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

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,02:35

And, yet he makes another error in response to this comment.

Quote

In a previous post I told you to keep in mind the principle of presumption of innocence. If you’d done that you could have figured out who always has the burden of proof. Hint: It is NEVER the defendant. See if you can figure it out now.

-ds

No, sometimes the burden of proof is on the defendant, namely any time the defendant makes a positive defense. Seems like a small point, but burden of proof is pretty big in the ID fight, considering that they think they have no burden of proof in showing that goddidit.

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,03:53

Someone should fill Joseph in here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1281#comment-46120

Quote

IC is all about the mechanism of evolution- evolution having several meanings.

Bad mistake there Joseph. IC doesn't propose any mechanisms. Also, ID is not a mechanistic theory, therefore it doesn't have to meet the same level of pathetic detail as evilution. Don't let the evilutionists bait you into trying to provide details.

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,06:02

Re "considering that they think they have no burden of proof in showing that goddidit."

What about showing that "goddidit" conflicts with the theory in the first place?

Henry

2ndclass

Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,06:33

tribune7, apparently unaware that Salvador is a YEC, says:

Quote

And let’s not forget the most used, abused and not news strawman: Scientific evidence conclusively refutes a 6,500-year-old Earth so ID can’t be true.

Great Post, Salvador.

Let's see if Salvador informs him that scientific evidence actually doesn't refute a 6500 year old Earth.

--------------
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,06:36

From Sal's latest post we find out that Casey Luskin is a scientist?

Quote

Discovery Institute attorney and scientist Casey Luskin

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,06:50

Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:36)

From Sal's latest post we find out that Casey Luskin is a scientist?

Quote

Discovery Institute attorney and scientist Casey Luskin

The ISCID 'journal' features 'papers' written by Casey Luskin. So for an intelligent design scientist, he's overqualified. An ID 'scientist' with an actual science degree, is like their version of a Nobel Laureate.

Quote

And let’s not forget the most used, abused and not news strawman: Scientific evidence conclusively refutes a 6,500-year-old Earth so ID can’t be true.

I can't recall actually hearing this 'most used' strawman.

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,07:10

Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2006,11:50)

Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:36)

From Sal's latest post we find out that Casey Luskin is a scientist?

Quote

Discovery Institute attorney and scientist Casey Luskin

The ISCID 'journal' features 'papers' written by Casey Luskin. So for an intelligent design scientist, he's overqualified. An ID 'scientist' with an actual science degree, is like their version of a Nobel Laureate.

Quote

And let’s not forget the most used, abused and not news strawman: Scientific evidence conclusively refutes a 6,500-year-old Earth so ID can’t be true.

I can't recall actually hearing this 'most used' strawman.

Well I'll be. He does have a BS and MS in Earth Sciences, which makes him eminently qualified to tell all the biologists of the world what is wrong with evolution, but not as qualified as an Engineer or DaveScot.

steve_h

Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,07:12

Quote (stevestory @ July 02 2006,20:07)

Maybe if Ian Peters had a BSEE, Dembski would consider him an expert in medical research. Or perhaps a law degree.

Peters is still slighty better qualified to speak on biological matters than the average Joe riding the Riesel-Waco omnibus.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,07:13

Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2006,11:50)

Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:36)

From Sal's latest post we find out that Casey Luskin is a scientist?

Quote

Discovery Institute attorney and scientist Casey Luskin

The ISCID 'journal' features 'papers' written by Casey Luskin. So for an intelligent design scientist, he's overqualified. An ID 'scientist' with an actual science degree, is like their version of a Nobel Laureate.

Quote

And let’s not forget the most used, abused and not news strawman: Scientific evidence conclusively refutes a 6,500-year-old Earth so ID can’t be true.

I can't recall actually hearing this 'most used' strawman.

IDers are in permanent denial about the lack of consensus within their ranks. Sort of a 'don't ask, don't tell' thing.

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

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,07:53

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 03 2006,12:13)

Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2006,11:50)

Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:36)

From Sal's latest post we find out that Casey Luskin is a scientist?

Quote

Discovery Institute attorney and scientist Casey Luskin

The ISCID 'journal' features 'papers' written by Casey Luskin. So for an intelligent design scientist, he's overqualified. An ID 'scientist' with an actual science degree, is like their version of a Nobel Laureate.

Quote

And let’s not forget the most used, abused and not news strawman: Scientific evidence conclusively refutes a 6,500-year-old Earth so ID can’t be true.

I can't recall actually hearing this 'most used' strawman.

IDers are in permanent denial about the lack of consensus within their ranks. Sort of a 'don't ask, don't tell' thing.

Well, that'll happen when you try to make a tent big enough to contain the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front.

Stephen Elliott

Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,08:13

Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:53)

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 03 2006,12:13)

Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2006,11:50)

Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:36)

From Sal's latest post we find out that Casey Luskin is a scientist?

Quote

Discovery Institute attorney and scientist Casey Luskin

The ISCID 'journal' features 'papers' written by Casey Luskin. So for an intelligent design scientist, he's overqualified. An ID 'scientist' with an actual science degree, is like their version of a Nobel Laureate.

Quote

And let’s not forget the most used, abused and not news strawman: Scientific evidence conclusively refutes a 6,500-year-old Earth so ID can’t be true.

I can't recall actually hearing this 'most used' strawman.

IDers are in permanent denial about the lack of consensus within their ranks. Sort of a 'don't ask, don't tell' thing.

Well, that'll happen when you try to make a tent big enough to contain the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front.

Spliters!

Whatever happened to the popular front?

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,08:32

That's him sitting over there.

Yeah, what can you say about a supposed science that literally has no opinion whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old?

Or, which also cannot decide whether evolution a) never happened, b) happens a little, c) happens a lot, or d) once happened but doesn't anymore?

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

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,08:40

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 03 2006,13:32)

That's him sitting over there.

Yeah, what can you say about a supposed science that literally has no opinion whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old?

Or, which also cannot decide whether evolution a) never happened, b) happens a little, c) happens a lot, or d) once happened but doesn't anymore?

That is has nothing to do with religion and Jesus saves?

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,09:00

Re "Yeah, what can you say about a supposed science that literally has no opinion whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old?"

Do quantum physics or inorganic chemistry assign an age to the Earth?

Henry

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,09:08

Quote (Bob O'H @ July 02 2006,19:35)

Bugger! I turn my ironymeter off, and moved it into a different room, and this still made it explode:

Quote

Why do they have to be so rude?

If you’re not rude often enough you can have your membership in the card carrying atheist club revoked. :-) -ds

Did anyone have a peek at janiebell's blog?

Look who's posting. Isn't he sweet? Does Mrs Springer know he's chatting up the ladies?

bourgeois_rage

Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,09:32

This thread is great on her blog. Do you think Dave will ever make that "first post"? Maybe he was too busy on the weekend trying to figure out when jury duty is.

Quote

5. One comment at a time. We'll start with Dave. Dave will make a positive scientific argument for ID. I will then make a comment, and IAMB (Matt, right?) will make his rebuttal. I will then make a comment, and IAMB can make a positive scientific argument for evolution. Everybody see how this is going to work?

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,09:36

I hold the honor of being the first person Janie's banned, and all I did was call Davey an idiot. Janie can't stop talking about it now. Look here and here, for example.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,09:39

I've looked at janiebelle's blog, and while some of the 'sciency' stuff she's saying is kind of dingy, I think it's a little unseemly for people to be making fun of a pretty normal 17-year-old girl... It would be a lot more productive to engage her as someone who's potentially smart but just not that well informed yet. There's still time to pull her away from the darkness.

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

bourgeois_rage

Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,09:59

Yeah she seems like someone who is open minded. If she really wants to see this fight played out on the scientific field, great! If she wants to stick to the ground rules she has set, she could be finding that she's more inclined to accept the side that she seems to have prematurely ruled-out. That's why I want to see Dave make that first (in more than one sense) positive argument for ID.

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

plasmasnake23

Posts: 42
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,11:07

Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:10)

Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2006,11:50)

Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:36)

From Sal's latest post we find out that Casey Luskin is a scientist?

Quote

Discovery Institute attorney and scientist Casey Luskin

The ISCID 'journal' features 'papers' written by Casey Luskin. So for an intelligent design scientist, he's overqualified. An ID 'scientist' with an actual science degree, is like their version of a Nobel Laureate.

Quote

And let’s not forget the most used, abused and not news strawman: Scientific evidence conclusively refutes a 6,500-year-old Earth so ID can’t be true.

I can't recall actually hearing this 'most used' strawman.

Well I'll be. He does have a BS and MS in Earth Sciences, which makes him eminently qualified to tell all the biologists of the world what is wrong with evolution, but not as qualified as an Engineer or DaveScot.

I've known at least one person to have gone through my MS program in Earth Sciences who was some kind of creationist/ID person. You can really go through without learning much about fossils asides from an invertebrate paleontology course and that's probably not even the case at all schools. Some geologists are well qualified to talk about fossils but there are 10x as many who are into igneous geochemistry or minerology or something where you don't deal with them at all.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,11:14

Well, that doesn't surprise me much, but what I find unfathomable would be someone getting an advanced degree in geology and still believing in a young earth. I'm sure there's some.

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

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,11:30

One wonders, though, why oil companies don't hire creationist geologists to help them find oil deposits. Because, of course, creationist flood geology is MUCH more reliable than atheist evolutionist geology. Right?

Or are all the oil companies atheist god-haters, too . . . ?

(snicker)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

guthrie

Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,12:05

OK, so we're agreed that DS should post first on Janies blog? I can live with that. It should be interesting.

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,12:20

Quote

Well, that doesn't surprise me much, but what I find unfathomable would be someone getting an advanced degree in geology and still believing in a young earth. I'm sure there's some.

Sh1t, I know a physics grad student who believes the moon landings were faked. You can always find one or two crazies who should know better, but refuse to accept it, from YEC geologists, to communist economists.

Regarding that Janelle girl's blog, I too got banned, for giving her links to 5 different sites where educated people in law and science said Davetard was an idiot in those areas. Not to make any public point, but to plant a seed of truth in her mind. She's 17 yro, I'm not going to get into a big argument, I just thought a little nudge might help along a tipping point, sometime later. If she's intelligent and bookish, it won't be long before she sees that Dembski and Davetard and company are frauds.

It's important, when you're communicating in these emotionally charged areas, to have a firm understanding of what you can and can't, and should and shouldn't, do, otherwise you end up wasting your time beating your head against a wall, or actually pushing people away from your position. Be MLK, don't be Louis Farakhan.

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,12:24

Quote (plasmasnake23 @ July 03 2006,17:07)

I've known at least one person to have gone through my MS program in Earth Sciences who was some kind of creationist/ID person. You can really go through without learning much about fossils asides from an invertebrate paleontology course and that's probably not even the case at all schools. Some geologists are well qualified to talk about fossils but there are 10x as many who are into igneous geochemistry or minerology or something where you don't deal with them at all.

Like Larry Falafelman says, you can still use the theory of evolution while telling yourself that it's not true.

(and he's such a crazy idiot he thinks that's an argument against evolution)

Regarding Janelle's naive belief that Larry is a legal expert, she'd do well to stay the he11 away from him. Most of the IDCers are harmless rubes like Salvador and AFDave, but I get an altogether different vibe from Larry. He seems like he could be dangerously nuts. Larry's brother indicated that Larry might have some real big mental problems, and in my opinion, the less interaction with Larry, the better.

guthrie

Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,12:39

Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2006,17:20)

It's important, when you're communicating in these emotionally charged areas, to have a firm understanding of what you can and can't, and should and shouldn't, do, otherwise you end up wasting your time beating your head against a wall, or actually pushing people away from your position. Be MLK, don't be Louis Farakhan.

Indeed. Meanwhile, we can all be free to be mean to DS et al over here. I would be interested what she makes of that, because I think most of us are capable of being perfectly nice to her and many other people, but unpleasant to DS and his ilk. Does that mean we are totally nasty? Or that we are trying to brainwash her with honeyed words? It shall be interesting to see.

dhogaza

Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,13:15

Meanwhile, on UD, Sal actually thinks he's winning arguments when his ass is being kicked

plasmasnake23

Posts: 42
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,13:37

Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2006,17:24)

Quote (plasmasnake23 @ July 03 2006,17:07)

I've known at least one person to have gone through my MS program in Earth Sciences who was some kind of creationist/ID person. You can really go through without learning much about fossils asides from an invertebrate paleontology course and that's probably not even the case at all schools. Some geologists are well qualified to talk about fossils but there are 10x as many who are into igneous geochemistry or minerology or something where you don't deal with them at all.

Like Larry Falafelman says, you can still use the theory of evolution while telling yourself that it's not true.

(and he's such a crazy idiot he thinks that's an argument against evolution)

Regarding Janelle's naive belief that Larry is a legal expert, she'd do well to stay the he11 away from him. Most of the IDCers are harmless rubes like Salvador and AFDave, but I get an altogether different vibe from Larry. He seems like he could be dangerously nuts. Larry's brother indicated that Larry might have some real big mental problems, and in my opinion, the less interaction with Larry, the better.

Yeah true enough. Although I can't understand the people who try to do that. There was a guy working on icthyosaurs at SVP 2 years ago who was a YEC which apparently caused a stir on the dino list serv. I just don't understand how you could sit through classes when you thought your professors were intentionally deceiving you and try to publish and present in front of people who you also thought were lying. It'd be like trying to do that ghost research where you check for drafts and listening for voices in static but knowing it was all crap. Except in that case you'd probably be right.

plasmasnake23

Posts: 42
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,13:42

Quote (dhogaza @ July 03 2006,18:15)

Meanwhile, on UD, Sal actually thinks he's winning arguments when his ass is being kicked

I know it's a common and old joke around here but seriously, the sheer volume of irony in that post alone almost made my brain explode.

Although I will give him one point. Those of us convinced by the evidence for evolution do tend to "spam up" threads with all of our evidence and information and useful links for debunking ID cons and arguments and all of that useless stuff.

mcc

Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: July 03 2006,17:06

Quote

Like Larry Falafelman says, you can still use the theory of evolution while telling yourself that it's not true.

Quote

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

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