User talk:Sterile/sandbox

Gimme my talk back.

I like the look of this, seems like a handy crib sheet. Genghis Marauding 13:52, 23 January 2008 (EST)
 * It's actually just The Fine Art of Baloney Detection reformatted...Sterilexx 14:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Almost giggle-worthy
"Sterile sandbox" is an almost giggle-worthy contradiction-in-terms. -- 14:09, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Took some labouriosity to do that. 'Snice. Susan Miouw  12:08, 13 February 2008 (EST)
 * Really, "Sterile" was just my CP name. I should really change to something else. Sterilexx 12:17, 13 February 2008 (EST)

ID "challenge"
I'd be interested in reading such a chapter. My main beef with "ID theory" is that it isn't a theory, there is no solid framework of anything, just a bunch of godly hand-waving and random "irreducibly complex" things Behe comes up with to try to stay ahead of the real scientists who then analyze their reduceability. human  14:19, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, that's kinda the point. I realized when we were doing the Leader's Guide that a lot of the "arguments" for ID are really analogies or begging for an answer-type arguments.  Information theory and thermodynamics are at best an analogy.  It's not clear if irreducible complexity presumes a designer.  I think his argument appears stronger to those who agree with Behe only because it contrasts with evolution.  Behe's argument basically comes down to it looks like it's designed so it must be, which is logic at its worst.  Sterilexx 09:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes. You should move this to the essay space? human  13:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I moved it manually for various reasons; it's at Essay:ID textbook chapter challenge.
 * Cool, thanks! I understand the manual move, it makes sense... human  15:44, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

New work
I'm impressed, and I can't wait for it to hit the mainspace.  ħ uman  23:29, 13 January 2009 (EST)


 * I learned a lot from the Leader's Guide about how to set this up faster... Anyway, bed for now... Sterilerationalize 23:32, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, that was another of your great pwnings.  ħ uman  23:43, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Information talk prep 2009 05
Mind if I copyedit a tiny bit? I really wish there were a way to turn some of these better comments you make at A drawerful of SocKs into RW articles... 02:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Finals--and grading--end in a week. Then we can do that!  (Edit away.)  Sterile 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with this. Last night's just came out of the hands, but Philip's answer was so underwhelmingly bad, it's hard to know where to go. I'll have to think more tonight--I need to pace myself. Sterile 02:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Philip isn't a Creationist? --Kels 16:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, shucks, I meant IDer. I posted it already and now ASk won't load.  Oh, well.  He'll probably pwn me on that one.  Sterile 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You lose. 20:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Fixed before Philip wrote back!  Sterile 13:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

latest contents
Looks like some fun to be had when you let us mobify these... 23:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. It's a bit of a formatting nightmare (a three column table within a SBS!), but it's nice and short and readily refutable.  Sterile 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Man, it's been in the works that long? I'm really quite keen to have a good three-way comparison between creationists, climate change deniers and the tobacco industry - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me, it's not for lack of interest; it's more a lack of time. We could move it somewhere.... Šţěŗĭļė 23:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have The Cigarette Century, A wonderful book about the history of the tobacco industry, and Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. There is lots about ID and global warming denialism on the web, too, and the tobacco documents archive is great source.  It's a matter of determining what sections we want and then finding the quotes.  Šţěŗĭļė 01:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Mind if I move this to mainspace now? All it needs is a good title. "Science denial: a comparative chart" good? - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish. There's a lot to be done with it.  Šţěŗĭļė 11:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to shitty title. Better suggestions should probably just be implemented with a move - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)