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

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > UnReasonable Kansans thread

Pages: (341) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,05:16    FTK, Oh sorry, maybe I got the wrong impression. When you came here originally you made comments to the effect that not much science gets discussed here and that you were keen to participate in a scientific discussion. Now you say you aren't interested in a scientific discussion. Well far be it from me to deny a lady the prerogative of changing her mind, but I'm confused! (Yeah, yeah I know, same shit, different day! ;-) ) I'm probably not the best person here to discuss speciation and the longer term evolutionary change mechanisms with you, but I know a thing or two about chemistry and I'd happily talk to you about the ideas that are floating around about abiogenesis. You might like that discussion better because we don't know precisely what happened (i.e. we don't know the specific route from "molecules to microbes") but we do know a heck of a lot about how things can happen and we have a few exciting clues about what did. It's a much less concrete area in terms of a specific pathway so you might enjoy it more than dealing with speciation and "macroevolution" where, I am sorry to say the data is much stronger in terms of specific pathways (and perhaps interestingly less strong in terms of general mechanisms*) and you'll simply get embarrassed if you keep insisting on your personal incredulity. Cheers Louis *What I mean by this is that we know a lot of very detailed and quantifiable stuff about (for example) the specific mechanisms of micelle formation or polymerisation reactions but less detailed and quantifiable stuff about allopatric or sympatric speciation. This doesn't mean we know nothing about these modes of speciation, just that by virtue of the nature of the phenomena we are dealing with we can have better amounts of certain types of information about certain types of phenomena. -------------- Bye.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,06:10    Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,22:29) If she wants to argue against common descent, she's taking on not merely the whole scientific community, but much of the ID community. What did Dembski's webmaster say about the matter? Quote I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. ... ...Says the man on his blog, uncommondescent.com. :D

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,07:29    Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,21:36) For the sake of argument, Dave, let's assume that I know absolutely nothing about *anything*.  How's that work for you?   Now, you teach me.  You start wherever you need to in order for me to understand why macroevolution is a ~fact~.  You can act as though you're talking to a 1st grader if that makes you happy, but teach me something instead of endlessly telling everyone that I'm a half baked moron.   I await for my first biology lesson.. FtK Well. actually, that was what I was trying to do on your blog before you cut me off. I have never assumed that you know nothing. I think all of us know something, and are ignorant about other things; I've left comments on your blog about all the things that I don't know anything about. I now understand that you accept lots of things that are wrong. If your readings in biology recently have been restricted to the writings of Walt Brown and Duane Gish, you have a head full of things that are wrong. I have learned, to my dismay over the years, that unlearning things is actually harder than learning things. And that is actually backed up by modern neuroscience (e.g. Zull's The Art of Changing the Brain). Nevertheless, I'll tell you what I can do to help you get up to speed here. If your basic biology background needs upgrading, I can send you, free of charge, an intro college-level textbook. Since I coordinate our intro course every fall, I get lots of free books from publishers who want me to adopt those books. The pricetag to the student ranges from $85-120 (I know, it's a ripoff). But rather than have them languish on my shelves, I'd be happy to donate one to this cause. Let me know an address where I can send it, and we can start from there. Oh, BTW, my comments on your blog are not meant 'to find ammunition to state endlessly that (you) "know nothing about science"'. I'd really rather not state that endlessly; I'd really rather discuss science. When can we start? -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,09:02    Okay, FtK has no science forthcomming, nor does she appear to want to discuss it. I'm pleased my worldview isn't that fragile. I'll get back to reporting things that amuse me on her blog. Have these kids found the easter bunny's hide out? http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/04/happy-easter.html -------------- "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

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,10:03    Quote (Richardthughes @ April 10 2007,17:02) Okay, FtK has no science forthcomming, nor does she appear to want to discuss it. I'm pleased my worldview isn't that fragile. I'll get back to reporting things that amuse me on her blog. Have these kids found the easter bunny's hide out? http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/04/happy-easter.html Looks like it's where the Cyclops kept it's sheep, is it in America? -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,10:06    I would be interested in an abiogenesis thread just for my own education. -------------- 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

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,10:12    Quote I just need to just get the heck out of here, and that should put an end to this.  I do think that endogenous retroviruses would be an interesting topic discuss, but I realize that “morons” like myself come in here and talk about the same issues endlessly, and you guys have to repeat yourselves time and time again.  ~I know how frustrating that can be~.   It would be better to discuss that sort of thing on a lightly moderated forum, rather than a heavily moderated blog such as your own. And I don't think ERVs have been discussed extensively here, so people shouldn't be as cranky about it as they might be over, say, calibration curves for C14 dating. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,10:14    Quote (Kristine @ April 10 2007,10:06) I would be interested in an abiogenesis thread just for my own education. WARLOCK GRANTS YOUR WISH: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=3902 -------------- "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 10 2007,10:28    What I really have to do is that longer more in depth discussion of abiogenesis I've been meaning to do for a few months now. {blushes} Louis -------------- Bye.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,10:39    Well, Blipey's comment got through on the Humes review post on FtK's blog. Ignore the first comment from Farfarman, who still hasn't read all of Monkey Girl and seems rather proud of that. In a long post, Blipey asked some serious questions, in a respectful manner, and got this in return...   Quote Forthekids said...    Well, thanks for your point of view, Blipey.    Question: After reading my review, did you find anything misleading about Humes lecture? Anything at all?    Just curious. Like wow, man... -------------- 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

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,13:05    Quote I do think that endogenous retroviruses would be an interesting topic discuss Well, if you ever change your mind, here's Ashby Camp's rebuttal to Theobald on ERVs:  http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp (it's at the end). Of course Camp's arguments are flaccid, but if you have the curiosity to find out why, you'll have to start talking some science. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,15:43    FtK has responded to Blipey, and even allowed Zach to post on her blog re the review of Humes's lecture. I just sent her a comment, and since I have no delusions that it will appear there, I will copy it here.     Quote FtK wrote: I think that there comes a point when discussing certain scientific issues that you run right smack dab into religious and philosophical questions, and we just have to deal with them. When you hit that point where they merge, everyone needs to take a deep breath and allow for it to happen. Discuss and allow consideration of a variety of ideas. To cling tightly to one theory because it eliminates any chance of considering a bigger picture that may lead closer to reality, is putting a limit on what we can learn. Personally, I have no problem teaching every aspect of evolution as long as we are allowed to thoroughly question the theory and not allow it to lead to a dead end where we no longer search for answers but just assume that we have the “facts“. Actually, we run smack dab into religious and philosophical implications rather than questions. And it is at that point that we need to ask ourselves if we are discarding scientific interpretations due to scientific disagreements, or if we are discarding them because of their religious and philosophical implications. You are on record as believing that we should "follow the evidence"; it is difficult to follow it if the religious or philosophical implications stand in the path. And it is profoundly ironic when you write To cling tightly to one theory because it eliminates any chance of considering a bigger picture that may lead closer to reality, is putting a limit on what we can learn. Personally, I have no problem teaching every aspect of evolution as long as we are allowed to thoroughly question the theory and not allow it to lead to a dead end where we no longer search for answers but just assume that we have the “facts“. Scientific theories, because they generate questions and testable hypotheses, rarely lead to dead ends. Even the dead ones, like Lamarckianism, led to something else once the tests and experiments disproved the theory. Science never assumes that we have all the facts; it is always looking to fill in the gaps and find a bigger picture. ID, on the other hand, is the archetypal dead end. Without a mechanism, it cannot  generate predictions; without predictions, it goes nowhere. It is already a big picture; there are no gaps. And it does, almost by definition, assume that we have all the facts that we need. By your standards, we shouldn't include ID in a science curriculum. -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,16:19    She says Quote Atheists base their worldview on science and claim that science disproves the validity of the supernatural. No, I think they contend that the supernatural is beyond the remit of science. If it could be studied, it would be natural. Hence methodological naturalism. You can have supernatural - in philosophy, or theology, or in Arden's undercrackers. -------------- "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 10 2007,16:23    OH NOES, MY WORLDVIEW! Quote sigh....I can’t speak for everyone, but I assure you I am no more insecure about my beliefs than you are of yours. FtK is clearly empathic/telepathic, which is probably supernatural! If the supernatural is being measured.. then a designer is inside of science! -------------- "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

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,17:48    Hi, ftk! I was just wondering why you think it is that scientists and medical researchers and cancer investigators are coming around to the view that canines may be better research animals for modeling human cancers than mice are? Evolutionary biologists are able to explain this puzzling fact, in part, based upon the more recent common ancestor shared by canines and humans, and the more distant one shared by mice. I'm wondering what your explanation might be.  "Common design"?  If so, what rationale might the designer have had for designing dogs such that they are more susceptible to human-like cancers than mice? Did the designer just like mice better? Wouldn't it have been more convenient if mice had been designed so as to be the more useful cancer model?  After all, in other respects, their swifter generations, smaller size, greater fecundity, etc., make them much more tractable--and somewhat less soulful-eyed--research subjects. Please feel free to share any religious or philosophical implications you feel may bear on the mice-dog-human cancer triangle. But I'd sure appreciate it if you started with the scientific evidence, given how much you like to read original research papers. Or, hey, if you don't like that one: how old is the earth?  How do you know?  If radiometric dating isn't reliable, why hasn't the earth cooled internally long ago?  Why hasn't the sun gone out?   If radiometric dating isn't reliable, how can such fundamental constants as the weak force inform us about "fine tuning"?  I mean, if those extremely well-measured constants are reliable as indicators of "fine tuning" and cosmic design, why aren't they reliable when they cause atoms to decay in a finely-designed and scientifically-predicatable manner? Just, y'know, wondering. If none of those questions set your tall, blonde self to pitter-patting, just let me know what the problem is, and I'll try to come up with some issues that your tall, blonde, scientifically-astute self will warm to...! All the best, Stevie P.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,17:56    Stevie, just wanted to point out that it is not so cut and dried when it comes to animal models.  It largely depends upon what system you're looking at.  Nervous system seems to favor canines, behavior - primates, long term oncology is still mice and rats (unless something has changed very recently).  Oddly enough, one of the best complete models is actually the pig, but swine are a pain is the @%! to manage in long term studies.  Just my 2 cents, not that it is relevant to ftk's issues.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,18:36    Quote (Richardthughes @ April 10 2007,09:02) Okay, FtK has no science forthcomming, nor does she appear to want to discuss it. I'm pleased my worldview isn't that fragile. I'll get back to reporting things that amuse me on her blog. Have these kids found the easter bunny's hide out? http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/04/happy-easter.html I commented twice about this on FTK's blog @ 4 hours ago, and adapted your comment (with proper atttribution, I might add)... She learned of course at the Feet Of The MasterTard, so I am not surprised my comments didn't make it through moderation...Nada.  Zilch.  I guess ftk has a very fragile world view after all, and can't stand someone poking fun at her Sky God.  Jeezus!  She's lucky I didn't have time to 'hang around" and visit her on Good Friday! -------------- 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 10 2007,19:05    On her blog, FTK said: Quote I’m not sure how to address your comment above, because I disagree with it completely. I will say that I believe it is asinine to actually believe that scientists have an “atheist conspiracy”. Well, at least she disagrees with Dembski, Quote Uncommon Descent holds that... Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2007,19:53    skeptic, you make some good points.  Rather than sound, um, dogmatic on the topic of canines as model cancer animals, I should simply have provided my source: December 2006 Scientific American "Cancer Clues from Pet Dogs" Studies of pet dogs with cancer can offer unique help in the fight against human malignancies while also improving care for man's best friend By David J. Waters and Kathleen Wildasin http://www.sciam.com/article....d_links Your thoughts would, of course, be appreciated.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2007,09:23    Very intersting, I'm going to have to look that one up.  My experience comes from controlled studies so I was not aware of this instance.  Thanks for the reference, I'll give it a look.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,11:06    More FtK Hypocrisy here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=4820 -------------- "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

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,23:10    Here's one to add to your collection, Richard: Scott, aka slpage, aka Doppelganger wrote: Quote What a sissy... Why would a tough guy supposed former marine need dogs, chain saws, etc.? All bluff and bluster, no balls. Typical bully. That one won’t see the light of day at my blog.   Now if it were someone other that Scott, perhaps I’d consider it teasing, but I've never known Scott to have much of a sense of humor, so I flicked it into space. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,23:14    Here's another: Quote ...The wolf howls when the moon is full... LOL -- no clue what was going on in the mind of 'ol anonymous.   If I had to guess, it was probably Richard. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2007,23:22    Nope. I just post about your blog here now. I like the way they go through, instantly. Also, I can engage is scientific discussion without evasion with people who are knowledgeable and who don't derive their 'reality' from a book from antiquity. -------------- "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 13 2007,00:11    Quote Or, hey, if you don't like that one: how old is the earth?  How do you know? Please. Intelligent Design advocates just hate being asked that question.   -------------- "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

slpage Posts: 349 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,07:20    Seems FTK, aka FtK, aka IAFM, aka Diana, aka Lapdog, aka.... is censoring posts at her blog as usual. A guy can't even point out how much of a pussy her new pal Dave 'built like a football player' Springer is... Thats ok, I'll do it elsewehere...

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,07:37    I've NEVER posted under any name other than Ftk (Forthekids).  I'm most certainly not Diana. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,07:53    Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,08:37) I've NEVER posted under any name other than Ftk (Forthekids).  I'm most certainly not Diana. You should be flattered.  I think it is a reference to Roman mythology. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,08:13    Quote (carlsonjok @ April 13 2007,08:53) Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,08:37) I've NEVER posted under any name other than Ftk (Forthekids).  I'm most certainly not Diana. You should be flattered.  I think it is a reference to Roman mythology. More likely it's a reference to an especially obnoxious poster using that name at KCFS.  Diana was eventually banned.  I don't think FtK is Diana; Diana was noticably more perseverating on atheism than FtK. The other names are probably KCFS trolls too, but I don't remember them.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,10:48    The anonymous commenter sent me two more cryptic comments.  It must have some secret meaning!   .....At the gate at midnight... ....Friday the 13th..... So, we have "the wolf howls when the moon is full at the gate at midnight Friday the 13th!" Today is Friday the 13th!!!  What could this mean? And, does it have anything to do with the Design conference at SMU???  So mysterious... -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Pages: (341) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard