RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,09:10   

Hi FTK,

Glad to hear we swarthy Greek types are worth a look in! Don't bother with Richard, he's nothing but a lot of talk and a man-thong.

But, sadly, fun time must come to an end temporarily, there's work to do. We know you like to talk about the science, you've told us enough times, so let's stop playing around and get down to the dirty, sweaty, illegal in 48 states science talk.

I've read Wesley and John's paper, it was quite interesting. In reference to one of the themes of that article how do respond to the argument that the Demsbkian Explanatory Filter relies on lack of knowledge about a certain topic at a certain time to make it's inference of design?

That'll do for now.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,09:16   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,01:48)
Oh noes for the kids! It's going to be hard to flirt with you if you link to conservapia.. (see the eugenics link). This is just pure faith driven revisionism, and you should know better.

Nothin’ wrong with conservapedia...got something against conservatives, Hon?  

I’ve gotta say that I’m certainly glad I’m a conservative due to the fact that we conservative protestant women are a much more satisfied group overall...

From the article:
“The women most likely to achieve orgasm each and every time (32%) are, believe it or not, conservative Protestants. But Catholics edge out mainline Protestants in frequency of intercourse. Says Father Andrew Greeley, the sociologist-priest and writer of racy romances: ''I think the church will be surprised at how often Catholics have sex and how much they enjoy it.''

As a protestant woman, I can attest to the validity of that claim, though I have to wonder if our ability to abandon all inhibitions in the sack is due to the fact that conservative men bring out the best in us (if you know what I mean).  

Read it and weep, boys...

Richard, care to cross over to the wild side?;)

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,09:20   

Quote
I don’t know of ~any~ ID proponents who would not allow questions to be asked about the design inference. In fact, ID supporters are very vocal about their want to debate and field questions on the topics surrounding this controversy. It’s the evolutionists who refuse to engage in publicized dialogue and debate.


From the only pro-ID forum I can post due to moderation / c*nsorship:

http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?board=1.0

Yes, look at those IDers dying to discuss it...

Meanwhile, back in the reality based world..

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,09:25   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,22:43)
Popper seems to think that all science is "tentative" (no black swans). So I think FtK is on the right track.


FtK: Read Wes' paper, put your garterbelt on, come ove here and sit on my lap and we'll chat about it.

Popper - and Kuhn - are over-rated.  

By the way - with my heels on, I am pushing 6'8"
:p

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,09:28   

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,09:16)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,01:48)
Oh noes for the kids! It's going to be hard to flirt with you if you link to conservapia.. (see the eugenics link). This is just pure faith driven revisionism, and you should know better.

Nothin’ wrong with conservapedia...got something against conservatives, Hon?  

I’ve gotta say that I’m certainly glad I’m a conservative due to the fact that we conservative protestant women are a much more satisfied group overall...

From the article:
“The women most likely to achieve orgasm each and every time (32%) are, believe it or not, conservative Protestants. But Catholics edge out mainline Protestants in frequency of intercourse. Says Father Andrew Greeley, the sociologist-priest and writer of racy romances: ''I think the church will be surprised at how often Catholics have sex and how much they enjoy it.''

As a protestant woman, I can attest to the validity of that claim, though I have to wonder if our ability to abandon all inhibitions in the sack is due to the fact that conservative men bring out the best in us (if you know what I mean).  

Read it and weep, boys...

Richard, care to cross over to the wild side?;)

So 'evilution' is false because fundies are better at sex? Except they're not. Trust me, the sample size is significant* and the findings conclusive. Their high frustration manifests itself in eagerness, but that's about it.

Ted Haggard had some quotes about fundies having the best sex life. Turns out he may have been right, but I'm not really up for a methamphetamine fueled gay romp to find out (sorry Arden).

As for conservapedia - its just a strange collection of bible rich fact poor idiocy of what conservatives would like the world to be like, rather than an empirical, fact based account. Its the intellectual equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and going "Lalalala".

* Sid James would be proud.

P.S. - you wearing your seamed stockings today?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,09:32   

Quote (slpage @ April 09 2007,09:25)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,22:43)
Popper seems to think that all science is "tentative" (no black swans). So I think FtK is on the right track.


FtK: Read Wes' paper, put your garterbelt on, come ove here and sit on my lap and we'll chat about it.

Popper - and Kuhn - are over-rated.  

By the way - with my heels on, I am pushing 6'8"
:p

*shudders*

Over-rated? How so?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,09:33   

OI HUGHES!

Hands off my fundy bit on the side. Outside now you man-thong sporting ponce.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,09:38   

Quote (Louis @ April 09 2007,09:33)
OI HUGHES!

Hands off my fundy bit on the side. Outside now you man-thong sporting ponce.

Louis

Speedos, extra tight, Louis.




(hello bathroom wall!)

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,09:54   

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,09:16)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,01:48)
Oh noes for the kids! It's going to be hard to flirt with you if you link to conservapia.. (see the eugenics link). This is just pure faith driven revisionism, and you should know better.

Nothin’ wrong with conservapedia...got something against conservatives, Hon?  

I’ve gotta say that I’m certainly glad I’m a conservative due to the fact that we conservative protestant women are a much more satisfied group overall...

From the article:
“The women most likely to achieve orgasm each and every time (32%) are, believe it or not, conservative Protestants. But Catholics edge out mainline Protestants in frequency of intercourse. Says Father Andrew Greeley, the sociologist-priest and writer of racy romances: ''I think the church will be surprised at how often Catholics have sex and how much they enjoy it.''

As a protestant woman, I can attest to the validity of that claim, though I have to wonder if our ability to abandon all inhibitions in the sack is due to the fact that conservative men bring out the best in us (if you know what I mean).  

Read it and weep, boys...

Richard, care to cross over to the wild side?;)

Yep, there is a lot of science in that post. You have to hand it to FtK; opening up a discussion of sexual sociology is bound to get this group off track immediately! And defending conservative wanker sites like conservapedia is even more red-herring-esque.

BTW, Richard, you should read the last paragraph in this review of the book cited by FtK before you go too far over to the wild side...

At any rate, as Louis noted, there are some unanswered comments and questions here. I honestly have no hope of getting more discussion about the "massive evidence against evolution", Wes's article, or even Humes's book, but if you all want to wander back there, I wouldn't mind.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,09:57   

Alright, I'm starting to get creeped out. Back to science, people. Take the perviness to the Bathroom Wall.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,09:57   

FtK's going to get her science on. She's not afraid of the facts.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,10:19   

Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,09:57)
Alright, I'm starting to get creeped out.

You mean you weren't before now?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,10:31   

Ok who had SteveS getting creeped out in the third round? Third round anyone?

But as he reminds us, back to the science.

Any answers to the science questions yet? Any answer to my question about how the Elsberry/Wikins paper proves that the DemsbkianEF relies on the argument from ignorance to reach an inference of design?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,11:16   

Well, I suppose it's that time of day again for me to ask FTK what peer-reviewed articles she's read. After she ignores or obfuscates the question, I'll ask again tomorrow.

But don't worry -- at no point will people ever suspect that FTK is just making shit up.  ;)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,11:19   

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 08 2007,20:26)
Quick aside: brunettes rule.  Angelina Jolie, Cindy Crawford, Rachel Ray, Hurley, my wife.  Case closed!
Why, thank you. And may I say, creation "science" and jazz do not go together:
Quote
If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?

Holy crap, do I need to relive my childhood and debate this stuff again? In the 1970s it was the arctic poles that ejected the water and that’s why they’re covered in ice, because “plate tectonics is a lie.” Yeah, I got out of Hush-puppyville, okay?

Ever wonder why that person needs to chip an arrowhead when God could have given him claws after he was “driven from the Garden” to hold his own against all the newly-carnivorous dinosaurs? If an intelligence made us, why did we have to remake ourselves more intelligently than that intelligence? What up with the Total Make-Over shows? (Oh, don’t even start, Kristine. There are educated theologians and honest biblical scholars whom you could debate instead of these losers like Brown.)

Let me just say that I know a ticket to nowhere when I see one. I knew one as a child and I know one now. Brown’s crap is a ticket to nowhere. It’s nowhere, and he’s nowhere. What a waste. There’s no consistency in what these creationist hawkers say. Their “predictions” are always made after the fact, after the “confirmation” has already been published! Not that it matters to the sheep who bleat for them.

You know, these creationists shouldn’t work so #### hard. I can’t tell you how many times I sat through a creationist presentation only to hear afterward, “Well, I didn’t understand a word of that, but I admire his faith!” I was the only one who followed the argument, such as it was. People want reassurance, not facts. They don’t even want theology. They want feel-ology. Who was the only one following the arguments and raising complex theological issues in confirmation classes? Me! The other kids—now church regulars—couldn’t have cared less. Religion for most people is a habit they perform about something they really don’t care about. Anything in front of their face is God to them and even if it turned out that they were really worshipping Satan they wouldn’t mind, for all the thinking I saw them doing.

Speaking of feel-ology, if that statistic about conservative Protestant women consistently reaching orgasm, then I’d honestly glad. I’m not so low as to wish unhappiness on people that I disagree with. So climax away, sisters. As for me I'm still waiting for a response to the paper.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:15   

Kristine,

Just shear curiosity...

From what I've read, you've never really taken the whole god thing seriously - even as a youth.  When did you stop attending church/sunday school?  I find it kind of hard to believe that you never came across other Christians who were searching for answers to those more difficult questions.  What type of church did you attend?  Did you switch churches when you weren't provided answers, or did you ever consider the possible evidence for other belief systems?  

What evidence led you to believe that there is no "god" (or whatever) that is ultimately responsible for our existence?

And, for craps sake, don't think I'm asking you these questions to try to "convert" you or some craziness like that.  I have no desire whatsoever.  I'm just curious about people who make some of the statements that you have made.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:20   

You also wrote:

"I can’t tell you how many times I sat through a creationist presentation only to hear afterward, “Well, I didn’t understand a word of that, but I admire his faith!”

Are you for real?  I'm having trouble believing that all "creationists" are complete idiots.  I've never heard anything like that coming from people who attend the lectures I've been at.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:21   

Hi FTK,

Science questions. Answers please. Ta.

Louis

P.S. I am keeping it short and to the point because otherwise SteveStory will port the comment to the Bathroom wall due to the gross perversion it contains. I promise to talk really full on science into your ear, oh yeah.

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:25   

Kristine and FTK -

Kristine - You were looking for a summary of why Dr. Dr. Dembski is like soooo totally wrong?

FTK - You were looking for realistic non-threatening information to get into the sciencey thing?

Well, ladies, I have your book right here:

Science Confronts Intelligent Design Creationism, an anthology edited by Andrew J Petto and Laurie R Godfrey, and published recetly by Norton Press.

Kristine - The chapter about Dembski's wacked math is excellent.  Generally I don't do math well, but I swear I could even understnad what Dembski was trying and failing to say, and why after reading the chapter.

Maybe the extra critique is what gives Dr. Dr. Dembski the push he needs to become an honest man?

Some guy named Wes Elsburry I think wrote a chapter - I think I heard of him, some guy named Pennock too

Edited:  Link:  http://www.amazonfembks.com/

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:28   

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,10:20)
You also wrote:

"I can’t tell you how many times I sat through a creationist presentation only to hear afterward, “Well, I didn’t understand a word of that, but I admire his faith!”

Are you for real?  I'm having trouble believing that all "creationists" are complete idiots.  I've never heard anything like that coming from people who attend the lectures I've been at.

Is there a particular lecturer you found especially impressive, whose take on any scientific concept you consider superior than conventional wisdom? Perhaps this would be a better subject to discuss, since it is one which you will likely have the upper-hand knowledge-wise.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:30   

Quote (J-Dog @ April 09 2007,13:25)
Maybe the extra critique is what gives Dr. Dr. Dembski the push he needs to become an honest man?

Ex-physicist and ID supporter Dave Heddle said Dembski's math was broken. Didn't result in an honest Dembski. IIRC, it just got Heddle banned from Dembski's site.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:30   

Louis, sweetie, why on earth would I discuss science with you people?  Seriously?  You know all the arguments.  I know all the arguments.  

Different interpretations....that's all.  You're "facts" are no more supported by empirical evidence than mine are.

btw, who is this AFDave guy and where is this long thread he was involved in that you guys keep talking about?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:35   

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,10:30)
Louis, sweetie, why on earth would I discuss science with you people?  Seriously?  You know all the arguments.  I know all the arguments.  

Different interpretations....that's all.  You're "facts" are no more supported by empirical evidence than mine are.

btw, who is this AFDave guy and where is this long thread he was involved in that you guys keep talking about?

If you sort the forum topics by length, you'll see the Dave topics at the top. For quick reading, however, I would recommend the "Formal" debate between our very own Deadman (and now Eric Murphy) and AFDave which is ongoing right here. I'd be fascinated to know your reaction to the debate, and would love to discuss any topic brought up within it.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:36   

Quote
Different interpretations....that's all.  You're "facts" are no more supported by empirical evidence than mine are.


Really?

Well, which "facts" are these? I've see Walt Brown mentioned, do you think that the Noachian Flood really happened? Do you think the world is ~6000 years old?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:51   

LOL...Louis, I wouldn't even attempt touch on those questions in this particular forum.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:57   

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,12:51)
LOL...Louis, I wouldn't even attempt touch on those questions in this particular forum.

Every time I've ever seen a person refuse to answer whether they think the Earth is 6,000 years old or whether Noah's Flood actually happened, it has ALWAYS meant that the person indeed does believe those things, but they're embarrassed to admit it. Only YEC believers refuse to answer those questions.

So, we can take that as a 'yes'.

 
Quote
Louis, sweetie, why on earth would I discuss science with you people?  Seriously?


I think we all know the answer to that.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,12:58   

Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,10:51)
LOL...Louis, I wouldn't even attempt touch on those questions in this particular forum.

Why not? AFDave did it for 9 months. It's a good place with many scientists, light moderation, but not so many members that you're likely to get overwhelmed.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,13:11   

FTK,

Well I can't say I'm not disappointed.

Anyway, I have to say I strongly disagree with your statement that it's "all interpretation of the same facts". The problem I have though is that I don't know precisely what you think if you refuse to answer really simple questions.

Have you got any scientific topic you ARE willing to discuss here. After all I have asked you several times now for a scientific discussion and you did come in here complaining about how no one here was discussing science, so I'd really like to help you out by actually discussing some with you.

How about that question I asked earlier about the Elsberry/Wilkins paper? After all it's just one paper, available online for free, and it doesn't require some huge technical knowledge to understand at least the basics of. Go read it and let me know what your answer to my question is please. That way we can at least have a more intellectual discussion than the hilarious, but ultimately frivolous pseudoflirtation.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,13:15   

It's a complete waste of time to discuss these issues.  I'm hopeless.  I'll never be able to accept the notion that the mechanisms of evolution have the "power" to produce everything we observe in nature.  I don't care what the "scientific consensus" is.  It's simply not logically sound, IMHO.  

I'm convinced worldviews skew our ability to understand each other.  You think I'm a dishonest liar, and I cannot fathom how in the world you can actually believe that the mechanisms of evolution are as powerful as you believe them to be.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2007,13:16   

Quote (Louis @ April 09 2007,13:11)
That way we can at least have a more intellectual discussion than the hilarious, but ultimately frivolous pseudoflirtation.

Louis

Not if DaveTard shows her his new tool.. I mean his new jet-ski when she visits him...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
  10202 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]