Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Posted: May 16 2006,11:36

Steve Holt?

jeannot

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,11:55

Quote (argystokes @ May 16 2006,16:35)

argy stokes!

Congrats, you're the author of the most useless post ever. I hope you enjoyed writing it, because it just ended your presence on this blog. You're outta here. -dt

argystokes

Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,12:02

Ha! Now I'm the author of the two most worthless posts ever, sucka!

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

dhogaza

Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,12:35

Man, the "Haeckel Fest Awaits" thread is amazing.

Not only are these people ignorant of biology, but they appear to be thoroughly ignorant of history as well. They seem to really believe that Christians don't have a history of racism, that the ranking of races so common in our society over such a long period of time is somehow a result of the ToE.

Despite the fact of European racism towards blacks and Jews was prevelant long before Charles Darwin was even born. Are these folks truly ignorant of Luther's virulent anti-semitism? Of the fact that planters in the South justified slavery by using scripture to make the claim that slavery was the natural, God-approved state of "inferior" Africans?

Etc etc etc.

Mr_Christopher

Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,12:39

Not sure if anyone here has pointed this out yet but here is an irony meter fun fact from the Padian thread at PT:

Quote

The hilarious thing is, Dembski, who�s now pontifiicating about 19th century racism, teaches at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptists were split off from the Northern Baptists in 1845 specifically in order to uphold slavery, and maintained segregationist policies for a full century after the Civil War. If I were living in that particular glass house, I wouldn�t be throwing stones.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: May 16 2006,12:54

This is the greatest thread of all time.

BTW, someone should find out when the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ended racist policies. I bet it was long after Haeckel died.

Moorit

Posts: 21
Joined: May 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,13:47

Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2006,17:54)

This is the greatest thread of all time.

BTW, someone should find out when the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ended racist policies. I bet it was long after Haeckel died.

I don't know about the Seminary, but the Southern Baptist Convention didn't make that decision until 1995. Of course, the Seminary didn't grant tenure to a woman until 1988 and then did a "resignation in lieu of" on her in 1994. Nice to know that they didn't rush into doing anything about sexism at the same time as the racism question. Wouldn't want them doing anything rash... :angry:

Oh, and the link's for both are here

Moorit (edited to remove a superfluous "the")

Mr_Christopher

Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,13:58

Provide evidence to support IDC or indulge in character assasintation. I think Dembski and his followers are realizing one is much easier than the other.

Calling dead people racist is a heck of alot less time consuming than pretending IDC is science.

And Dembki's current ties to an institution that has such a long, rich (and very recent) history of racism and segregation is the howler of the month, if not of all time.

In view of Dembski's stunning display of hypocrisy, ignorance and bad faith, I hereby nominate Bill Dembski for the DaveTard Hypocrite Award.

ps: Are non-whites allowed to date whites at Southern where Dembski teaches?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Moorit

Posts: 21
Joined: May 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,14:07

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 16 2006,18:58)

ps: Are non-whites allowed to date whites at Southern where Dembski teaches?

Don't know about that part, but they lost me in their "Beliefs" section:

"Christianity is the faith of enlightenment and intelligence." -- I guess we know where that leaves people of other faiths, agnostics and atheists. And, see? They really do call it Intelligent Design for a reason!

"An adequate system of Christian education is necessary to a complete spiritual program for Christ�s people." -- Well, heck-fire, yeah! "Adequate" is more than good enough! I'm just curious about who gets to decide what's "adequate" and what's a little too much knowledge for your own good.

"In Christian education there should be a proper balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility. Freedom in any orderly relationship of human life is always limited and never absolute. The freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary is limited by the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists." -- I think this translates as, "Teach what we tell you, how we tell you. Thou shalt not deviate from the approved, graven in stone lesson plan that we will provide you. Don't, whatever you do, color outside the lines. Or else."

Erf.

Moorit

Dante

Posts: 61
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,14:09

Quote

Materialism seeks to rank people by status, or demographic profile. Christianity rather ranks doctrine by its fruits (outcomes). Haeckel�s erroneous materialist doctrine bore Monism as its fruit, which resulted in the death of millions.

The cornerstone of Haeckel�s work was Lamarckism, as was Darwin�s work. �Inheritance of acquired characters� became the cornerstone of the Nazi Monism religion. Neo-darwinism rejects Lamarckism replacing it rather with Natural Selection (survival-of the fittest).

Making neo-darwinism �the cornerstone of modern science� raises this doctrine to the level of a religion which rejects creationism. It could easily be coined �Neo-monism�, but rather is called �New Age�. What fruit will it bear?

ID seeks to replace Neo-darwinism as the cornerstone of modern science, but is currently being rejected by the shapers of our world.

The word �corner-stone� here is key (pun intended). There is but one such stone that bears the fruit of life. Can I say �Jesus� on this blog? While ID at least recognizes the possiblity of a creator, it is still not a confession of faith, no matter who advocates it.

Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (Also Eph 2:20 Mat 21:42 Mar 12:10 Luk 20:17 1Pe 2:7)

Eph 6:12 �For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].�

Reproduced in full because somehow I don't think it'll last.

--------------
Dembski said it, I laughed at it, that settles it!

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: May 16 2006,14:17

reproduced from where?

Dante

Posts: 61
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,14:20

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1124#comment-34894

Oops, forgot the URL.

--------------
Dembski said it, I laughed at it, that settles it!

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: May 16 2006,14:24

Quote

Why do I think that those trying to support Darwinian imagery these days have never debated a Holocaust denier?
...

Comment by mynym � May 16, 2006 @ 5:31 pm

He11 does that mean?

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: May 16 2006,14:29

Quote

#

Don�t forget that Darwin considered embryonic similarity to be �by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of my theory.� So what he considered to be the best available evidence turned out to be bogus.

Comment by GilDodgen � May 16, 2006 @
4:31pm

Gil needs to learn what Haeckel was wrong about. Embryonic similarity is quite real. Haeckel's drawings erroneously downplayed the differences, but they're still suggestively similar. Not that Uncommonly Dense posters ever let high school biology interfere with their posts.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,14:39

Good Lord, what ridiculous foolishness. Does Dumbo's Man deliberately advertise for idiots?

� �

Quote

Materialism seeks to rank people by status, or demographic profile. Christianity rather ranks doctrine by its fruits (outcomes).

READ: if you're not a Christian, you only care about status and wealth. Christians don't care about those things. And those are the only two categories of people. Everyone on earth is either a selfless Christian or a selfish materialist. And no one is both materialistic and Christian.

�

Quote

Haeckel�s erroneous materialist doctrine bore Monism as its fruit, which resulted in the death of millions.

READ: Darwin = Nazi. If you believe in evolution, you will probably kill 6 million people.

Don't they EVER get tired of this?

�

Quote

The cornerstone of Haeckel�s work was Lamarckism,

Wait, I thought DARWIN was their super-villain! Are they getting confused here?

� �

Quote

as was Darwin�s work. �Inheritance of acquired characters� became the cornerstone of the Nazi Monism religion. Neo-darwinism rejects Lamarckism replacing it rather with Natural Selection (survival-of the fittest).

Another boob who gets his evolutionary theory from a Jack Chick comic.

No, 'Darwinism' replaces Lamarckism. Or did Lamarck 'recant on his death bed', too?

�

Quote

Making neo-darwinism �the cornerstone of modern science� raises this doctrine to the level of a religion

Um, why does making something the 'cornerstone of modern science' make it a 'religion'?

� �

Quote

which rejects creationism.

Creationism? I thought we were talking about Intelligent Design! Isn't there supposed to be a difference? ?

� �

Quote

It could easily be coined �Neo-monism�, but rather is called �New Age�.

Wait, what the fuck? People who believe in evolution are New Age? Does this guy even know what 'New Agers' are?

� �

Quote

ID seeks to replace Neo-darwinism as the cornerstone of modern science, but is currently being rejected by the shapers of our world.

'Shapers of our world'? ? ? Biologists are 'the shapers of our world'?

That's much more palatable for him to say than "scientists all agree that Intelligent Design is a load of shit". That statement would make his argument a lot more complicated.

� �

Quote

The word �corner-stone� here is key (pun intended). There is but one such stone that bears the fruit of life. Can I say �Jesus� on this blog? While ID at least recognizes the possiblity of a creator, it is still not a confession of faith, no matter who advocates it.

True. It also 'recognizes the possibilty' of space aliens, WINK WINK.

� � �

Quote

Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (Also Eph 2:20 Mat 21:42 Mar 12:10 Luk 20:17 1Pe 2:7)
Eph 6:12 �For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].�

Didn't you guys say Intelligent Design had nothing to do with religion?

Yeesh.

--------------
"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

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,14:53

Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2006,19:24)

Quote

Why do I think that those trying to support Darwinian imagery these days have never debated a Holocaust denier?
...

Comment by mynym � May 16, 2006 @ �5:31 pm

He11 does that mean?

They just can't give up that 'Darwinist = Nazi' meme.

'Trying to support Darwinian imagery'? What the fuck?

Anyway, as always, Mynym has his head up his ass. Larry Fafarman is a holocaust denier, and I know dozens of 'Darwinists' who've argued with him at great length, myself included.

--------------
"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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: May 16 2006,15:00

Oh, yeah, I forgot about Larry Falafelman, ID supporter and Holocaust Denier.

Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

Posted: May 16 2006,15:05

Quote

'Shapers of our world'? ? ? Biologists are 'the shapers of our world'?

LOL. I do recall Larson himself making fun of this notion ages ago.

I used to have a far side panel up on my office door that showed some guy in glasses all duded up, with two thugs pushing folks aside as he walked down the sidewalk.

IIRC the caption was:

"Get out of the way! An ecologist is coming!"

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,15:11

Quote

I used to have a far side panel up on my office door that showed some guy in glasses all duded up, with two thugs pushing folks aside as he walked down the sidewalk.

IIRC the caption was:

"Get out of the way! An ecologist is coming!"

Larson did that? If so, he ripped it off from a 70's cartoon by B. Kliban, which showed the same guy in glasses all duded up, with two scantily-clad women hanging on him, and two thugs pushing folks aside as he walked down the sidewalk, with the caption "Out of the way, scum! A CARTOONIST is coming!"

--------------
"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

Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

Posted: May 16 2006,15:19

LOL. �knowing that, I'd say it's less a rip and more of a pun on two ideas at once, and credit to those who recall the strip you mentioned.

Larson wasn't big on plagiarism, so I'm sure the exact similarity was completely intended.

*sigh* too bad i can't locate an online copy of that panel.

Have you seen a copy of the one you refer to?

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: May 16 2006,17:38

Now "idon'treallycare" has popped up as "tango" in the Padian thread on PT, ranting about PZ Myers and David Berlinski.

Was there any consensus on whether "idon'treallycare" was really Berlinski or not?

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

Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

Posted: May 16 2006,18:01

no consesus that I recall.

I for one do not believe he is.

he is like Slaveador is to Dembski.

just another psychophant, but this one devoted to Berlinski instead of Dembski.

deadman_932

Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,18:15

stevestory: Interesting -- The "quote" that GilDodgen cites is one that he drew from Jonathan Well's bullshit here : here . Wells said "Indeed, he wrote to Asa Gray in 1860 that he considered this to be �by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of my theory.� (Francis Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Appleton, 1896, vol. II, p. 131)" NOTE that Wells says "my theory."

In contrast to that, Cambridge's Darwin Correspondence Project says here that the actual quote refers ONLY to `the strongest single class of facts in favour of CHANGE OF FORM' (my emphasis, of course).

GilDodgens and Jonathan Wells of the world unite in quote-mining.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: May 16 2006,18:45

It's interesting that most of the online references, even the antievolution ones, stop the quote after "of", and then toss up 'my theory' or 'his theory' unquoted, so it's plain that they have substituted something there.

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

Tiax

Posts: 62
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,19:00

Apparently my comment of "I think those are pistons" was not appropriate for this thread:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1125#comments

However, it does sound like carbon14atom needs clarifying on that point:

"It just appears to look like a flagellum, but you must force yourself to remember it doesn�t really look like a flagellum�for the obvious reasons"

The obvious reason is that it's a piston, not a rotor.

Shouldn't you be able to detect what something is, with the help of a subtitle, mind you, before you go about detecting whether that thing is designed?

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: May 16 2006,19:55

Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2006,14:24)

Quote

Why do I think that those trying to support Darwinian imagery these days have never debated a Holocaust denier?
...

Comment by mynym � May 16, 2006 @ 5:31 pm

He11 does that mean?

The post was by mynym. Mynym's posts might just as well be written in Etruscan for all the meaning they contain. Those in doubt can check his blogsite. Also some of the comments give a new insight on content-free.

Edit: Sorry, this is a bit pass�, now. Lost connectivity yesterday.

Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

Posted: May 16 2006,20:05

the title of his site:

Into Good and Evil
Nietzsche or Anti-Nietzsche? Do not mind me!

do not mind me?

riggghhhhtttt...

these dolts understand Nietsche about as well as they understand evolutionary theory.

pseudointellectual intellectualism, indeed. �I think our resident who coined that is right on the mark.

I couldn't find a single post (well, i didn't look THAT hard) that wasn't essentially complete projection.

"liberals" that give liberals a bad name?

nope, that's the neocons giving the conservatives a bad name.

I'd feel sorry for these folks if they truly thought "don't mind me"; instead I feel they should be forced to seek medical treatment for their obvious mental blockages.

seems he plays a lot of "Age of Mythology".

hmm, stuck in a mythological world he finds preferable to reality....

Bob O'H

Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: May 16 2006,20:52

(warning: another nerdy academic post coming up. Feel free to ignore)

Quote

as was Darwin�s work. �Inheritance of acquired characters� became the cornerstone of the Nazi Monism religion. Neo-darwinism rejects Lamarckism replacing it rather with Natural Selection (survival-of the fittest).

Another boob who gets his evolutionary theory from a Jack Chick comic.

No, 'Darwinism' replaces Lamarckism. Or did Lamarck 'recant on his death bed', too?

It's a it more complicated than that. Darwin originally suggested belnding inheritance, but it was pointed out that that didn't work (because everything becomes blended, so you have no variation). He then went back to Lamarckism (at least to some extent).

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Chris Hyland

Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 16 2006,21:04

Quote

For example, we�ve all heard of the experiments where human subjects wear goggles that flip their visual experience upside down. After some period of time the brain/mind/soul flips things upright. Since never in evolutionary history could anything of that sort ever occurred on a sufficiently regular or long-term basis to give rise to that ability, that ability alone shows that Darwinian evolution is a false (incomplete) theory.

Kind of like when people teach themselves to play the piano.

Quote

Speaking of which: I think the list has underappreciated (if I may sound a bit peevish a point I�ve made several times, namely, that any ability that an organism has to adapt to a highly, highly artificial constraint is a de facto disproof of the (complete adequacy of) neo-Darwinism. If an organism can adapt readily to an artificially induced change that has no analog in nature, than that adaptability cannot be explained (or explained away, or hand-waved-over) by random variation and natural selection. By hypothesis there is no place in natural history where such a capability could have arisen �naturally� (in the Darwinian sense).

So apparently any new situation an organism can adapt to, must have already been preprogrammed in. This is a good example of why people who don't know any biology shouldn't try to disprove evolution.

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005