Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The Bathroom Wall

sir_toejam

Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 19 2006,20:21

Quote

European Racism against blacks: Pre 1900, the vast majority of europeans had never seen a black person

LOL

you ARE kidding, right?

At what point did you think Europe made inroads into colonizing Africa?

1950?

LOL

gees, you are funny.

yes, in the 1800's the english hated the french, etc. (er, those are nationalities at this point, not "races"), but they made SLAVES out of Africans.

nope. no racisism there, not at all.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: May 20 2006,03:09

Quote

European Racism against blacks: Pre 1900, the vast majority of europeans had never seen a black person and so had no feelings towards them at all.

Pre 871, the vast majority of Saxons had never seen a Viking and so had no feelings towards them at all.

Yeah, right. Wanna buy a bridge?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Paul Flocken

Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 20 2006,04:43

Quote (Carol Clouser wrote @ May 14 2006,22:21)

Folks,

You need to face up to the reality of the fact that historians just have no reliable information/data to go by prior to three thousand years ago. These so called "scholars" with careers to justify, find some decaying document or crumbling tablet that they don't even know which way to hold to read correctly, nor do they know a thing about the motivations and agends of the writers of these artifacts nor about all the documents that were destroyed by rulers with their own interests to protect, then proceed to conjure up pie-in-the-sky theories about what they think might have occured. And this drivel appeals to you so long as it discredits the Bible which you think is your great Satan in the religion-science wars. Would you consider such evidence in scientific issues?

<sarcastic smirking>
No doubt the fact that many of these so-called 'suspect' scholars are Jews who live and work in Israel is absolutely worthless.</sarcastic smirking>

Edited to show Carol Clouser was the author of the original post.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. �Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

Hunter

Posts: 6
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: May 20 2006,04:52

First
Apologies for errors in editing previous posts. I havent mastered this blogging thing yet.

ooooh! Sir T J

That must be the most erroneous post you have ever written on a word/error ratio.

*European Racism against blacks: Pre 1900, the vast majority of europeans had never seen a black person*

*LOL

you ARE kidding, right?

Just how many black Africans do you think were wandering the streets of Stuttgart, Strasbourg, Stockholm, Sarajevo, Stavanger, San Marino or Banff in 1850-1899?
(couldn't find any towns named Steve!

*At what point did you think Europe made inroads into colonizing Africa?

1950?*

Cameroun, Ghana 1870s
Congo 1880s
Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Gabon 1890s
etc,etc;etc

When did you think "Europe made inroads into colonizing Africa?" Your answer could change history!

Next point get you a "Larry" from Wiki.

Race:--a population of humans distinguished from other populations.

Could language, geographical location, genetics? love of frogs distinguish a population living on the british isles from another population living on th european mainland.
It certainly stands up in court as racism if you call an englishman a ********.

gees, you are funny.-Correct but in the wrong context.

*but they made SLAVES out of Africans*

Nope! wrong again! They were bought as Slaves, normally from the local African King.
The slave trade had existed between West and North Africa many hundredrs of years before the Europeans (Greeks, Romans) had discoverered "Black" Sub-Saharan Africa.
Europeans didn't leave the coast and explore "Dark Africa" until the mid 1800s, Livingstone, Park etc.
Prior to the abolition of the slave trade by European Countries(!

, slave traders from various countries were allowed to set up compounds near the African coast on the indulgence of the African King.
Note here that the white man is buying slaves from the blackman.This is fact Sir TJ. The Europeans did not make them slaves, the African did.
Of course it is no excuse for this terrible trade and please do not assume that I support or condone this in any way.
It was the abolition of slavery which deprived the local west african kings of their income and power and allowed the establishment of Euoropean colonies during the second half of the 19th cent.(ref: At what point did you think Europe made inroads into colonizing Africa)

The African slave trade has existed for a couple of thousand of years. The European participation was short but unfortunately prolific. Very few african slaves actually came to Europe, most were shipped to the Americas.
Europeans were at the forefront of legislation to abolish slavery in the early 18 hundreds. Other countries had a civil war in the 1860s.

Sir TJ

I have trolled here since the first nail growth of the pandas thumb, I have always enjoyed your posts. You are an excellent biologist but your (and dhgozo) history knowledge outside the usa maybe requires a refresher course.

PLease do not take this post as a personal attack on you or dhogaza.

The point of my posts are that you cannot attack the God squad with erroneous "facts". (Most of you guys are biologoists etc. That is your strong point.Argue on those points

[B][/B][B][I][U]

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: May 20 2006,05:28

This is a "web bulletin board", not a "weblog".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

stephenWells

Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: May 20 2006,06:38

Quote (Hunter @ May 20 2006,09:52)

The African slave trade has existed for a couple of thousand of years. The European participation was short but unfortunately prolific. Very few african slaves actually came to Europe, most were shipped to the Americas.

Full points to Hunter for total ignorance and lack of logic.

Factual error: your claim that European contact with Africans is recent.
Cape of Good Hope: European colony well established in seventeenth century. "Blame it on van Riebeck". My Huguenot ancestors were there in 1693 and one of them got killed with a large rock by a native who wasn't happy about having his land stolen. That's contact, and colonisation, and it didn't improve anyone's opinions about anyone.
"First comes the trader, then the missionary, then the red soldier" -Cetshwayo.
Lots of European traders along the Ivory Coast, and in East Africa- there were Royal Navy slavery suppression/regulation missions along there in the 18th century.
Read Aphra Behn, "Oroonoko, or the Royal Slave", 1688.

Factual error AND logical fallacy: your claim that if most 19th century Europeans hadn't met Africans they therefore didn't have an opinion about them. Trivially incorrect; it's really, really easy to have an opinion about people you haven't met, and the literary and historical record is FULL of viciously racist opinions.

Error and logical fallacy: your claim that there was no racism in the slave trade because most slaves were sold to traders by other African tribes. Firstly, the whole African side of the supply chain clearly says nothing about the European side, and I think it's pretty clear that buying people, packing them like sardines into the hold of a ship, and selling the survivors of the voyage to plantation owners, does not indicate very great respect for human rights, to put it mildly.

You point out that few slaves were brought to Europe. That has a lot to do with where the sugar plantations are, doesn't it? And who founded and established those? And who was profiting from running the trade? I used to live near Bristol. Big port. Half the city was built on slave-trade money.

The anti-slavery movement in Europe doesn't mean most Europeans were noble egalitarian liberal respecters of human rights. Not everyone is a Wilberforce.

It's simply a blunt historical fact that most people through most of history have been viciously and often lethally prejudiced against strangers, foreigners and outsiders in general. None of us need to feel guilt or shame for what people, who are now dead, did to each other long ago. But we should be very aware of history, so that the ghastly consequences of these habits of thought remain vividly before us as a constant reminder of what we're trying to avoid. Pretending that ethnic/political/national/religious group X - Europeans, in this case - were shining noble wonderful paragons of virtue is pointless and misleading.

sir_toejam

Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 20 2006,10:27

even more laughing!!!

Hunter, you actually thought my posting 1950 as the date erupopeans colonized Africa was anything but pure sarcasm at the answers you already messed up so bad?

Just for you, since you seem incapable of comprehending sarcasm...

take a closer look:

I asked when YOU thought the inroads were made, and based on your idiotic comments of no racism before 1900's, i could only assume YOU were thinking somewhere later, and sarcastically asked you if it was as late as 1950.

to which, even though you posted dates BEFORE 1900, you didn't retract your idiotic premise.

gees, you have more pyschological problems than i can count in a single post.

What does it mean when somebody can't grasp sarcasm at such a basic level?

Are you getting treatment?

I sincerely hope so.

oh, and...

Quote

love of frogs

bwahahahahaha!

what a clown.

as a tip, I do think you are confusing culture with race there, old boy, not that that is the only thing you are apparently confused about.

There really is far too much confusion in your thinking for me to ever fully straighten out, so if you choose not to seek treatment, do feel free to make me laugh some more!

you're still funny.

Paul Flocken

Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 21 2006,04:03

Quote (stephenWells @ May 20 2006,11:38)

Factual error AND logical fallacy: your claim that if most 19th century Europeans hadn't met Africans they therefore didn't have an opinion about them. Trivially incorrect; it's really, really easy to have an opinion about people you haven't met, and the literary and historical record is FULL of viciously racist opinions.

Heck, if Hunter's claim about 19th century Europeans was true then it would be triply true about 16th century Europeans; yet some English playwright dude knew enough to write an entire play about an African. Now, what WAS his name?

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. �Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 21 2006,05:02

Speaking of that, a 17th century English commenter, whose name escapes me, wrote that the play you speak of was ridiculous, because his people would hardly let a 'black-a-moor' play the trumpet, let alone command an army.

sir_toejam

Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 21 2006,09:40

Quote

Now, what WAS his name?

Kunte Kinte?

jupiter

Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: May 21 2006,14:56

No, it was that Francis Bacon guy, who wasn't quite right in the head, I think. Have you seen that painting of his, Screaming Queen? (Not that there's anything wrong with that...) Though, to be fair, his essays on inductive labor apparently had a tremendous influence on science, or obstetrics. Or maybe industrial relations. Something like that, anyway.

FL

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 26 2006,19:45

Typo correction: I said "the Bathroom Wall" instead of "ATBC" (After-The-Bar-Closes). My apologies.

FL

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 26 2006,19:45

<quote>I claim you are suffering from a mental disorder, and I will wager you I can provide more convincing evidence of that, based on analysis of your posts, than you could of the position that you have provided any evidentiary and logical response to Lenny’s questions.</quote>

A "mental disorder", you say? Well, ~that's~ an interesting development!

So, okay, sure, I await your professional psychoanalysis of my mental condition, Doc.

However, to make things convenient for me,
(1) would you simply go ahead and offer your psychoanalysis here and now (or over the weekend) in this thread, and
(2) would you simply base your analysis on either my response to the Conso article and/or my subsequent response to Andrew, Ken, and Renier's question?

After all, those two detailed responses are what I have spent some time thinking about, searching up, composing, and offering in this thread.
And in light of those efforts, I honestly don't see any need to run over to the Bathroom Wall when right here and now will do just fine. Just do it, Sir Toejam.

(Certainly the response to Andrew, Ken, and Renier, with its multiple links and posts, should provide you with ~plenty~ of hearty evidence to explain and support your presumably ~unbiased~ psychological evaluation.)

No gentlemen's bet necessary, no need for fanfare, no need to waste time elsewhere. Just start typing right after you read this, click on "Preview" and then "Post."

Btw, I define "mental disorder" as a disorder that is at least mentioned somewhere within the official DSM-IV psychological manual.
I think that's a fair and reasonable definition, no?

Anyway, that's all I wanted to say about it, Sir T.
I await your scientifically-supported, professionally-credentialled diagnosis. Thanks again, Doc!

FL

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 26 2006,19:47

<quote>do you even understand what Lenny is getting at with his oft repeated questions?</quote>

Nope. But the lurkers sure do.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 26 2006,19:47

<quote> Now I have never claimed that my “religious opinions” are more authoritative than anyone else’s. </quote>

Yeah, right, whatever.

Then, uh, why on earth should anyone listen to your religious opinions, FL.

Oh, and I notice you still haven't explained this:

FL says: ID isn't creationism

DI says: One of our five-year goals is to have mainstream churches defend the traditional doctrine of creation.

One of you is bullshitting us, FL.

Which is it?

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 26 2006,19:47

<quote>Conso is kaput already.
</quote>

you must have missed it. I could care less about conso myself, I was addressing my comments strictly to your own arguments, or actually lack thereof.

examples from your most recent post of actually NOT addressing a question when asked directly:

<quote>Conclusions based not only on reading and study, but also on multiple visits and getting to know them personally over time.</quote>

this is not evidence in support of an argument, it's a simple deflection to authority.

<quote>Because I sit down and make an effort to SUPPORT whatever religious opinions I offer you, from the Scriptures and/or whatever Non-Christian sources may be available.
</quote>

claiming you do something is far different from actually doing it, in case you needed that explained to you.

of course, waving your KJB at us wouldn't exactly be considered evidence either.

simply stated, you're completely delusional.

your answers, as evidenced by your own post to defend yourself, aren't.

do you even understand what Lenny is getting at with his oft repeated questions?

doubtful.

I claim you are suffering from a mental disorder, and I will wager you I can provide more convincing evidence of that, based on analysis of your posts, than you could of the position that you have provided any evidentiary and logical response to Lenny's questions.

Care to play? stakes are simple, just a gentleman's bet, if you know what that means.

if so, I'll start a new thread over on ATBC, and we can start analyzing your posts and let the audience decide.

FL

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 26 2006,19:48

<quote>As far as I recall, you usually enter a thread, spew a lot of BS and then run away.</quote>

Hey, I forgot: Renier, you're refuted too.

Hope ~you~ won't run away from my response there.
Try engaging it.

FL

FL

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 26 2006,19:48

Sorry for the delay there, decided to get some sleep last night while working on a response to Lenny's latest question-of-the-month.

Side notes:

1. Sir Toejam: you might as well let it go. Conso is kaput already.
You are NOT able to salvage that claim of his, or you honestly would have done so by now. So let's allow Lenny, therefore, to mercifully change the subject.

2. Andrew, Ken, and Renier: You asked for links to previous
Lenny-questions-of-the-month and my responses to them.

So here you go, gentlemen, for your reading pleasure.

******************************************************

In a thread relating to Unitarian Universalists, I respond to Lenny’s "Just ask him" gig.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/evolution_101_u_1.html
Comment 90517

<quote>Because FL is an arrogant prideful judgemental intolerant prick who thinks (quite literally) that he is holier than everyone else.
Just ask him.</quote>

And so I answered Lenny in the very next comment. Partial snip:

<quote>
Again, it’s not about any “holier-than-thou’s”, but simple honesty.

These UU folks are honest about their positions, and I’ve tried to maintain that same sense of honesty in describing my stated conclusions about them.

Conclusions based not only on reading and study, but also on multiple visits and getting to know them personally over time.

(I trust that you’ve been through a similar process of study, visiting, and getting to know them personally too, Rev. Lenny. You have, haven’t you?)</quote>

Btw, Lenny has not yet answered ~my~ question after all this time. Maybe Andrew, Ken, and Renier will ask him why not, given Lenny's constant emphasis on people answering ~his~ questions.

**********************************************

Then there was the Evolution Sunday thing. Lenny asked two sets of questions, and I offered him two sets of answers (which he could not refute, of course.).

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/evolution_sunda.html

Scroll down to Comment 79536 to see Lenny’s first set, and then go to Comment 79801 to see my answer to him.

Lenny’s second set of questions is at Comment 79539, and my answers for that set are at Comment 79876.

*******************************************

Then there’s the thread “Yet More Desperation at the DI” at

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/yet_more_desper.html

Lenny asked (comment 96116),

<quote>Um, hey FL, aren’t YOU a YEC …. ?

By the way, FL, since you’re back for another drive-by, would you mind explaining to me why your religious opinions are any more authoritative than anyone else’s?</quote>

And so I answered his questions in Comment 96126. You'll need to read the whole thing (I trust you will), but here’s a partial snip:

<quote>Well, okay. Now I have never claimed that my “religious opinions” are more authoritative than anyone else’s. That statement is honestly yours, not mine.

However, I honestly do believe that my religious opinions may SOUND more authoritative than ~yours~ in particular.

You know why? Because I sit down and make an effort to SUPPORT whatever religious opinions I offer you, from the Scriptures and/or whatever Non-Christian sources may be available.</quote>

And that fact, btw, remains mondo fact unto this day.

************************************************

I also previously answered Lenny’s question of ~Adam Versus The Bootleg Bacteria~, but I’m willing to let Lenny or somebody else search for that one.

I ~think~ I've provided enough linked examples for the three of you (and all those "lurkers" out there that Lenny wants to appeal to)
to consider at this time. Your request is now answered.

Andrew asked, "why not link said thread so that those of us who weren’t there at the time can judge for ourselves whether you answered it or not?".

Well, Andrew, your question is legitimate, but there ya go. Read every bit of it (because text demands context, I'm sure you agree), and then Judge Away, sir!

FL

************************************************

(PS. I realize there's still the matter of Lenny's current Flavor Of the Month, but I got three days of Memorial Daw Weekend to play with that one, and so I'll take it easy for now. This current response should be more than enough.)

(PPS specifically for Lenny: your statement "Fortunately, people like FL and Donald make it pretty easy to show the lurkers that creationist/IDers are all dishonest deceptive evasive liars who never answer direct questions and who haven’t said anything new in forty-odd years" is now flat-out ~refuted~).

Since Lenny likes appealing to lurkers, let all lurkers consider, compare & contrast Lenny's stuff and my stuff. I'm content with that comparison.

(And btw, Lenny, you still have offered NOTHING to salvage Conso with, either.
Rather predictable, aint'cha? But have yourself a good holiday weekend all the same!)

FL

PennyBright

Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: May 27 2006,06:30

Quote (Guest @ May 27 2006,00:48)

�
Since Lenny likes appealing to lurkers, let all lurkers consider, compare & contrast Lenny's stuff and my stuff. �I'm content with that comparison. �

I've been lurking for ages now.

Lenny's stuff wins.

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 27 2006,06:42

Hey FL, if ID isn't creationism, then why does DI list "traditional doctrine of creation" as one of its "five year objectives"?

FL

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 27 2006,06:43

Hmm. Andrew, Ken, and Renier's request that was addressed to me have NOT been deleted from this board at the time of this writing, but the information and links that I specifically provided to them apparently HAS been deleted.

That would tend to present a possible mis-impression, that I failed to do them the courtesy of responding to their legitimate request.

I simply want to say (for Lenny's "lurkers") that I did answer their request, upfront and with specific detail and links.

FL

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 27 2006,06:43

ach! i see you axed FL's post.

axe mine too, please.

makes no sense now.

thanks

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 27 2006,06:43

OHHH alright :p

I'll summarize what i actually said with this instead then, and leave the issue at that.

<quote>(1) would you simply go ahead and offer your psychoanalysis here and now (or over the weekend) in this thread, and
(2) would you simply base your analysis on either my response to the Conso article and/or my subsequent response to Andrew, Ken, and Renier’s question?</quote>

uh, no and no.

here's why:

1. it's OT and of little interest to just about anybody else but myself, most likely. So it will have to be ATBC.
Though i can see why you want to limit it to this thread.

2. Your setting up the dataset to fail by restricting the sample size to a ridiculously small number of posts.
If I'm going to show a consistent pattern, I intend to look at a MUCH larger sample of your posts (I wouldn't have even bothered unless I had already noticed a pattern over the months of your posting behavior).

as to:

at least mentioned somewhere within the official DSM-IV psychological manual.
I think that’s a fair and reasonable definition, no?

Hmm, sounds reasonable. agreed.

<quote>No gentlemen’s bet necessary, no need for fanfare, no need to waste time elsewhere. Just start typing right after you read this, click on “Preview” and then “Post.”

</quote>

oh yes, i do smell fear; which really shouldn't be the case. It's no big deal, right?

do remember tho, what i said:

<quote>I will wager you I can provide more convincing evidence of that, based on analysis of your posts, than you could of the position that you have provided any evidentiary and logical response to Lenny’s questions.
</quote>

i just have to provide better evidence from your posts that you are suffering from a mental disorder than you can that they provide answers to Lenny's questions.

Still wanna go?

I'm game, I agreed to one of your provisos, so if you're ammenable to the other two, it could be fun.

no need to discuss this here further. You can even start the post yourself over at ATBC, and if you still want to discuss terms, we can do so there.

I consider this the end of discussion on this issue on PT. see you in the bar.

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 27 2006,06:44

FL sweats fear:

<quote>(1) would you simply go ahead and offer your psychoanalysis here and now (or over the weekend) in this thread, and
(2) would you simply base your analysis on either my response to the Conso article and/or my subsequent response to Andrew, Ken, and Renier’s question?

uh, no and no.

here's why:

1. it's OT and of little interest to just about anybody else but myself, most likely. So it will have to be ATBC.
Though i can see why you want to limit it to this thread.

2. Your setting up the dataset to fail by restricting the sample size to a ridiculously small number of posts.
If I'm going to show a consistent pattern, I intend to look at a MUCH larger sample of your posts (I wouldn't have even bothered unless I had already noticed a pattern over the months of your posting behavior).

as to:

at least mentioned somewhere within the official DSM-IV psychological manual.
I think that’s a fair and reasonable definition, no?

it sounds fair on the surface, but I have to check the reference to see.

basically, just to give you a clue, I'll be working with the rampant denial and projection you exhibit in most of your posts, and since you are apparently familiar with at least "some" form of official psychological terminology, I'm sure you also can recognize the several catergories of disorder I could play with given the observed behavior?

Quote

No gentlemen’s bet necessary, no need for fanfare, no need to waste time elsewhere. Just start typing right after you read this, click on “Preview” and then “Post.”

oh yes, i do smell fear; which really you shouldn't. It's no big deal, right?

do remember tho, what i said:

Quote

I will wager you I can provide more convincing evidence of that, based on analysis of your posts, than you could of the position that you have provided any evidentiary and logical response to Lenny’s questions.

i don't have to prove you're crazy; just provide better evidence from your posts that you are suffering from a mental disorder than you can that they provide answers to Lenny's questions.

Still wanna go?

I'm game, provided you aren't too scared to look at ALL of your posts, and not just the few here.

Heck, you might even learn something. It could be fun.

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 27 2006,06:45

Hey FL;

if we cared what AIG had to say about ANYTHING, we certainly wouldn't need morons like yourself to point the way.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 27 2006,06:46

<quote>And here is my own somewhat spicier analysis of the Consolmagno story, which I offered some time ago on another forum.</quote>

Thanks for yout opinions, Fl. We'll give them, uh, due consideration.

But now that you're back again, let me repeat my simple question to you that you seem to have run away from the last dozen or so times I asked:

*ahem*

You claimed, rather stridently, that ID isn't creationism and that DI doesn't support creationism.

In the Wedge Document, under "Five Year Objectives", the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture lists:

<quote> Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation </quote>

What, precisely, is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI lists as one of its "objectives", and why, exactly, do they want "mainstream christian denominations" to "defend" it?

It's a simple question, FL. Why are you so reluctant to answer it . . . . . . . . ?

Ken Baggaley

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 27 2006,06:47

FL wrote:

"You mean like the question I answered last time? And the one I answered prior to that?"

Link, please?

- K.

Lou FCD

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: May 27 2006,08:49

Haha... I just took This Trip Down Memory Lane, which occured just after I began lurking here and at the Thumb proper.

Quote

I found the book at www.Amazon.com and it made a great impression on me.

A year later, it's still funny.

BUSTED!

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Philip Bruce Heywood

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 28 2006,07:32

NEW SCIENTIST 8th April '06, features "The Quantum Elixir", a rivetting description by R. Matthews of recent advances in understanding of good old Adam's ale. Quotes: "... the effects of water on living organisms transcend mere chemistry ... you owe your existence to quantum [subatomic]effects in water .... 'the water molecules report the DNA sequence to the protein while it is still some distance away ... then as the protein gets closer, the water molecules are ejected ... the water molecules relay messages to the protein ... they can even warn the approaching protein about potential problems with the DNA before it arrives' .... the latest discoveries about the role of water in living processes may change [opinions].. ..'it's the magic ingredient that turns lifeless powders on laboratory shelves into living things'" Note, there are quotes within this quote, which may not fully align with Matthews' opinion. The final phrase obviously is not meant to be taken literally. But NEW SCIENTIST is not publishing trash science here. Mind you, NEW SCIENTIST, along with Messrs. Brockman and the EDGE contributors, certainly give an impression that they have departed from orthodoxy, being fundamentally opposed to the world views of men such as Galileo, Newton, Kelvin, Einstein, and perhaps in some measure of Darwin himself? The philosophical base of traditional Science is in the history books for all to find. Apparently, EDGE & co. have yet to find it.
Returning to the "magical" Adam's ale: thanks to the modern quantum Age, we know that water, an inert substance, goes close to having life-gendering properties. Is this news? No. GENESIS 1:20: "... let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life ... ". That almost gives water creative power.
NEW SCIENTIST, EDGE & co. presumably would prefer magic?
We haven't even started in on clay mineralogy and its possible similarity to DNA. "...let the earth bring forth the living creature .... "
Check out the whole spectrum of breathtaking, biblically based technical advances in Origins Science at CREATIONTHEORY.COM -- the invisible site. AIG, D.I. NASA, Prof. Dawkins, etc., can never find it. Lenny Flank has given up trying.
Mind you, verbal exchanges over the 'Net are probably therapeutic, and it may be that in the interests of keeping some people off the streets, or reducing levels of domestic violence, or something, the grand Debate probably should continue.
It is however of concern that Science could become a casualty. Have pity on it.
So there is no sound alternative to near-hysterical support of full-on Darwinism? Really? Will certain elements of "Science" continue willy-nilly until dragged to the party by uneducated, ignorant people who are at least as stupid as Einstein, Newton. & co.?
Give Science a break. P.H..

k.e.

Unregistered

(Permalink)

Posted: May 28 2006,07:33

oooooh a rip in the cosmic curtain let in too much water and light for the tribe of rock hearders in a levantin desert.
A quantum sphinx 1/2 man 1/2 beast....dribbles off to the Da Vinci code.

Heywood drunk on his "Quantum HElicksher"
uses water to wash away his sins, keep it up, Bruce.

	Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution