Ken Miller in Cleveland: WEBCAST ARCHIVE URLS

| 81 Comments

The URLs for the archive of the webcast of Miller’s talk are:

Real Player Archive

Windows Media Player Archive

I do not know how they will be available. Rumor has it two months, but don’t count on that.

The Collapse of Intelligent-Design … Will the next MONKEY TRIAL be in OHIO?

A talk by Ken Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University

7 pm Tuesday, January 3, 2006 Strosacker Auditorium, Case Western Reserve University Campus, Cleveland

Kenneth R. Miller, PhD, was the star science witness in the recent Dover “Panda Trial” in Pennsylvania where Judge John E Jones found “intelligent design” to be a religious view, not science. He is the author of a bestselling high school biology textbook that was subject to the Cobb County, GA disclaimer sticker that warned students that evolution was “a theory, not a fact.” The stickers were removed by court order in 2005. Miller is also author of the bestseller Finding Darwin’s God.

Questions from the audience will be entertained and the event will be webcast (www.case.edu)

Free and open to the public. When I have more detailed info on the webcast I’ll post it here.

CORRECTED UPDATE: URLS for Webcast:

Real Player Windows Media Player

81 Comments

What happened to Dembski? I recall hearing about how this was going to be a debate involving the positive arguments for each side.…

Did he become positively scared? positively convinced of his own inanity? positively lost and now wandering in upper Michigan?

In all seriousness, could someone let me know what his excuse for no-showing was?

IIRC, he said he didn’t care for the venue. Basically, anybody who speaks on behalf of the DI (as Dembski was to do in this case), has to control the venue site, the rules of debate, etc. Open debates don’t work for them, so they always withdraw unless they can control who attends and at least a significant portion of the format.

In other words, unless it’s rigged in their favor, they won’t participate at all.

On a tangent, Dembski has been withdrawing from public view steadily since his testimony was rejected in Kitzmiller, and even before that in the antievo-sticker case.

He has shut down his blog, and his public commentary on any forum has been rare at best.

Note that this is NOT like the usual Dembski, who can’t keep his mouth shut most times. It highly suggests that the DI is keeping a very short leash on him these days, while they try to push the “ID is not religious” slogan, that Dembski in many public comments has seen fit to scuttle himself.

In fact, it seems reasonable to conclude that cross examination of Dembski at trial would have revealed his many public statements of the religious nature of ID, hence that’s why his “expert” testimony was not, er “required”…

I hope somebody out there made a library of some of the dumbass stuff Dembski said on UD before it becomes truly “mothballed”.

I would have thought dembski was too influential to be leashed at DI. the other likelihood would be that his ego is so connected to his work, which has been so thoroughly attacked in the last few months, that he’s feeling too sick to come out and play. seems to me that he is the sort to take his bat and go home, rather than openly accept that his work isn’t very good and that he should find something more useful to do with his life.

Ah, who cares? He’s a spent force.

R

I’m busy tonight, can someone archive the webcast, or something?

What happened to the ‘show up or shut up’ debate? If big names like Dembski won’t show up, perhaps you could find a local inane, insane Bible-thumper to fill in. If that doesn’t work out, Place an empty chair prominently on the stage to repesent the IDC failure to show.

RupertG Wrote:

Ah, who cares? He’s a spent force.

I prefer the term “spent farce”.

Comment #67149 Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on January 3, 2006 09:39 AM (e) (s)

What happened to the ‘show up or shut up’ debate? If big names like Dembski won’t show up, perhaps you could find a local inane, insane Bible-thumper to fill in. If that doesn’t work out, Place an empty chair prominently on the stage to represent the IDC failure to show.

What about the evolutionists who failed to show up at the Kansas school board hearings on ID? Was an empty chair set up to represent them?

Comment #67149 Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on January 3, 2006 09:39 AM

What happened to the ‘show up or shut up’ debate? If big names like Dembski won’t show up, perhaps you could find a local inane, insane Bible-thumper to fill in. If that doesn’t work out, Place an empty chair prominently on the stage to represent the IDC failure to show.

What about the evolutionists who failed to show up at the Kansas school board hearings on ID? Was an empty chair set up to represent them?

Here’s an idea: why not invite Larry Fafarman to represent the IDC case? That should be entertaining.

What about the evolutionists who failed to show up at the Kansas school board hearings on ID?

In a sense, the evolutionists showed up twice. First, they showed up in the standard curriculum recommendations by qualified experts, in the form of a report rejected-before-reading by the creationist Board. Second, they showed up on floor beneath the creationist kangaroo hearings, to make themselves available to provide accurate answers for the media.

However, I think your point is a good one. These public debates are pure PR events; they are *always* rigged. The creationists would be as foolish to show up at a debate organized and moderated by scientists, as scientists would be to show up where creationists run the show. Science is properly pursued in the lab, in the field, and in peer-reviewed journals. Creationism is properly pursued in churches, in political campaign rhetoric, and in PR campaigns generally.

The primary meeting point between those after political power and those after knowledge has been in courtrooms. Sadly for creationists, courts tend to seek the truth. The appropriate creationist response is to lobby for the appointment or election of creationist judges whose interest in the truth is, uh, not relevant to the actual evidence. And the creationists are working on this as hard as they can.

Comment #67178 Posted by Flint on January 3, 2006 11:13 AM

****What about the evolutionists who failed to show up at the Kansas school board hearings on ID?*****

In a sense, the evolutionists showed up twice. First, they showed up in the standard curriculum recommendations by qualified experts, in the form of a report rejected-before-reading by the creationist Board. Second, they showed up on floor beneath the creationist kangaroo hearings, to make themselves available to provide accurate answers for the media.

None of that other stuff counts. The important thing is that they were given an opportunity to testify before the board and they refused. The hearings were not just for the benefit of the board – an audience and I presume the media were also present.

Nice to see that my old alma mater is inviting speakers like that. (I got my Ph.D. from CWRU and did my surgery residency there as well.)

Larry Fafarman Wrote:

None of that other stuff counts. The important thing is that…

THE important thing is actual theories supported by actual data. The ID creationists lose big time by that standard.

Were scientists really given the opportunity to “testify” to the Kansas Board of Ed? And were they given equal time, audience, and consideration as the IDers who supported the Board of Ed’s POV? My understanding is scientists were all but “uninvited” to the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt. There was more discussion on this topic here on PT as recently as a month ago.

The reasonss why the scientists didnt show for the school board is obvious. The school board was trying to use their attentance for a very real and very biased purpose. To legitimize a decision that was already made to teach creationism.

In an open public debate it really doesnt matter who wins or who loses, noone is going to enact or justify policy on it. But when such a debate is a scam to ‘legitimize’ a decision thats when you need caution. The scientists did morally the right thing by not attending the board hearings . Shame you are too blind to see that.

Flint in Comment 67178 Wrote:

These public debates are pure PR events; they are *always* rigged. The creationists would be as foolish to show up at a debate organized and moderated by scientists, as scientists would be to show up where creationists run the show.

And since the whole ID/cre/evo debate is, as we all know, a PR struggle and not a scientific struggle, is this not an argument that our side should sponsor more debates where we control the conditions, and loudly tout the failure of the other side to show up? What’s good for the goose…

Comment #67171

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 3, 2006 10:56 AM (e) (s)

What about the evolutionists who failed to show up at the Kansas school board hearings on ID? Was an empty chair set up to represent them?

As usual, Larry the Troll shows just how clueless he really is…

Bill Gascoyne:

is this not an argument that our side should sponsor more debates where we control the conditions, and loudly tout the failure of the other side to show up?

If you’re asking for my opinion, I’d say probably not. This is really a P.T. Barnum situation, where ANY publicity for creationists is good publicity. It gives them a chance to spin whatever happens.

I think scientists should stay on scientific grounds and not try to beat the PR specialists at an unfamiliar game. Otherwise, all they accomplish is to perpetuate the notion that science is debatable, and that public opinion is the appropriate yardstick of objective truth.

None of that other stuff counts.

Since the board members made up their mind on the subject probably before they were even elected to office, no, apparently it doesn’t.

Flint right again The whole proven method that the DI use when debating is to run away or engage scientists in an endless circular argument (stasis)that Larry thinks will last ’til doomsday (well he does have dispensationalist dementia after all).

The way the public see that is …oh they are debating scientists so there must be something there.

2 things happen 1. They devalue science in the public world view to the point where science just becomes another “idea”

2. Increase the DI’s value in the public world view to the point where ID just becomes another “idea” of equal value to science.

The only way to hold them down long enough so that they will cough up the truth is in court where they must move forward and play out the endgame(dynamic).

Any word on the webcast yet? I’ve never actually viewed one before, and I use That Other Operating System so it’d be good to know what format it’s in well in advance. For example, if it’s in a Microsoft format then any ability my computer will have to decipher it will be a miracle of reverse-engineering.

I don’t know.

The Penguin people are quite clever. You might be surprised.

Or are you that *other* other OS?

Corkscreew Wrote:

I use That Other Operating System

MPlayer should work fine on an AVI or WMF feed. I’ve never gotten Noatun or totem to work – but I’ve never really tried. Oh, and RealPlayer should work fine too – My 2 cents.

Good news! The links to the webcast have been posted here.

I always find MS format webstreams to be a bit unreliable on Linux, although I suspect that has something to so with the .asf wrapper format - seems seriously dodgy.

RealPlayer works fine, and is actually seriously not bad - that company has cleaned up its act so much lately. ISTR that the EULA is a bit ick tho. Will be happier when it’s all GPL or whatever.

Bah, have just realised that 7:00 EST == midnight in the UK :( Is anyone out there willing and able to archive the webcast? I was planning to get an early night…

well this is interesting… have figured out how to log the stream to hard drive for morning perusal, but the sample stream they’re currently showing seems a little dodgy. With specificity: the Real stream is producing “judders” on the screen when viewed using either mplayer or realplay on linux. Realplayer of course generates no particularly useful error logs, but mplayer is complaining loudly and longly about bugs (presumably in the stream). The error report looks like:

******** WARNING: vpkg_length=3325 > len=501 ********

******** !!!!!!!! BUG!! len=501 !!!!!!!!!!! ********

If you’re using RealPlayer you won’t see any of this, but can anyone confirm or deny that the stream can’t be viewed perfectly with RealPlayer on their computer?

Flint, k.e.:

It appears to me that your argument is predicated on the assumption that creationists will eventually submit to logical superiority. They will not. Court defeats help, but if Edwards didn’t send them packing, what makes you think Kitzmiller will?

Also, you seem to assume that, as Flint says, “scientists should stay on scientific grounds and not try to beat the PR specialists at an unfamiliar game.” Why do you assume that the PR game must remain unfamilar? What I’m saying is, we need our own PR people. This is probably where the NCSE should step in. As was shown by the prosecution team in Dover, scientists can use proxys to fight the fight for them, if law and PR are unfamiliar domains.

What is needed is to educate the public, and:

Anyone who tries to make a distinction between education and entertainment doesn’t know the first thing about either. MARSHALL MCLUHAN

Our goal should be to educate/entertain the public until creationism is seen by the general public as being as absurd as geocentrism. Then the creationists, like the geocentrists (who are still around, BTW) can sit alone giving each other comfort while their recruitment base dries up. I do not believe this will happen if we depend exclusively on logical argument and court cases.

Bill Gascoyne -

I am inclined to agree with you.

I would argue that science has ALWAYS been supported by positive and often reasonably accurate PR.

Science is under special attack right now. The reasons for this are political. Here is a very oversimplified analysis of why - the traditional funders and supporters of one particular US political party have been irritated, over the last generation, by scientific investigations of the environment and public health, among other things. They have made an alliance with religious fanatics, who have been irritated for much longer by science’s investigations of cosmology and human origins. This is a relatively new alliance; fifty years ago, it would have been unthinkable for Republican senators to oppose stem cell research or get involved in the likes of the Terry Schaivo case, and unlikely for any except the most extreme fanatics to oppose research on the environment or public health.

Science is largely funded by taxpayers. Granted, a fair bit of it is performed by for-profit entities, but the taxpayer funding of academic research is required for modern science to survive. The taxpayer needs and deserves some understanding of the worth of science.

Having said that, scientists were right not to show up at the Kansas hearing. It was a farce from day one. It had no meaning. Jesus himself could have materialized and condemned ID, and the Kansas school board creationists would have continued to support it. These people are often said to be motivated by “faith”, but in practice, they’re just heck-bent to win at all costs and no matter what the truth is. Furthermore, the scientific point of view was extremely well-represented by Pedro Irongeray (sp?).

There will possibly be a trial in Kansas (unless a school board election renders the issue moot). If there is a trial, then, of course, scientists will show up. As they should, because a trial provides a relatively unbiased venue, and results in binding rulings.

A number of people in Kansas are making personal efforts to support science education - they are providing PR for science, so to speak. And this is a perfectly appropriate thing for them to do.

In its own small way, PT is, of course, PR for good science. However, it appeals to a rather narrow segment of the population.

One focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project was radiohalos research.1 It was concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously.2 This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today’s rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days! There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the radiohalos) and the required Po, but that much Po would then have decayed within a few days (because of its short half-lives, that is, very rapid decay rates). So radioisotope “ages” for such granitic rocks of hundreds of millions of years, calculated on the assumption that radioactive decay has always occurred at today’s rates, are grossly in error, and these rocks would thus have formed during the Flood year only 4500 years ago. A hydrothermal fluid (hot water) transport model was thus proposed which explained how the Po was separated from its parent 238U and then concentrated in radiocenters close by to form the Po radiohalos.3-5

Another outcome of this research was the discovery of plentiful Po radio-halos in metamorphic rocks.6 Such a finding was predicted, because hydrothermal fluids are generated in water-saturated sedimentary rocks as they become deeply buried, helping to transform them into regional metamorphic complexes.7-9 Thus it was argued that the same hydrothermal fluid transport model could likewise explain the formation of Po radiohalos in those regional metamorphic rocks where an adequate supply of U-decay products occurred.10

In continued research, a test of this Po radiohalos formation model in metamorphic rocks was proposed. Sandstones often contain some zircon grains, derived from erosion of, for example, granitic rocks and deposited in water-transported sandy sediments. Chemical weathering of such source rocks plus abrasion of grains during water transport destroys all biotite grains, so none are ever present in sandstones. However, when sandstones are metamorphosed, the resultant schists and gneisses usually contain biotite grains, which could thus have only formed via mineral reactions during the metamorphism. Such mineral reactions have been studied in laboratory experiments and in them water is often a by-product.11 At the temperatures of these metamorphic processes such water would become hydrothermal fluids capable of transporting any U-decay products from nearby zircon grains and depositing Po in biotite flakes to form Po radiohalos.

The thick Thunderhead Sandstone (Upper Precambrian Great Smoky Group) in the Great Smoky Mountains along the Tennessee/North Carolina border was deformed and regionally metamorphosed during formation of the Appalachian Highlands, beginning in the so-called Devonian (that is, early in the Flood year).12-14 With increasing temperatures and pressures from northwest to southeast, the regional metamorphism produced in these sandstone layers a series of chemically and mineralogically distinct zones of schists and gneisses.15 These zones are named according to the first appearance of the distinctive metamorphic minerals which characterize them as the intensity of the metamorphism increased laterally—the biotite, garnet, staurolite, and kyanite zones. The boundaries between these zones, called isograds, are where mineral reactions have produced the new minerals because of the progressively higher temperatures and pressures.

When originally deposited, the Thunderhead Sandstone contained occasional zircon grains, but no biotite flakes. This metamorphosed sandstone, however, now contains both biotite flakes and zircon grains throughout all these metamorphic zones. Because they still contain minor amounts of U, the zircons would thus have been a source of 238U decay products including Po. Therefore, if hydrothermal fluids had been generated by the metamorphism, according to the hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalo formation, those hydrothermal fluids should have transported the Po diffusing out of the zircons into the biotite flakes, where it should have formed Po radiohalos.

In the metamorphosed Thunderhead Sandstone it was found that at the staurolite isograd, the boundary between the garnet and staurolite zones, the mineral chlorite disappears from the rocks and muscovite decreases sharply, whereas staurolite appears and biotite becomes more abundant. This can be explained by the mineral reaction:

54 muscovite + 31 chlorite —> 54 biotite + 24 staurolite +152 quartz + 224 water which has been confirmed experimentally.16-17 The generation of this water by this reaction at the prevailing high temperatures determined experimentally would thus have resulted in relatively large volumes of hydrothermal fluids in the rocks surrounding this isograd. These would have been ideal conditions for the generation of Po radiohalos in these metamorphosed sandstones, if Po radiohalo formation does indeed occur as described by the hydrothermal fluid transport model.

Therefore, as a test of the hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalo formation, nine samples of the metamorphosed Thunderhead Sandstone were collected from road-cut outcrops along U.S. Highway 441 between Cherokee, North Carolina, and Gatlinburg, Tennessee, forming a traverse through the biotite, garnet, staurolite, and kyanite zones of the regional metamorphism as already described.18 The biotite flakes were separated from these samples and scanned under a microscope for radiohalos, using standardized techniques.19-20 The total number of Po radiohalos found in each sample was then plotted against each sample’s relative position along the traverse through the metamorphic zones (figure 1).

Figure 1. Po radiohalos for the samples along the traverse through the regional metamorphic zones across the Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee.

The results of this test were astounding. As can be readily seen in figure 1, whereas seven of the samples averaged around 30 Po radiohalos each, the two samples straddling the staurolite isograd contained 177 and 147 Po radiohalos respectively. This is exactly as predicted. Uranium-bearing zircon grains and biotite flakes are present in the metamorphosed sandstones in all samples along the traverse, so during the metamorphism the minor water originally in the sandstones when deposited has generated some Po radiohalos. However, where the mineral reaction around the staurolite isograd has produced a lot of hot water, large numbers of Po radiohalos have formed.

The hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalos formation has thus been tested and verified. Neither the Po nor the biotite flakes were primordial. The biotite flakes were formed in the sandstone only during the metamorphism early in the Flood year, and the Po was derived from 238U decay in the zircon grains. And where extra water was generated during the metamorphic processes, many more Po radiohalos were formed. This successful verification only serves to spur on continuing research, because the time scale implications for the formation of the Po radiohalos and these metamorphic rocks are only consistent with a global Flood on a young earth.

Chris, since you didn’t write that, why don’t you give the appropriate attribution. Or better yet, stop cutting and pasting nonsense from ICR.

So is the goal here to just cut and paste large blocks from creationist webpages at random?

Can ads for herbal viagra be far behind?

And btw, anybody know what the f*ck “the Geology Department at the ICR Graduate School” is?

from ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module[…]&ID=2467 )

Psst… Chris… you can’t just copy and paste images into the comments field.

What’s sad is that, clearly, nothing has happened in biology for 23 years…You guys should do some research or something.

I am only trying to point out that Evolution is not the only way to explain things. Admit it, do your evolution scientists have an answer for the above mentioned radio halos? When creation scientists offered to have a debate with evolution scientists over the origin of the earth, it was turned down for the soul purpose that they had no answer for these radio halos.

I am sorry that I didn’t drag the copy cursor all the way to the bottom to pick up the author of the halo article

here he is: Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 3, column 148, byte 399 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Admit it, do your evolution scientists have an answer for the above mentioned radio halos?

“evolution scientists” are usually biologists. Your question is one of geology and nuclear physics. Why don’t you ask some geologists, or nuclear physicists?

Chris, you are posting crap. The very first thing you posted was an out-of-context quote from Stephen Jay Gould. Why should anyone here take you seriously after that?

As for radiohalos, they are well-refuted here.

I sense this comment field is about to turn into a troll-feeding fest. Unlike my pro-PR suggestions, this is the type of venue where such things should not be dignified by a response. ‘Bye.

Chris,

Rather than getting into a C&P war, please decide which creationist argument you want to promote. Then check your argument against the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims list.

If your argument is not discussed there (or you’d like to engage in further discussion), then feel free to bring it up here.

You can do this for any number of arguments you wish to put forth.

It’ll save everyone (especially you!) a lot of time.

chris, did you even watch/listen to the broadcast or are you simply trolling?

And we are all pretty familiar with intelligent design creationist propaganda, no need for you to copy and paste that unscientific, religionist garbage here. We know plently of sites to visit when we need a good laugh.

So, what did you think of Miller’s talk?

I guess Chris the creotroll wasn’t getting enough attention from his identical post on Tara’s thread, made only 8 minutes before the one in this thread.…

Admit it, do your evolution scientists have an answer for the above mentioned radio halos?

A telling statement. Among real scientists, there is no such thing as an “evolution scientist”. As Steve S said, the closest thing is some flavor of biologist. But to the creationist mindset, as we know, evolution is a religion, and science is whatever back-of-the-envelope sophistry needed to reinforce your religion. Hence “creation scientists” vs. “evolution scientists”, “us” versus “them”.

And since this is apparently Carrying Crap Over From Other Threads Day, perhaps Chris is disoriented by expertise.

steve s Wrote:

And btw, anybody know what the f*ck “the Geology Department at the ICR Graduate School” is?

I imagine it’s similar to the Philosophy Department at the University of Woolloomooloo.

From the ashes of “intelligent design” rises the phoenix of Flood Geology?

It’s starting to feel like that gopher game. Gimmie a mallet!

Creationist Chris Wrote:

I am only trying to point out that Evolution is not the only way to explain things. Admit it, do your evolution scientists have an answer for the above mentioned radio halos? When creation scientists offered to have a debate with evolution scientists over the origin of the earth, it was turned down for the soul purpose that they had no answer for these radio halos.

In a certain sense of the word, you are correct, in that “Evolution” is not the only way to explain things. Evolution only explains the diversity of life - it doesn’t even explain the fact that there is life, just how it diversified (origin of species, not origin of life). It certainly doesn’t even attempt to describe radioactive decay. So no, “evolution scientists” (if there is such a creature) don’t have an answer to your claim.

Physicists and geologists, on the other hand, do. And strangely enough, they find the claim made to be totally specious, inaccurate, and without merit.

Check out 2 talkorigins rebuttals plus another link

Chris, you are so unoriginal, you’re not even an interesting troll. {yawn}

From the ashes of “intelligent design” rises the phoenix of Flood Geology?

It’s starting to feel like that gopher game. Gimmie a mallet!

Yup. I don’t think it would be an unreasonable prediction to suppose that the primary immediate beneficiary of the new “intelligent design” court cases will be the young-earth creationist crowd. The YECs have been pushed to the back of the creationist movement for a long time because they’re an embarrassment to the new “it’s science… really” tactic exemplified by “intelligent design”. But now the figleaf of pretending that creationists aren’t religiously motivated has been shown to be a failure, and with that failure the YECs have all burst out of their boxes. Explicitly (rather than flimsily covertly) Christian calls for creationism been louder in the last couple of weeks than they have been in years– just look at the post-Dover response from conservative op-ed commentators like Schlaffly or Robertson. The charade in the media that creationism is science and not Christianity seems to have disappeared overnight.

The Discovery Institute is still trying to keep control, insisting that even though Intelligent Design has been punctured, they can still keep some form of the “it’s science, really” charade up as long as they retreat back to just “teach the controversy” and nothing else– but this won’t hold much longer, I don’t think. With the OECs proven ineffective, I think the YECs are about to properly regain control of the creationist movement, and the next set of real battles are going to consist of the creationists trying to claim that it doesn’t matter the courts have concluded creationist claims aren’t valid as science, they should be taught anyway– trying to convince America that “separation of church and state” doesn’t really mean what the courts have claimed it means for the last 20-30 years.

This said, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with this thread. It would be nice if we could discuss Dr. Miller’s talk instead. Who organized the talk, again? Does anyone know if they’re planning on posting a video or transcript or anything?

I personally am eagerly awaiting more information on Ken’s talk. I missed the whole thing.

steve s wrote:

And btw, anybody know what the f*ck “the Geology Department at the ICR Graduate School” is?

… and AC wrote:

I imagine it’s similar to the Philosophy Department at the University of Woolloomooloo.

“Michael Behe – Duane. Michael Behe – Duane. Michael Behe – Duane. Michael Behe – Duane …”

“What, is yer name not Duane?”

“Wha — no, it’s Michael.”

“Gonna cause some confusion. Mind if we call you Duane?”

Since this has degenerated into troll bait I’m going to close it. I invite Chris over to Infidels where he can get the attention deserves.

URLs for the archived Miller talk are in the OP above.

RBH

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on January 2, 2006 11:39 PM.

Sewell’s Thermodynamic Failure was the previous entry in this blog.

Why it matters: is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter