything by bringing up beetles. When I point out that 300,000 beetle species could not have evolved in less than 10,000 years, he completely ignores my questions for over two days while still responding to many other posters. When he finally does respond, he claims that "the beetle" stepped off the ark and proceeded to speciate like crazy in order to produce all of the beetle species in less than 6,000 years. In order to defend that position, he attempts to demonstrate that selection is too sloww to work!

I think Sal has lost the capacity to follow a rational argument. He claims that evolution proceeds at a rate orders of magnitude higher than any evolutionary biologist would accept and then tries to show that evolution would be too slow to produce the species observed. Well, you can't argue with logic like that, so why bother?

Then he tries to deflect attention from the fact that he is completely wrong about everything by bringing up beetles. When I point out that 300,000 beetle species could not have evolved in less than 10,000 years,

I forced myself to read some of Cordova’s words, and they were as I expected rather funny. Hey, Salvador, did you derive all the fancy algebra and stuff that you claim to know by yourself, or did you read it in a book and get taught it at school?

I attempted mathematics, and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra. This impatience was very foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics, for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade.

Mike wrote: Too bad, little fella, you just don’t make the grade.

David Stanton wrote: It is painfully obvious that Salvador Cordova has a paper-thin grasp of evolutionary biology, as, if he had read more in-depth, he would realize that natural selection does more than just “selecting against,” such as “selecting for.” And even if natural selection just “selected against” traits in a species, Salvador Cordova also painfully neglects the fact that traits can reappear in a population due to mutation.

David inquires: Did you read the article I cited?

Sal wrote:

"You’re presuming rates of change are constant, or at the very least, you’re presuming rates of change observed today are fully applicable to the past. Your assumption could be wrong. Now if you wish to apply today’s observations to the past, we don’t see fish evolve into bats do we? Well, by golly, by the same line of reasoning fish didn’t evolve into bats, but that’s what Darwin’s theory of universal common descent would effectively argue…."

No I am not. You are assuming that rates of speciation, starting with a single individual, were high enough to produce over 300,000 species in less than 6,000 years, If there is rate heterogeniety, then at some time the rate of speciation would actually be slower, thus arguing against your hypothesis as well. You are assuming that rates of speciation in the recent past were orders of magnitude higher than any ever observed. By YOUR reasoning we should be seeing fish truning into bats every day. Try to keep the argument straight. You are the one arguing for vastly increased rates of evolution here. You have not accounted for any of the evidence that I presented. All you have done is disproven your own little scenario.

And by the way, I never wrote the things you quoted in the last post. I already informed you that I am not "Stanton". Please try to keep us straight.

"No. I apologize for not taking your postings seriously enough to really read them…"

Well no one will ever take any of your postings seriously with an atitude like that. You presented an hypothesis on this blog. What did you think would happen? I cited literature that demolishes your claims. You ignored my argument and all of the evidence. Apparently you are still willing to continue with that strategy. Don't apologize for your rudeness, rectify the situation by reading the paper. When you can address the evidence, maybe someone will be willing to take you seriously. Until then a friendly word of advice, don't try to tell real scientists that they are completely wrong about everything if you are unwilling to read even one paper or look at any evidence.

By the way, natural selection (and many other mechanisms) can lead to reproductivve isolation, so you are wrong about the role of selection in speciation as well.

So, then, Mr Cordova, if Natural Selection, as originally and inaccurately portrayed by the math-incompetent Darwin (who is an incompetent because he did not know as much algebra as you did, apparently), is not the correct explanation of how the diversity of life as we see it now, then please explain to us how did the 360,000+ species of beetles appeared on this planet since the 4000 years from the end of the Great Deluge, and please explain why current evidence does not place order Coeloptera's origin at Mount Ararat in Turkey?

P.S.,
My given name is "Stanton," not "David."

Even though it is not conventionally modelled that way in the literature, it is not incorrect mathematically speaking.

Sal,

If you are such a math wizard, perhaps you can calculate for us the species doubling rate at which evolution must have occurred in order to produce over 300,000 species of beetles in about 4,000 years. Come on, it's a simple equation. You can even assume a constant rate if you want to simplify the calculation.

Here, I'll even help get you started. Assuming a doubling rate of every 500 years, (that is to say that every species gives rise to at least one new speces on average once every 500 years thus doubling the number of species every 500 years), then after 5,000 years there would be about 1,000 species. So now all you have to do is calculate how much faster the doubling rate would have to be in order to produce over 300 times more species.

Of course we know that the number of beetle species is not currently doubling every 500 years, so what happened? I know, maybe that paper with all of genetic evidence might give you some clues.

"I no longer accept Darwinian evolution or Urey-Miller. I have to say Darwinism’s tale of transformation of fish into rat-like creatures (like Morgy) and into cows and into whales, and the transformation of fish into dinosaurs and dinosaurs into birds through the process of Darwinian evolution no longer sounds believable in light of some the math I learned in high school – which by the way was more math than Darwin’s brain could comprehend, as experimentally observed and demonstrated by Darwin himself."

Oh good golly, here we go again. Gish gallop in full swing. Now he doesn't but abiogenesis, oh dear, whtever shall we do? Now he doesn't believe in whales from cows, oh my. Well Sal, try to understand that which you ridicule before you make a fool out of yourself again. According to all of the palentological and genetic evidence, the closest living relative to the cetaceans is the hippopotamus. That means that the cetacea are the descendants of artiodactyls. It doesn't matter what your understanding of algebra tells you. If you disagree, then please account for all of the available evidence, including the shared retrotranspositions between artiodactyls and cetaceans. (I would include references here, but you have already demonstrated that that approach is worthless with you). Simply put, did God copy the mistakes? If yes, then your God is an incompetent boob who would fail any decent biology course. If no, then common descent is true and macroevolution is true, take your pick. Either way, until you address the evidence, everyone can safely ignore anything you write. Reality doesn't care what you think.

And just for the record, the fact that creationists try unsuccessfully to insert their nonsense into university courses in no way excuses the fact that they also try to subvert public education as well. Indeed, it makes their offense all the more unforgiveable since they obviously know that they have failed to earn the right to present their ideas to unsuspecting grade schoolers.

I mean gee, I learned algebra in high school, and then in university I learned even varieties of algebra implemented to work in fields and modulo-2 spaces…

By the way, Sal-of-several-shallow-degrees, we are so disappointed that your count-to-two math education does not allow you to show us the solution to David Stanton’s question.

We had hoped someone with your brilliance could show the world how easy it is to do; but apparently it is not to be. :-(

I mean gee, I learned algebra in high school, and then in university I learned even varieties of algebra implemented to work in fields and modulo-2 spaces…

Stanton:

I mean gee, I learned algebra in high school, and then in university I learned even varieties of algebra implemented to work in fields and modulo-2 spaces…

- - - According to Mr Cordova's shaky train of logic, one could easily argue that Jesus Christ wasn't really the Messiah because he didn't know how to drive a car - - -

(sound of beetle species doubling)

You introduced the word “Fourier Series”, not me.

If we have an arbitrary function f(x) which obey the Dirichelet [sic] Conditions, the Fourier transform of that function is defined as:

Chu-carol’s log doesn’t debunk Darwin’s math

Early steps of algebra? Hmm, like the following was too hard for Charles Darwin: 1 + 1 = 2 multiplying both sides by x we have 1x + 1x = 2x which reduces to x + x = 2x multiplying both sides by y we have yx + yx = 2xy dividing both sides by yx + yx we have 1 = 2xy / (yx + yx) dividing both sides by y we have y = 2xy/ (x + x) [...] Gee, even I can execute such elemetary algebraic operations. I even did so not only with real numbers but even within modulo-2 vector spaces!

Early steps of algebra? Hmm, like the following was too hard for Charles Darwin:
1 + 1 = 2
multiplying both sides by x we have
1x + 1x = 2x
which reduces to
x + x = 2x
multiplying both sides by y we have
yx + yx = 2xy
dividing both sides by yx + yx we have
1 = 2xy / (yx + yx)
dividing both sides by y we have
y = 2xy/ (x + x)
[...]
Gee, even I can execute such elemetary algebraic operations. I even did so not only with real numbers but even within modulo-2 vector spaces!

psycholosophy

1 = 2xy / (yx + yx) dividing both sides by y we have y = 2xy/ (x + x)

Well, the mathematical wizard had his chance. Somehow he was unwilling to demonstrate his exceptional expertise and ignored my questions once again.

For anyone who cares, going from 1 to 300,000 species requires just over 18 doublings which comes out to about one doubling every 216 years. That gives over 300,000 species in the 4,000 years since "the beetle" stepped off the ark (assuming it was an inseminated female of course). That also assumes no periods of slower speciation, no extinctions along the way and no more species to be discovered.

So, that means that over half of the beetle species now in existence evolved "in vivo" since Darwin was born, amazing. And you say this guy doesn't even believe in evolution. Man, he believes in it more than anyone else.

Now, if only we could get him to look at some evidence, or read a journal article. Maybe he could use his staggering intellect for good instead of evil. Fortunately, ignorance of the evidence doesn't make the evidence go away.

For anyone who cares, going from 1 to 300,000 species requires just over 18 doublings which comes out to about one doubling every 216 years.

Maybe he could use his staggering intellect for good instead of evil.

Err - that’s multiplying both sides by y.

towering intellect

So, time for another recap.

It seems that Sal's mathematical prowess has led him to reject all of modern biology, apparently without actually examining the evidence. However, when asked how old the earth is, his mathematical skills seem to have deserted him. When asked to demonstrate said skills, he never responded. Seems like such an intuitive grasp of mathematics would have informed him immediately that it was completely implausible for "the beetle" have stepped off the ark and given rise to all extant species of beetles in the last 4,000 years. Somehow the Issac Newton of algebra seems to have missed that little point. Oh well, I guess he was just speculating anyway.

As for all of the genetic evidence he has ignored, well I guess he just doesn't take such things seriously. Perhaps we should all ignore him from now on. He can try to rewrite history all he wants, but the facts will still be there, obstinately defying his efforts.

Thanks to Richard for his editorial correction. It was probably a carry over from a cut and paste that wasn't corrected from the previous line.

I corrected it on my website.

Thanks for helping me improve my work. I knew visting PT would provide productive feedback and information.

So, what are you saying, Sal? That the past 150 years of research is all bogus because the guy that wrote "On the Origin of Species" couldn't do algebra?

Oh, and we know you're going to, so I'll say it for you:

@David Stanton: "Yes, but they're still just beetles!"

So you can’t distinguish between fourier series and transforms, as you don’t know when transforms apply and when series apply.

In mathematics, the Dirichlet conditions are sufficient condition for a periodic function f(x), to have a Fourier series representation or to possess a Fourier Transform. These conditions are named after Johann Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet.

David writes: It seems that Sal’s mathematical prowess has led him to reject all of modern biology

Regarding David's question:

log_2 (300,000) = 18.18 approx

5000/18.18 = about 275 years

But the Darwinist tactic is to keep putting forward questions until one tires of answering.

Then when the thread is departed from, the Darwinsts claim victory by saying, "he couldn't answer a simple question, he must be incompetent".

Of course that will only affirm to yourselves a false belief. That's fine, do what you can to keep believing what you want about me. Apparently you have a vested interest in maintaining your beliefs about me.

David said, I reject all of modern biology. That is not true. Will he offer a retraction and apology or will he defend that falsehood?

Salvador T. Cordova:

David writes: It seems that Sal’s mathematical prowess has led him to reject all of modern biology

That's a misrepresentation. I accept most of modern biology. I don't approve, but you are of course free to keep arguing against things I never said or implied in order to smear me. That seems par for the Panda way of doing business...

Salvador T. Cordova: David said, I reject all of modern biology. That is not true. Will he offer a retraction and apology or will he defend that falsehood?

Torbjorn argues: Well, he is demonstrably a mental incompetent. And you don’t have to remember that fact, as he demonstrates it all the time.

Salvador T. Cordova:

Torbjorn argues: Well, he is demonstrably a mental incompetent. And you don’t have to remember that fact, as he demonstrates it all the time.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that I am incompentent. It does not give you license to use arguments that are simply false in order to justify your claim

Then when the thread is departed from, the Darwinsts claim victory by saying, “he couldn’t answer a simple question, he must be incompetent”.

Even though I don’t approve, you’re free of course to keep spreading a falsehood which you know is a falsehood.

But the Darwinist tactic is to keep putting forward questions until one tires of answering.

Let’s say for the sake of argument, that I am incompentent.

For the Fourier Transform, we can say the period is infinity, and thus Dirichlet conditions can still be applied.

Sorry Sal, not buying it. You can play the persecution card all you want, but you can't remove the evidence from this thread. The reason I had to ask questions multiple times is because you refused to answer them for days. You even stated that you didn't take my questions seriously and refused to answer them despite repeated requests. Well, here's a news flash for you, I didn't take any of your responses seriously because they were all total nonsense and every claim you made has been demonstrabley false.

Now about those beetles, by your own calculations you admit that the number of beetle species would have to increase on average once every 275 years in order for your scenario to be plausible. So now, do you admit that that is a completely unreasonable position and contrary to all of the evidence or not? How about those whale retrotranspositions? Do you admit that you were wrong about that? How many times will I have to ask that question? Who do you think that really makes look bad here?

As for my claim that you deny all of modern biology, I stand by the claim. If you refuse to accept the foundation of modern biology, then indeed you do reject all of modern biology. If you refuse to even read one paper, then you show your contempt for all of modern biology. You don't even take the time to understand the things that you refuse to believe. Sorry if you are insulted, but we have put up with your nonsense for far too long to care anymore. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that you show contempt for all of science.

Of course none of that really matters. The important thing is that you cannot explain any of the evidence that I and others have presented and yet you refuse to admit that you were wrong about anything. Well you were wrong period, whether you admit it or not. But worse than that, your refusal to examine any evidence demonstrates conclusively that there is not the slightest possibility that you will ever be right about anything.

That is certainly not the whole story. There are other conditions as well. Torbjörn is correct to question your knowledge in this area. You really don’t appear to understand.

In mathematics, the Dirichlet conditions are sufficient condition for a periodic function f(x), to have a Fourier series representation or to possess a Fourier Transform. These conditions are named after Johann Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet.

We have come to the conclusion that you reject all of modern biology because you have repeatedly stated that you do not trust Evolutionary Theory, which is the unifying principle of Biology, Medicine, and Agriculture,

Sal, Sal, Sal. Once again you prove my point with your mindless blubbering. Let me spell it out for you:

If you really believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old you reject most of modern cosmology, astronomy and physics.

If you believe in a world-wide flood then you reject almost all of geology (and logic).

If you think that over 300,000 thousand species of beetles were produced in less than 4,000 years, then you reject almost all of palentology, genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology and entomology.

If you think that modern evolutionary theory claims that fish will have "horses for offspring" then it's no wonder you have such contempt for biology. Of course a fourth degree in actual biology might clear up some of your misconcepotions.

You simply cannot reject all of the evidence and major conclusions in multiple fields of science and still claim to have one shread of respect for science, you just can't. And the mere fact that there may be some small aspects of biology that don't conflict with your preconceived notions doesn't absolve you of responsibility, it just shows what a complete hypocrite you are to pick and choose based on nothing more than your own limited view of reality.

I see you still haven't admitted that you were completely wrong about the beetles. You were completely wrong about the whales as well. When you reject these ideas without examining the evidence, you once again demonstrate contempt for science and the scientific method. You can cry all you want, but no one is going to believe that you have the slightest respect for science in general or biology in particular as long as you refuse to examine the evidence.

As for your mathematical prowess and your three degrees, who cares? As long as you won't even read one paper, never mind actually getting a degree in biology, no one needs to take you seriously. Personally, I could care less what you believe.

Now, I'm sure that someone with your committment to biology needs to go out in the field and collect beetles. After all, by your own calculations, while we have been having this conversation, over one thousand new beetle species have evolved. If this keeps up, there will be over 350,000 new species of beetles by the year 2283 and another 750,000 by the year 2558. That will bring the total to over one billion. Better get buzy!

Thanks to Richard for his editorial correction. It was probably a carry over from a cut and paste that wasn’t corrected from the previous line. I corrected it on my website. Thanks for helping me improve my work. I knew visting PT would provide productive feedback and information.

There are about 100 university courses that delve into ID. ResearchID.org maintained a list of such courses offered in the last few years…

David Stanton said: Now, I’m sure that someone with your committment to biology needs to go out in the field and collect beetles. After all, by your own calculations, while we have been having this conversation, over one thousand new beetle species have evolved. If this keeps up, there will be over 350,000 new species of beetles by the year 2283 and another 750,000 by the year 2558. That will bring the total to over one billion.

Richard,

That won't help Sal at all. If, for some unknown reason speciation actually did stop three hundred years ago, then the rate of speciation would have had to have been even faster prior to that.

Notice how everything this guy says is absolutely wrong but he never admits it. If we ask questions he never answers and if we ask repeatedly he claims we are bullying him. Notice how he tries to change the subject at every opportunity in order to draw attention away from the fact that he was wrong about everything. After all, he brought up beetles and then refused to discuss the subject. We brought up whales as well and won't answer any questions about them either. But most of all, notice how he has not presented one bit of evidence of any kind and he steadfastly ignores all evidence presented to him. Then he has the nerve to claim that he doesn't reject modern biology.

And just for the record, even if he can demonstrate that some universities teach about some form of ID in some type of classes, that still won't support the claim that creationists don't try to push ID into public schools. I assume that the point of all his mindless rambling was to try to deflect attention away from this simple fact.

For the reader’s benefit, then, state the complete list. Or at least say about how many more conditions are needed. The wiki article I linked to regarding Dirichlet provided 3 conditions. Are you saying there are more than 3? Hehehe….

David Stanton: Then he has the nerve to claim that he doesn't reject modern biology.

To believe that fish can eventually have horses for offspring, you need Darwinism.

Thanks for affirming that Dirichelet conditions are a sufficient condition for the Transform to exist.

For the Fourier Transform, we can say the period is infinity, and thus Dirichlet conditions can still be applied.

The convention is to find solutions that involve smooth functions (meaning not only is the function continuous but the derivative of the function is also continuous).

I even provided the formula….

Darwinist

I still see Sal as one of the best examples of ‘your brain on creationism’.

Mike said: As David Stanton points out, you don’t read. You didn’t read what I said.

That is certainly not the whole story. There are other conditions as well. Torbjörn is correct to question your knowledge in this area. You really don’t appear to understand.

f(x) must have a finite number of extrema in any given interval f(x) must have a finite number of discontinuities in any given interval f(x) must be absolutely integrable over a period.

In mathematics, the Dirichlet conditions are sufficient condition for a periodic function f(x), to have a Fourier series representation or to possess a Fourier Transform.

Torbjorn wrote: Yet you use Dirichlet conditions that allow discontinuities but not complex wavefunctions as the physics of QM requires?!

And yet, Mr Cordova still refuses to explain why the story of Noah's Ark is more convincing an explanation for modern-day beetle (or any other taxon) diversity than suggesting that the beetles got the way they are today after 280 million years of evolution.

Torbjorn wrote: Yet you use Dirichlet conditions that allow discontinuities but not complex wavefunctions as the physics of QM requires?!

Are you saying Dirichlet conditions preclude complex wave functions? :-)

f(x) = i sin (x)

Salvador T. Cordova: And you guys wonder why the next generation of ID proponents have such contempt for you PT types.....Torbjohn resorts to fabricated arguments with illogical defenses with the blessing of Mike Elzinga. Hahaha....

Salvador T. Cordova: And you guys wonder why the next generation of ID proponents have such contempt for you PT types.....Torbjohn resorts to fabricated arguments with illogical defenses with the blessing of Mike Elzinga. Hahaha....

Torbjohn: Yet you use Dirichlet conditions that allow discontinuities but not complex wavefunctions as the physics of QM requires?!

To my surprise, I discovered there is a relationship of Schrodinger's equation in physics to the Fourier Transform of math and Electrical Engineering.

Torbjohn: Dirichlet conditions that allow discontinuities but not complex wavefunctions

1. fabricate the argument I didn't know the difference between a series and a transform (when in fact I did) 2. promoted the falsehood that I didn't know the difference between a series and a transform (when in fact I knew the difference because I took several classes which involved learning and using Fourier analysis)

Dirichlet conditions that allow discontinuities but not complex wavefunctions

f(x) = i sin(x)

x(t) = i sin(t)

Does x(t) = i sin(t) satisfy Dirichlet conditions?

Salvador T. Cordova , Why have you continued to ignore Stanton's questions?

Stacy S.: Salvador T. Cordova , Why have you continued to ignore Stanton's questions?

Isn't it nice how some people come back to dying threads, place a comment or two and claim victory?

"Hah! You said I asked 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin', when in reality I asked 'how many angels can dance through the eye of a needle'! I win!"

Stacy S.: Isn't it nice how some people come back to dying threads, place a comment or two and claim victory?

Does x(t) = i sin(t) satisfy Dirichlet conditions?

I thank the PT admins for giving me the opportunity to clear my name with respect to what I really know and have written about Fourier transforms on my blog, YoungCosmos…

Is Trobjohn arguing that these would not be sufficient for a Foruier Transform to exist? [...] I also pointed out, that my selection of the more restrictive case of well-behaved functions (such as those obeying Dirichlet conditions) does not logically imply I didn’t know the difference [...]

The period for a transfor might be infinity, as I pointed out. So Mike, Torbjorn, are you saying the transform might not exist if f(x) satisfies these conditions?

Are you saying Dirichlet conditions preclude complex wave functions? :-)

Tell me is signal #207 a complex waveform?

I never implied Dirichlet conditions are sufficient conditions for solutions to differential equations in quantum mechanics.

It is arguable there could be actually LESS restrictive conditions, not more, but I selected Dirichlet because in solving time-independent Schrodinger equations, the convention is to use fairly restricitive requirements for the solutions, even moreso than Dirichlet conditions.

Salvador T. Cordova: This line of discussion is a distraction from the central question of ID vs. Darwinism, but it goes to show Torby had to resort to making off topic smear attempts on me than actually addressing the issues.

I thank the PT admins for giving me the opportunity to clear my name with respect to what I really know and have written about Fourier transforms on my blog, YoungCosmos...

And Mike Elzinga, want to wager money that Mr Cordova will ignore what I’ve written in order to attack and mispell Torbjörn again?

Really, I mean, Mike, Torbjörn, Stacy, I can barely wrap my poor little head around how awful an idea Intelligent Design "theory" must be if not even a staff member of the Discovery Institute, the very organization that launched it, refuses to defend it, their pet hypothesis.

No, I have to withdraw that, it is was a mistake and it would have been easy to find if I hadn’t been so careless.

Salvador T. Cordova:

No, I have to withdraw that, it is was a mistake and it would have been easy to find if I hadn’t been so careless.

Hahaha. Withdraw it after I call you out on your incompetence. Hahaha!!!!

Pay up, Mike, Mr Cordova really is too terrified to talk (bullshit, I mean) about Biology in front of biologists.

And Mike Elzinga, want to wager money that Mr Cordova will ignore what I’ve written in order to attack and mispell Torbjörn again?

And fortunately for me you are still equivocating between your special case and a general Fourier transform.

Dirichlet conditions that allow discontinuities but not complex wavefunctions

x(t) = i sin(t)

1. Fourier Transform If on every finite interval, f satisfies the Dirichlet conditions and if the improper integral exists, the following integral ..... is known as the Fourier transform, whose value at f(t) is the function F(w).

Torbjorn wrote: But Dirichlet conditions (also known as Dirichlet Fourier series condition)

1. Fourier Transform If on every finite interval, f satisfies the Dirichlet conditions and if the improper integral exists, the following integral ….. is known as the Fourier transform, whose value at f(t) is the function F(w).

That is certainly not the whole story. There are other conditions as well. Torbjörn is correct to question your knowledge in this area. You really don’t appear to understand.

Salvador T. Cordova squonked: Apparently my nano-meter depth of understanding was deeper than Mike's.

Where did you guys learn math? Darwin's school of high school algebra? Hahhaha.

Please, OH Please answer Stanton's questions!! :-)

Stacy S.: Please, OH Please answer Stanton's questions!! :-)

You didn’t think a poor lil ole Johns Hopkins grad student in physics had it in his nano-meter depth of understanding to see through your mistake?

Mike Elzinga: But what I have done is none of your business; you just want to avoid the real issues raised by Stanton, and everyone here can see your fear of dealing with anything beyond elementary math. Now, instead of trying to catch me in some kind of semantic error (you still don’t get it), why don’t you just answer Stanton’s questions. They too hard for you; aren’t they?

… even Sal would take his chances with the lizards in a heartbeat.

Torbjorn wrote: But Dirichlet conditions (also known as Dirichlet Fourier series condition) is the sufficient condition for nice (for some definitions of “nice”) functions to have a fourier series representation (or a transform equivalent to a series representation).

Mike boasted: You would not have made the cut in any of the classes with the students I’ve had.

Since this thread has wandered faaaaar from the OP, I'm closing comments.

Give it a rest Sal...