ultimate175 (Brian Sandefur)


Comment history

FBI: Search for KC baby leads to Shawnee landfill

Speaking of intelligence, 'arial' is a font.

October 8, 2011 at 7:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Behind the Lens: Optimizing shutter speed

Slow sync, even if it does help some ambient light register, still doesn't address the direct flash issue. Useful tool, yes, but the only way to get a really natural looking image is to bounce the flash, which is hard to do (though not impossible in certain situations) with the built in flash.

January 23, 2011 at 9 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jacoby Thomas dismissed from KU football team

I'm sure Kale appreciates his picture underneath that headline.

August 17, 2010 at 3:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Public voices support for Douglas County tax increase

I have no idea if the tone of this article actually reflects the mindset of the commissioners, but if so I'm furious. To imply that those who spoke at the meeting garner more influence (and have a vision) is so disappointing. I'm curious how many phone calls and emails were sent in opposition by those who couldn't attend? I know I was one of them. Will it be noted or not?

I'm also curious when the meeting announcement was first posted? I saw it for the first time yesterday, but I of course could have missed an earlier one.

Perhaps it's time to move from Douglas county. But not until my opportunity to vote against Mr. Gaughan and Ms. Thellman has come.

July 21, 2010 at 8:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Man accused of violent sexual assault on bike path may have been involved in two earlier attacks

It's not photoshopped. Looks like he used an external flash to camera right. Pretty standard technique for balancing exposure of people in a more shaded area with bright backgrounds.

June 18, 2010 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Chat transcript with Leonard Krishtalka

ID is not an inference to supernatural design. It is an inference to intelligent agency. The identity of that intelligent agency is not discernable from the data - just as the identity of the sender would not be discernable if SETI received a designed radio signal from space.

By seeking only natural explanations for systems, "science" is potentially asking for wrong answers. For seeking only natural explanations for the origin of biological features will only yield "correct" (as in accurately reflecting the real history of life) explanations if nature did it all. But that is precisely the question at hand. It has certainly not been scientifically demonstrated that material processes can create everything. It's assumed. What if intelligent action was a causal force in the history of life on this planet? It is certainly a live possibility. And science would completely miss it because they are committed to material philosophy.

I prefer the more traditional, historical definition of science, which is something like a systematic, emprical effort to most accurately describe our world. Commiting a priori to only material causes jeopardizes that effort.

October 6, 2005 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Chat transcript with Leonard Krishtalka

Well reading through this, I see a number of misrepresentations (at best) from Dr. Krishtalka. Irreducible complexity has not been "demolished" by "biologists" (did he forget that "biologists" are the ones who profer it?). It has been meagerly addressed, in my estimation, not sufficiently accounting for the challenges it presents at all. Moreover, determining whether or not something is irreducibly complex is empirical, carried out by genetic knock out experiments.

Second, his discussion about "transitional forms" fails completely to address the very place where the absence is most striking - the Cambrian. This documents the abrupt appearance of Phyla, not mere species. The space between Phyla (representing the most disparate characteristics within a kindgom) should contain uncountable numbers of evolutionary experiments connecting them. This is not the case at all, and makes citations of Archeopteryx less than persuasive.

Third, he is incorrect regarding "Of Pandas and People". The rest of the title of that book is "The Central Question of Biological Origins". Contrary to Dr. Krishtalka's claims, "creationism" isn't in the title, and I'd appreciate anyone pointing out to me anywhere in the text where "creationism" is used also. I can guarantee that there is no prose in the text that would warrant a claim that it is a support text for Biblical creation.

Finally, he seems to think ID is a deduction from religious doctrine, when instead it is an inference from biological data. Perhaps he's confusing religious derivation with religious implication. I think he should know better.

October 6, 2005 at 4:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Evolution teaching debate makes its way into Kansas history museums

Did you read these two links?

First of all they link to a blog, not any formal review paper. The first one isn't about Wells' paper at all, but attacks the publishing journal. I suppose we could call that an institutional case of ad hominem fallacy.

The second one doesn't dispute any of the material in Wells' paper, but only notes - as a blogger - that he doesn't find the paper all that interesting for ID.

September 23, 2005 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )