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) < ... 81 82 83 84 85 [86] 87 88 89 90 91 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,20:03    I was just wondering about that. The tone around here has been noticeably different.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,20:21    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2007,19:59) Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 18 2007,19:53) FtK (via Blipey's link):   Quote I've really got some reading to do before I get you on the couch. Crikey, blipey, we were just kidding around with Lenny.  I hope FtK understands that! Where is Lenny, BTW? He and Louis seem to have dropped off the face of the earth. Who else will write '*shrug*' and write semi-obscene anecdotes full of British in-joke references? Lenny got tired of sparring with people who made no attempt to understand him and bailed. Louis is on holiday in the Greek Isles somewhere. EDIT: RTH is going to be pissed when he finds out FtK is trying to get blipey on the couch.  Who has got teh sexi_hawt now? -------------- 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!)

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,21:33    Quote I've sat through about 900 church services in my life.  I'm pretty sure I'm still breathing. Amongst your many problems is your inability to separate ideology from reasoning.  I don't have a problem with you because you believe in God.  I have a problem with you because you can't use the brain that your God gave you. You may understand this if you ever stop disliking me because you think I'm an atheist. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,07:27    Why can't Ftk separate ideology from reasoning? Quote Oh, and IDiocy and a belief in God do not go hand in hand for me.  Just because you think that atheism and evolution go hand in hand does not make the converse true. IDiocy, in my opinion, is a subset of religious fundamentalism.  One does not have to believe in God to support ID, but t sure seems to be the going thing.  One also does not have to support ID if one believes in God. The two things are VERY separate for me.  Once again, my problem IS NOT that you believe in God.  It is that you refuse to use your brain. My biggest pet peeve is people who enjoy ignorance. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,07:50    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2007,19:59) Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 18 2007,19:53) FtK (via Blipey's link):   Quote I've really got some reading to do before I get you on the couch. Crikey, blipey, we were just kidding around with Lenny.  I hope FtK understands that! Where is Lenny, BTW? He and Louis seem to have dropped off the face of the earth. Who else will write '*shrug*' and write semi-obscene anecdotes full of British in-joke references? Louis is on a 2 week Holiday in Greece / Aegean.  At this very moment he is calling someone there a "silly stupid twit", and slapping at them with his riding crop. He is due back @ 9/24.   HTH :) -------------- 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

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,07:55    Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,07:27) Why can't Ftk separate ideology from reasoning? Quote Oh, and IDiocy and a belief in God do not go hand in hand for me.  Just because you think that atheism and evolution go hand in hand does not make the converse true. IDiocy, in my opinion, is a subset of religious fundamentalism.  One does not have to believe in God to support ID, but t sure seems to be the going thing.  One also does not have to support ID if one believes in God. The two things are VERY separate for me.  Once again, my problem IS NOT that you believe in God.  It is that you refuse to use your brain. My biggest pet peeve is people who enjoy ignorance. Blipey - "Why can't Ftk separate ideology from reasoning?" IMO - Because it is so much easier for FTK to let someone else (pastor, DaveScot etc)  do her thinking for her.  She acts and writes as if ideology and thinking are one and the same.   I have to give you credit for trying man, but I estimate that your chance of success in getting FTK to actually get it is the same as Demsbksi coming clean and admitting ID is a total scam, suitable only for church. -------------- 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

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:01    Quote You seriously don't see how this is dishonest, do you? You make a claim that an article contains something that is demonstrably does not.  That is the dictionary definition of dishonesty. That you ignore this point doesn't speak well of you.  Again, I don;t have a problem with you because you made a mistake.  I have a problem with you because you ignore the mistake. From false claims made here. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

RF Brady Posts: 30 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:17    FtK's alter ego. http://alternet.org/blogs/video/#63087

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:50    Quote (RF Brady @ Sep. 20 2007,07:17) FtK's alter ego. http://alternet.org/blogs/video/#63087 Stellar.  I mean, it would be if stars were actually hot enough for that to mean anything.  So, I guess I should say OVENY, or MATCHSTICKY. That video is great. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,21:28    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2007,20:59)     Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 18 2007,19:53) FtK (via Blipey's link):       Quote I've really got some reading to do before I get you on the couch. Crikey, blipey, we were just kidding around with Lenny.  I hope FtK understands that! Where is Lenny, BTW? He and Louis seem to have dropped off the face of the earth. Who else will write '*shrug*' and write semi-obscene anecdotes full of British in-joke references? Lenny and Louis went after each other in the "No reason for a rift between science and religion?" thread. Lenny announced he was no longer enjoying AtBC and announced his departure from same. I haven't seen him since. Louis departed for vacation in Greece. He should be back about the 25th. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,15:24    FtK and I have been having a bit of discussion via PM, and I've approved her conditional participation here. This is the condition: Quote Here's the deal: Your return would be conditioned on complete accountability. Any claim you make, you will also be on the hook for justifying it. Refuse to substantiate or retract anything at all, and you'll go right back in the penalty box. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,16:16    I'm assuming that this means "from now on" since Ftk is completely incapable of owning up to anything? I also assume that this means she might actually watch what she says? I've got a dollar on "NO". -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,01:24    Since you're banging around again, Ftk, I have another little truthiness matter for you.  Over on your blog, you posted about a review of Behe's new book.  You claim the review addressed the science and was all sciency and supported Behe's science-like agenda, and all. I asked you where the science was in the review.  You seem to have not substantiated its presence.  Just in case you forgot or don't read your own drivel, here it is again. Your Post Wybrow's Review I'm sure your new substantial self is really peeved at your old truth dodging self. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,07:03    Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 19 2007,02:21) {SNIP} Lenny got tired of sparring with people who made no attempt to understand him and bailed. Louis is on holiday in the Greek Isles somewhere. {OTHER SNIP} The bolded segment was never, is not, and will never be true. At least in my case. I bent over backwards to undestand Lenny and his arguments, and I think you'll find the consensus of opinion (as well as those vastly more important things: the facts) supports me in both that and a great deal of confusion at his antics in that thread. Frustration at such effort being unreciprocated does not equate to not making such effort in the first place. Frustration and annoyance I cheerfully admit to. The latter, unbolded segement is sadly no longer true. Oh well back to reality, such as it is. Only 1346 more emails to get through (and no I am not exaggerating). Don't people understand what an Out Of Office autoreply means? {sighs} ;-) Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,07:03    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2007,02:03) I was just wondering about that. The tone around here has been noticeably different. My apologies. I shall try to improve it now I am back. Oh wait, was that not what you meant? ;-) Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,07:21    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2007,01:59) Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 18 2007,19:53) FtK (via Blipey's link):   Quote I've really got some reading to do before I get you on the couch. Crikey, blipey, we were just kidding around with Lenny.  I hope FtK understands that! Where is Lenny, BTW? He and Louis seem to have dropped off the face of the earth. Who else will write '*shrug*' and write semi-obscene anecdotes full of British in-joke references? HEY! Only SEMI-obscene? {OFFENDED} Louis -------------- Bye.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,11:01    I've found her problem (again). She thinks that opinions are data.  What?  You knew that already?  You're aware of her daft thinking on what a fact is?   Well, shit. Quote Okay, when Behe says it is based on data and ordinary logic, he only introduces one of these into his work.  It isn't data. He says that things are IC.  He has defined data (very clearly in that excerpt) as LOOKING AT THE MOLECULAR MACHINERY. Looking at something is not data.  Running the numbers in data.  Could you (or he) point to a place where he has run the numbers.  Or perhaps even presented a way to run the numbers? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:33    Ftk is fond of saying that conversation with me is impossible.   Here is the proof. The anonymous comment #1 is mine.  As usual, she has no reply.  So I posted this: Quote See.  Here is where the conversation breaks down.  It isn't because of me.  You made a post.  I made a reply.  IN my reply, I put forth an argument (Behe employs no numbers in his argument, thereby making it undata-like).  I was not rude in my reply. You will ignore my reply.  You will make no counter argument.  You will show no examples of Behe doing what I claim he did not. You will then say "It is impossible to have a conversation with you." You will notice that the conversation breaks down in your court, not mine. Obviously, I cannot be reasoned with. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,20:56    Hi Blipey, You posted your comment to my blog this morning, and I put it through because it's a fair question.   I wanted very badly to attend a lecture at KSU this afternoon, so I worked my tail off so that I could take off early to do so.  I left for Manhattan at 2:30p and got home around 7:00p.  Then I fed my kids, and I'm still prodding them to get their homework done.  My time was limited today...call it evasion or whatever, I simply don't care. I can't point you to the data you want because I just don't have the time to dig.  I can't imagine that Behe has written two books on this subject and not worked through data in regard to the reverse engineering of the flagellum or other molecular machines.  I also know that many mainstream scientists have considered how molecular machines could have evolved, so ID advocates are not the only ones working on this particular problem.   I have yet to read Behe's new book in it's entirety due to time restraints as well...I'm about a quarter of the way through...so I can't tell you if he provides what you're looking for in it either.  Even if I had read the whole book, I'm merely a lay person, so I simply don't have the background to discuss this subject and would have to refer you to someone else anyway.   The reason why I find it difficult to carry on a conversation with you is because your only interest in me is to stop me.  You've stated in the past that you believe I'm a detriment to the state of Kansas, and it's people like me that you intend to highlight as ignorant, wrong, etc., etc.   Everything you post at my sight comes directly back here, where you then proceed to moan and groan whether I respond to your posts or not.  It's a no winner.  If you haven't noticed, you're about the only one that keeps resurfacing this thread over and over.  Just let it go.   I'd consider talking to you privately about some of these issues, but I know you have no interest in that because when I tried that in the past, you posted our private conversation publically, so I no longer trust you.  For you, it's all about taking me down, not carrying on a meaningful conversation.  I don't want to waste my time on that kind of nonsense. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,21:12    I'm not sure how numerical Behe's argument is. Computer scientist and math guy Mark Chu-Carroll says that in chapter 3 of Edge of Evolution Behe makes a math argument which is simply awful and incompetent. Which isn't all that surprising, given both that Behe probably has very little math training, and is writing for an audience that has very little math training.

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,21:18    Can you substantiate that claim?   Look, Dembski, no doubt, reviewed Behe's work before it was published.  Dembski's a bit of a math wiz, no?  Or, is math another one of those subjects that only Darwinists are capable of understanding? I have trouble believing that Behe has no concept of the math he is putting forth.  But, God knows there will be no convincing you people of that. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Jasper Posts: 76 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,21:25    Quote I have trouble believing that Behe has no concept of the math he is putting forth.  But, God knows there will be no convincing you people of that. Let's see...you have trouble believing Behe has no concept of the math he is putting forth. That's enough for me.  I'm convinced.   ;-)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,21:54    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 25 2007,22:18) Can you substantiate that claim?   Look, Dembski, no doubt, reviewed Behe's work before it was published.  Dembski's a bit of a math wiz, no?  Or, is math another one of those subjects that only Darwinists are capable of understanding? I have trouble believing that Behe has no concept of the math he is putting forth.  But, God knows there will be no convincing you people of that. Can who substantiate which claim?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:02    Actually, I have to do a partial retraction. I said "given both that Behe probably has very little math training". I see now he has a BS in ChemE. This means he probably had calc 1, 2, 3, Intro to DiffyQ and Intro to Stat/Prob. Of those, the Intro to Stat class would not be much help for the arguments Chu-Carroll says he makes, even if it were fresh in his mind, instead of being 35 years ago.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:06    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 25 2007,22:18) Look, Dembski, no doubt, reviewed Behe's work before it was published.  Dembski's a bit of a math wiz, no? According to world-class No Free Lunch Theorem expert David Wolpert, Dembski's math for lay audiences is malfunctional, so your argumentum ad verecundiam fails.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:18    There's another humorous thing about FtK turning to Dembski as an authority to support Behe's math. Chu-Carroll: Quote As an interesting aside, IDists, when they're quoting Dembski, like to talk about the No Free Lunch theorems. The NFL theorems are based on the idea that landscapes really aren't smooth - that they don't have uniform properties that permit a search strategy to work. Behe's argument totally contradicts that - the kinds of landscapes that must be considered to make NFL work totally devastate Behe's idea. ) FtK, if I tell you that Behe assumes landscapes are continuous and differentiable, and Dembski's NFL notion presumes they mostly aren't, does that mean anything to you? Have you had calculus?

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:26    Since we're all relying on "experts", I guess we're really up a shit creek without a paddle.  Which "experts" are ya gonna go with... ??? I will say though, that science is advancing to the point where the complexity we are finding in nature “is something akin to shell-shock”. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:32    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 25 2007,22:18) There's another humorous thing about FtK turning to Dembski as an authority to support Behe's math. Chu-Carroll: Quote As an interesting aside, IDists, when they're quoting Dembski, like to talk about the No Free Lunch theorems. The NFL theorems are based on the idea that landscapes really aren't smooth - that they don't have uniform properties that permit a search strategy to work. Behe's argument totally contradicts that - the kinds of landscapes that must be considered to make NFL work totally devastate Behe's idea. ) FtK, if I tell you that Behe assumes landscapes are continuous and differentiable, and Dembski's NFL notion presumes they mostly aren't, does that mean anything to you? Have you had calculus? No, Steve, I haven't taken calculus.  Honestly, I struggled with math, so I'm screwed in that respect.  It pisses me off to no end, because when I have to consider the math in these discussions it's like trying to decipher another language.   Go ahead....rip me apart for that admission.  I'm very resilient. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:32    I trust you're not really going to completely change the subject like that, are you FtK? Let's stick with Behe's math, shall we. edited to add: this was written before she'd written the above post, if it doesn't seem to make sense now. Edited by stevestory on Sep. 25 2007,23:46

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,22:41    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 25 2007,23:32) No, Steve, I haven't taken calculus.  Honestly, I struggled with math, so I'm screwed in that respect.  It pisses me off to no end, because when I have to consider the math in these discussions it's like trying to decipher another language.   Go ahead....rip me apart for that admission.  I'm very resilient. If you want to understand why Behe's assumption of continuous and differentiable functions is incompatible with Dembski's assumption of mostly undifferentiable functions you need some basic understanding of functions and calculus. Earlier you said: Quote I have trouble believing that Behe has no concept of the math he is putting forth.  But, God knows there will be no convincing you people of that. FtK, if you want to convince us Behe's math is good, and you don't understand Behe's math, first of all, how could you possibly imagine you can succeed, and second, shouldn't you be a little less certain that Behe's math is any good?

Pages: (341) < ... 81 82 83 84 85 [86] 87 88 89 90 91 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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