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... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 3

Pages: (501) < ... 468 469 470 471 472 [473] 474 475 476 477 478 ... >

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2011,11:20    Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 01 2011,03:47) Quote (OgreMkV @ July 31 2011,17:30) If anyone has a sock to sacrifice, I wonder how much fun it would be to get the UD regulars going on Jason Lisle's latest at AiG.       Quote In order for human beings to have genuine knowledge of any topic, certain things would have to be true, whether we recognize it consciously or not. For example, the human mind has to be capable of rational thought. The universe has to be orderly and comprehensible. Our sensations of the world around us have to be basically reliable.       Quote Most people simply take these things for granted. They don’t stop to consider how human beings are able to have knowledge of anything. Most people just blindly assume that our senses are reliable, that the mind is rational, and that the universe is orderly and understandable.       Quote    Few people think to ask, “Why should knowledge be possible?” The answer is not as obvious as it may seem. In fact, without God, we have no reason to expect an understandable universe.    So, although there is a place for discussing scientific details, it is good to remember that science itself is based on a Christian worldview. We must patiently get the unbeliever to realize that he couldn’t even do science if his evolutionary worldview were true.       Quote We all have a worldview (a way of thinking about life and the universe) that shapes our understanding of what we observe. But not all worldviews are equal. Non-Christian worldviews always have internal defects. Because they reject the Bible at their foundation, they end up being inconsistent, arbitrary, and ultimately irrational. Don't tell them where it comes from and then exclude the last bit until the end, when you tell them who is saying it. I wonder if the 'big tent' still holds. YeeOWW!!!! I hope you were wearing your hazmat suit, OgreMkV, that's some weapons-grade tard you dug up there. If the universe wasn't consistent we wouldn't fucking be here. If we had senses we couldn't trust, or an irrational/unreliable information processing system, we wouldn't survive very long. Holy Buddha Siva and Thor that was stupid. The sad part is that Lisle has a Ph.D. in Physics (I think). -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2011,22:32    Since I cannot be asked to follow UD's News/O'Leary I had a look over at Gordon E. Mullings' aka Kairosfocus pages just to ruin my BS detector and melt my irony meter when I learned that he uses the Dembski's Explanatory Filter to analyse media content: Quote And yet, global media, up to and including the once great BBC could not pick that up and strike a reasonable balance on the merits? That makes me sick. Heart-sick. Beware when something in the mass media fits your favourite stereotypes just a bit too well!!! Such is functionally specific and complex, so it is likely to be an artifact of design, not a mere natural happenstance. That is, yes, I am applying the explanatory filter, common sense version, to media information to detect propagandistic designs. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2011,22:52    Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2011,22:32) Since I cannot be asked to follow UD's News/O'Leary I had a look over at Gordon E. Mullings' aka Kairosfocus pages just to ruin my BS detector and melt my irony meter when I learned that he uses the Dembski's Explanatory Filter to analyse media content: Quote And yet, global media, up to and including the once great BBC could not pick that up and strike a reasonable balance on the merits? That makes me sick. Heart-sick. Beware when something in the mass media fits your favourite stereotypes just a bit too well!!! Such is functionally specific and complex, so it is likely to be an artifact of design, not a mere natural happenstance. That is, yes, I am applying the explanatory filter, common sense version, to media information to detect propagandistic designs. Common sense... usually isn't -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2011,23:20    BTW, is anybody here currently really following UD? I am not. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2011,23:57    Quote (sparc @ Aug. 02 2011,00:20) BTW, is anybody here currently really following UD? I am not. baaaahahahahaha fuck that things are bad enough without that whoooohooohooohoohooo sheezUS  SHIT NO i am not reading that sockfest race to the tard -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,01:21    Quote (sparc @ Aug. 02 2011,05:20) BTW, is anybody here currently really following UD? I am not. UD, as entertainment, died with DaveTard's departure. With no 'Grand Buffoon' running things and with no Friday meltdowns any more from Dembski the place has become, inevitably, a pulpit for ever more lunatic preaching. Which is amusing for a while, it's just that you can get those things easily elsewhere on the interwebs. I really want to watch UD wither and die; following in the footsteps of ARN, Telic Thoughts, ISCID, Overwhelming Evidence.... I wish we could extract Febble, Allen McNeil and anyone else attempting to communicate with the wretches over there. Without any opposing views UD should soon dry up. If only people could show some restraint and leave it alone*. * I'm guilty of the occasional prod, I admit. But then my posts never get through....

damitall Posts: 331 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,06:01    Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 02 2011,01:21) Quote (sparc @ Aug. 02 2011,05:20) BTW, is anybody here currently really following UD? I am not. UD, as entertainment, died with DaveTard's departure. With no 'Grand Buffoon' running things and with no Friday meltdowns any more from Dembski the place has become, inevitably, a pulpit for ever more lunatic preaching. Which is amusing for a while, it's just that you can get those things easily elsewhere on the interwebs. I really want to watch UD wither and die; following in the footsteps of ARN, Telic Thoughts, ISCID, Overwhelming Evidence.... I wish we could extract Febble, Allen McNeil and anyone else attempting to communicate with the wretches over there. Without any opposing views UD should soon dry up. If only people could show some restraint and leave it alone*. * I'm guilty of the occasional prod, I admit. But then my posts never get through.... ??? It may not be as entertaining as it was in the DaveTard days, but in the attempt to get more traffic at least some of them are continually exposing themselves as some of the most obnoxious individuals on the planet; and simultaneously exposing the utter vacuity of everything that goes with ID. Can't help but wonder how long it'll be before arbitrary bannination is reinstated

KCdgw Posts: 376 Joined: Sep. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,06:05    Quote (sparc @ July 31 2011,01:28) Can anybody be dumber than deNews:       Quote Duesberg has a history with respect to the AIDS virus. We knew we’d heard the name somewhere. Indeed: Baumann E et al. (1995) AIDS proposal. Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. Science 267:945-946       Quote In 1991, we, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, became dissatisfied with the state of the evidence that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) did, in fact, cause AIDS. Specifically, we have proposed that researchers independent of the HIV establishment should audit the Centers for Disease Control's records of AIDS cases, bearing in mind that the correlation of HIV with AIDS, upon which the case for HIV causation rests, is itself an artefact of the definition of AIDS. Since 1985, exactly the same diseases or conditions have been defined as "AIDS" when antibodies are present, and as "non-AIDS" when HIV and antibodies are absent. Independent professional groups such as the Society of Actuaries should be invited to nominate members for an independent commission to investigate the following question: How frequently do AIDS-defining diseases (or low T cell counts) occur in the absence of HIV? Until we have a definition of AIDS that is independent of HIV, the supposed correlation of HIV and AIDS is mere tautology. Other independent researchers should examine the validity of the so-called "AIDS tests," especially when these tests are used in Africa and Southern Asia, to see if they reliably record the presence of antibodies, let alone live and replicating virus. The bottom line is this: the skeptics are eager to see the results of independent scientific testing. Those who uphold the HIV "party line" have so far refused. We object.    Eleen Baumann    Tom Bethell    Harvey Bialy    Peter H. Duesberg    Celia Farber    Charles L. Geshekter    Phillip E. Johnson    Robert W. Maver    Russell Schoch    Gordon T. Stewart    Richard C. Strohman    Charles A. Thomas Jr.    For the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. cited from here. Wasn't Richard Strohman Jonathan Wells's PhD advisor? -------------- Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,06:10    StephenB:   Quote Hence, no atheist ever scrupled at the prospect of having a lustful thought, or regretted using his wife as a sex object, or wept because he failed to love his enemies. We do marvel at the stunted, tormented erotic landscape of an individual who "scruples" at even the prospect of experiencing ordinary sexual interest. That is twisted. But Stephen always did write like his boxers are on backward. -------------- 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

Mindrover Posts: 65 Joined: April 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,06:38    Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2011,22:32) Since I cannot be asked to follow UD's News/O'Leary I had a look over at Gordon E. Mullings' aka Kairosfocus pages just to ruin my BS detector and melt my irony meter when I learned that he uses the Dembski's Explanatory Filter to analyse media content: Quote And yet, global media, up to and including the once great BBC could not pick that up and strike a reasonable balance on the merits? That makes me sick. Heart-sick. Beware when something in the mass media fits your favourite stereotypes just a bit too well!!! Such is functionally specific and complex, so it is likely to be an artifact of design, not a mere natural happenstance. That is, yes, I am applying the explanatory filter, common sense version, to media information to detect propagandistic designs. EF: Not Even Once

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,06:58    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 02 2011,12:10) StephenB:     Quote Hence, no atheist ever scrupled at the prospect of having a lustful thought, or regretted using his wife as a sex object, or wept because he failed to love his enemies. We do marvel at the stunted, tormented erotic landscape of an individual who "scruples" at even the prospect of experiencing ordinary sexual interest. That is twisted. But Stephen always did write like his boxers are on backward. a) How does one use one's wife a s a sex object? Please give details, preferably with diagrams. b) Does one's wife enjoy being used as a sex object and how can one tell? c) Is one's wife permitted to use one as a sex object or is this  one way prohibition? d) Precisely what is a "sex object"? Can one purchase them from reputable merchants and still be a gentleman? Enquiring minds want to know. Louis -------------- Bye.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,07:40    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 02 2011,14:58) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 02 2011,12:10) StephenB:       Quote Hence, no atheist ever scrupled at the prospect of having a lustful thought, or regretted using his wife as a sex object, or wept because he failed to love his enemies. We do marvel at the stunted, tormented erotic landscape of an individual who "scruples" at even the prospect of experiencing ordinary sexual interest. That is twisted. But Stephen always did write like his boxers are on backward. a) How does one use one's wife a s a sex object? Please give details, preferably with diagrams. b) Does one's wife enjoy being used as a sex object and how can one tell? c) Is one's wife permitted to use one as a sex object or is this  one way prohibition? d) Precisely what is a "sex object"? Can one purchase them from reputable merchants and still be a gentleman? Enquiring minds want to know. Louis HE'S DREAMING, HOMOS! AND GUESS WHAT? HIS WIFE ENJOYS IT! SHE JUST WISHES HE DIDN'T HATE EVRYONE -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,10:21    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 02 2011,07:58) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 02 2011,12:10) StephenB:     Quote Hence, no atheist ever scrupled at the prospect of having a lustful thought, or regretted using his wife as a sex object, or wept because he failed to love his enemies. We do marvel at the stunted, tormented erotic landscape of an individual who "scruples" at even the prospect of experiencing ordinary sexual interest. That is twisted. But Stephen always did write like his boxers are on backward. a) How does one use one's wife a s a sex object? Please give details, preferably with diagrams. b) Does one's wife enjoy being used as a sex object and how can one tell? c) Is one's wife permitted to use one as a sex object or is this  one way prohibition? d) Precisely what is a "sex object"? Can one purchase them from reputable merchants and still be a gentleman? Enquiring minds want to know. Louis One must learn how to treat oneself as a sex object before being able to properly treat one's beloved as such. </tantra>

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,10:53    Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 02 2011,01:21)   Quote (sparc @ Aug. 02 2011,05:20) BTW, is anybody here currently really following UD? I am not. UD, as entertainment, died with DaveTard's departure. With no 'Grand Buffoon' running things and with no Friday meltdowns any more from Dembski the place has become, inevitably, a pulpit for ever more lunatic preaching. Which is amusing for a while, it's just that you can get those things easily elsewhere on the interwebs. I really want to watch UD wither and die; following in the footsteps of ARN, Telic Thoughts, ISCID, Overwhelming Evidence.... I wish we could extract Febble, Allen McNeil and anyone else attempting to communicate with the wretches over there. Without any opposing views UD should soon dry up. If only people could show some restraint and leave it alone*. * I'm guilty of the occasional prod, I admit. But then my posts never get through.... ??? I admit I've been following it and finding a occasional chuckle here and there, but for the most part I think you're right. I should probably leave it alone. Most of the discussions really are nothing more than wankery and crankery. ETA: I mean c'mon...this one has a chuckle or two in it. What's not to like about IDers bashing creationists? -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,10:54    Gordon Mulling of Montserrat's melt-downs are funny, but very one dimensional. -------------- "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: Aug. 02 2011,11:02    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 02 2011,16:21) Quote (Louis @ Aug. 02 2011,07:58)   Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 02 2011,12:10) StephenB:       Quote Hence, no atheist ever scrupled at the prospect of having a lustful thought, or regretted using his wife as a sex object, or wept because he failed to love his enemies. We do marvel at the stunted, tormented erotic landscape of an individual who "scruples" at even the prospect of experiencing ordinary sexual interest. That is twisted. But Stephen always did write like his boxers are on backward. a) How does one use one's wife a s a sex object? Please give details, preferably with diagrams. b) Does one's wife enjoy being used as a sex object and how can one tell? c) Is one's wife permitted to use one as a sex object or is this  one way prohibition? d) Precisely what is a "sex object"? Can one purchase them from reputable merchants and still be a gentleman? Enquiring minds want to know. Louis One must learn how to treat oneself as a sex object before being able to properly treat one's beloved as such. </tantra> I'm married. I frequently do.* Louis *Is this thing on. Am I too hip for the room? Don't forget to tip your waitress. Try the veal. I'm here all week. Play me some filler, Johnny! ETA: Series of pathetic knob jokes > UD. -------------- Bye.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,11:36    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 02 2011,04:10) StephenB:     Quote Hence, no atheist ever scrupled at the prospect of having a lustful thought, or regretted using his wife as a sex object, or wept because he failed to love his enemies. We do marvel at the stunted, tormented erotic landscape of an individual who "scruples" at even the prospect of experiencing ordinary sexual interest. That is twisted. But Stephen always did write like his boxers are on backward. Backward boxers beget bizarre bents. Would that we had an open enough society for wives to treat their husbands as sexual objects. Heresy I know. I've always been a dreamer. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,12:15    Quote (BWE @ Aug. 02 2011,17:36) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 02 2011,04:10) StephenB:     Quote Hence, no atheist ever scrupled at the prospect of having a lustful thought, or regretted using his wife as a sex object, or wept because he failed to love his enemies. We do marvel at the stunted, tormented erotic landscape of an individual who "scruples" at even the prospect of experiencing ordinary sexual interest. That is twisted. But Stephen always did write like his boxers are on backward. Backward boxers beget bizarre bents. Would that we had an open enough society for wives to treat their husbands as sexual objects. Heresy I know. I've always been a dreamer. <sings>"But I'm you're not the only one!"</sings> Sexually confident and liberated women FTW.* Louis * Obligatory (sexist?**) joke: I'm all for the women's movement. I hate it when they just lie there. ** I'm not sure if this joke is actually sexist, but to be honest, this is the internet. I'm sure someone will be along soon to let me know. -------------- Bye.

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,12:20    Todd Wood confirms that Elizabeth Liddle has better reading comprehension than Mung. Hail Eris, a creationist worthy of respect.  Please excuse me while I rearrange my prejudices.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,12:29    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 02 2011,12:20) Todd Wood confirms that Elizabeth Liddle has better reading comprehension than Mung. Hail Eris, a creationist worthy of respect.  Please excuse me while I rearrange my prejudices. Chimps have 99 percent better reading comprehension than Mung. That's not an insult. It's a fact. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,12:33    Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 02 2011,10:20) Todd Wood confirms that Elizabeth Liddle has better reading comprehension than Mung. Hail Eris, a creationist worthy of respect.  Please excuse me while I rearrange my prejudices. That may be the most mind-bending creationist post I've ever read. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,12:41    Todd Wood Quote What kind of world are we living in where the supporters of ID attack a creationist, and an atheist skeptic defends him? ummm, d00d, it's fucking UD.  jesus i know you live in a cloistered little tower over there in that valley but these people on average are even stupider than the pasty beefalo looking pew filler you see stumbling around the Wal-Mart in Rhea County. this "honest creationist" bit is a bit played out don't you think?  what, the only honest creationist in the whole world is the one who currently holds that position occupied by Todd Wood?  he took Kurt Wise's position.  who is next to fill the "Chair of Honest Creationism at Bryan College"?  Nobody at uncommon descent.  what a hivemind of dumbfucked -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,12:44    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 02 2011,12:15) * Obligatory (sexist?**) joke: I'm all for the women's movement. I hate it when they just lie there. Ok...so the other stuff was fun and well stated and all that, but this one made me chuckle. Thanks Louis!  :D -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

tacitus Posts: 118 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,14:01    Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2011,23:20) BTW, is anybody here currently really following UD? I am not. I still dip in from time to time, and once in a while I will even comment there, but all my comments have to go through moderation, so trying to carry on a conversation is a waste of time (and my last observation was summarily deleted). O'Leary's pattern of posting a dozen pointless "News" stories a day, and then the occasional "All atheists are eeevil" comment-bait post just to make sure that there are still some readers out there, doesn't make for very interesting reading -- in fact, the comment threads (minus BA77's obsessive diatribes about the Shroud of Turin and related "evidences" for the existence of God) tend to be far more interesting. If a post doesn't have twenty comments or more, it's typically not worth the effort to click on it. It's a good job that the ID movement doesn't do any science though. O'Leary's mocking of the way scientists keep changing the story whenever new studies turn up new evidence and/or new conclusions, is nothing short of Ham-like in its brazenness. So it's just as well for her that ID isn't subject to the same competitive pressures and accumulating evidence that real scientists have to deal with, otherwise her head might explode. Heaven forbid if two IDists ever end up feuding with one another... So, essentially, UD has turned into nothing more than an exercise in masturbatory back-slapping. Perhaps it was always that way, but O'Leary's painful prose (are her books this bad, or does her editor paper over the worst of it?) just makes the whole experience less entertaining than it used to be.

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,15:15    Quote (tacitus @ Aug. 02 2011,14:01)   Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2011,23:20) BTW, is anybody here currently really following UD? I am not. So, essentially, UD has turned into nothing more than an exercise in masturbatory back-slapping. Perhaps it was always that way, but O'Leary's painful prose (are her books this bad, or does her editor paper over the worst of it?) just makes the whole experience less entertaining than it used to be. With headlines like this?:   Quote We are living in a giant hologram, or a giant trailer filled with poop, or whatever Stephen Hawking says we are living in -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,15:24    Quote (tacitus @ Aug. 02 2011,12:01) Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2011,23:20) BTW, is anybody here currently really following UD? I am not. I still dip in from time to time, and once in a while I will even comment there, but all my comments have to go through moderation, so trying to carry on a conversation is a waste of time (and my last observation was summarily deleted). O'Leary's pattern of posting a dozen pointless "News" stories a day, and then the occasional "All atheists are eeevil" comment-bait post just to make sure that there are still some readers out there, doesn't make for very interesting reading -- in fact, the comment threads (minus BA77's obsessive diatribes about the Shroud of Turin and related "evidences" for the existence of God) tend to be far more interesting. If a post doesn't have twenty comments or more, it's typically not worth the effort to click on it. It's a good job that the ID movement doesn't do any science though. O'Leary's mocking of the way scientists keep changing the story whenever new studies turn up new evidence and/or new conclusions, is nothing short of Ham-like in its brazenness. So it's just as well for her that ID isn't subject to the same competitive pressures and accumulating evidence that real scientists have to deal with, otherwise her head might explode. Heaven forbid if two IDists ever end up feuding with one another... So, essentially, UD has turned into nothing more than an exercise in masturbatory back-slapping. Perhaps it was always that way, but O'Leary's painful prose (are her books this bad, or does her editor paper over the worst of it?) just makes the whole experience less entertaining than it used to be. I have to agree.  UD was much more entertaining when they were trying to do science (or at least pretending they were trying).  Now it's just another far-right fundie paranoia site.  And after the "Eeww! Homos!" and "Mean professors are rapists!" threads, I don't have the stomach for it.   If I thought UD had any sort of influence I might feel differently, but they don't.  At this point 90% of the readership is us. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,15:51    I don't know. I think that going back to the religion based, creationist model is entertaining, if only to suggest how ID would fare at the next Dover trial. There have been lots of state initiatives to bring ID back into the curriculum, but somehow these always die. On advice of counsel, I suspect. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,16:52    Quote (tacitus @ Aug. 02 2011,14:01) So, essentially, UD has turned into nothing more than an exercise in masturbatory back-slapping. Perhaps it was always that way, but O'Leary's painful prose (are her books this bad, or does her editor paper over the worst of it?) just makes the whole experience less entertaining than it used to be. Yes. They are. See here for my short review of Teh Spatula Brain, and here for Reciprocating Bill's longer and more better review of the same book (literally, I sent him the book after I was done with it.) -------------- 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

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,17:09    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 02 2011,15:15) Quote (tacitus @ Aug. 02 2011,14:01)   Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2011,23:20) BTW, is anybody here currently really following UD? I am not. So, essentially, UD has turned into nothing more than an exercise in masturbatory back-slapping. Perhaps it was always that way, but O'Leary's painful prose (are her books this bad, or does her editor paper over the worst of it?) just makes the whole experience less entertaining than it used to be. With headlines like this?:   Quote We are living in a giant hologram, or a giant trailer filled with poop, or whatever Stephen Hawking says we are living in Giant Trailer Full of Poop - I heard them play once.  Not bad, but a little squishy.  They stunk up the stage. Their first album was titled simply "UD" -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2011,17:25    hey bro i totally caught that tour.  i did all the tardcore i find for a few years. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Pages: (501) < ... 468 469 470 471 472 [473] 474 475 476 477 478 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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