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... > For the love of Avocationist

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,04:54    Dear All, Many people, myself included, have delicately requested our reemergent contributor Avocationist to please discuss his/her ID ideas etc in a thread seperate from the LUCA/UD/etc threads. To that noble end, I humbly invite Avocationist to educate we humble few in this dedicated thread. Avocationist I thank you for your contributions in advance. Some cut and pasted remarks are included below. We can discuss the postive evidence that Avocationist has for ID, or the banning of Dave Springer, or indeed the religious foundations of ID (or not), or even fundamentalism at ATBC as we wish. Avocationist the flaw* floor is yours Louis *ADDED IN EDIT: Oops, Freud, you naughty boy! All quotes from Avocationist. Quote So on that note, I'm curious as to why Dave Scot got banned from here? Quote Who is supposed to have written the Wedge, and for whom? I really can't know that the author meant by traditional doctrines of creation. That God created the world I think all Christians should believe. But that it might have been a long and natural process they can also believe. But not naturalistic in the sense often meant here, as in no intentional input. My guess is that they want the churches to stop wimping out and assess the situation a little better. It appears that a lot of nonfundie churches go along with Darwinist teachings without looking too hard. In school, kids are taught that there is no purpose to evolution. That really isn't compatible with theism. Even Miller believes the universe was designed by God, he just thinks that complex system could evolve by unguided processes. So in that sense, there is a divide between his understanding of evolution, and Dawkins'. Quote You know, Lenny, I understand that this thread is generally lighthearted and dedicated for the abuse of of UD, so it's true that this ought to be moved, but you are proving yourself to be a bear of very little brain, and one dedicated to gratuitous belligerance as well.   Obviously, to you, any religious person is a fundamentalist. Whereas, I fear fundamentalists, and I got news for you - you are one. Quote I believe you mistook my meaning. So I'll clear it up. I meant that I agreed there is a strong streak of fundamentalism at UD, but I also see it here Quote In my opinion, nothing. In my opinion, God is everything, so there is no process or for that matter, material, separate from God. But generally, people have the idea that matter is something separate from God. So God set up a system, and it's running along on its own, or mostly on its own. Like you might wind up a top and let it go on the floor. But the evolution of life just doesn't look like something that could happen on its own. On the other hand, getting to the point where you have matter, a universe, organization into galaxies and planets, and various laws of nature such that there is a planet with weather, also does not look too probable. Your question is about like asking whether a mouse can scratch his ear without the assist of God. Quote I mean, your questions are just absolutely trite. Why bother to eat? Why not just pray for sustenance? And of course there are emotional/spiritual components to disease causation Quote Aren't you ashamed to provide this level of discourse? You've made a lot of ass-umptions. I'm barely tolerated at UD. Is your position really so weak that you have to paint everyone with the same brush? Some ID people are fundies, some are religious but nonfundies, and some are not categorizable. Your refutation of the Wedge document disclaimer was filled with fear and paranoia. Some of the things they said and do say  I agree with. There is no humanity without a metaphysical worldview. Right now, the atheists have got the floor. I agree with the DI that the purposeless worldview being taught is depressing and disheartening to humanity. I also don't think it's true. I don't know whether it might backfire if the Christians got their way, but I don't see why it should. Our country was freer in the last century than it is now and Christianity was not particularly oppressive. What I see coming, a totalitarian regime, will be by the corporate elite, not the fundies, although they will use the fundies. There are a lot of fundie elements in our society, and they absolutely should be kept in check. There are Christians who want to implement Old Testament Biblical law. But I really, really don't see that as happening. When I see all the fear and loathing in your arguments, it makes me skeptical that you can evaluate for truth. Fear is a decreaser of consciousness and reason. And so on and so forth. -------------- Bye.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,05:05    Quote In my opinion, nothing. In my opinion, God is everything, so there is no process or for that matter, material, separate from God. I know lots of people who believe this, in fact a Christian friend told me once that God makes the flowers grow. If this is true, we still cannot say scientifically that intelligence is needed to make the flowers grow. Quote Alright, I worded it sloppily. The common phrase and what young people are taught, is random, unguided, purposeless. I think you knew that, right? My point was that just because the major evolutionary processes appear unguided to scientific investigations does not mean that God wasn't involved. Im no theologian but I can think of many ways God could act without us being able to detect it scientifically. You can use evolution to support atheism if you like, the same way people use the big bang and the cosmological constant to support the existence of God, but the idea that a evolution as a scientific theory disproves God by it's very nature is a misunderstanding of the nature of science.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,07:23    I just want to know if Avocationists thinks supernatural witches exist, and if so, should they be killed. I also want to know if she thinks demons and devils possess people, and if she agrees with Hovind and Ross that flying saucers come from the Devil. I want to see just how nutty Avocationist really is . . . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Cedric Katesby Posts: 55 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,08:04    Scientific argument for ID please. (waits patiently)

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,08:46    Cedric, Patience is a virtue......but don't hold your breath! Louis -------------- Bye.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,09:02    Somewhere along the line I'd also like to hear how Judge Jones was made to 'look foolish'. -------------- "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

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,09:18    Avocationist is back!? We get rid of the wacky funhouse world of afdave, only to re-acquire the pretzel-logic of avocationist? There must be some kind of "conservation of loopiness" law operating here. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,09:30    I really haven't been around that long, so I wasn't really aware of who "avocationist" was...now that I did a li'l searching...uh, yeah, you're right, Russ. *sharpens his poking stick* -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,09:38    Shhhhhhh behave. It'll think we're fundamentalists. Oh wait. It already does. {Breaks cover, sits down in rocking chair, picks up poking stick and whittlin' knife, starts whittlin'} Corn's high this yeeeah. {spits baccy} Louis -------------- Bye.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,10:01    Quote Corn's high this yeeeah. *Spits* Yup. Mighty high.  *polishes his shotgun* Wheer's thet flat-headed banjo-playin' boy of your'n got to? We needs us some fancy musick. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:01    Hi Chris, Quote If this is true, we still cannot say scientifically that intelligence is needed to make the flowers grow...My point was that just because the major evolutionary processes appear unguided to scientific investigations does not mean that God wasn't involved. Im no theologian but I can think of many ways God could act without us being able to detect it scientifically. Yeah, and you're right, but you might be ignoring the very real and persistent tendency to state, for example, that divine intervention isn't needed because the theory accounts for everything. Now, this may not be technically true, and it might be an overstepping of bounds, but it has been done more than some of the time. I think that only just recently, as they are being called on it, they are removing the starker statements from the textbooks. Also, I think that the time is probably close at hand when science will either hit a wall, or open itself to the possibility of what the new agers call 'subtle energies.' I am not actually convinced that there is such a thing as the nonmaterial. What there is, is energies and particles that we cannot measure or access but I think that we can discover them either indirectly, or improve our instruments and access more than currently. This will open up our understanding greatly about how the universe really works and solve problems like ESP. Traditionally, when people get an intuition about these less perceivable realms, they assign them to the 'supernatural' but it isn't supernatural. No more supernatural than an ultraviolet ray.   Lenny, I will not entertain your silly nonquestions. They are based on unfounded assumption and reading comprehension deficits. Cedric, I tried that, and it ended up eating all my free time, while I argued against 8 or 9, and got called a liar and evasionist by GCT who it seemed to me often twisted my words and referred back to things I had said pages earlier. I was told to do my homework but I was the only one who did so. I tried to go through some essays about the flagellum, but no one but me would read the texts. I was told to read Mayr's book, so I bought it and tried to read it. It was simplistic and utterly boring, since the pabulum it spoke of I had long since seen refuted in great detail. What I come away with is that people quite often (not always) read things with a jaundiced eye. We see a debate between Miller and Dembski. In my eyes, Dembski wins; in your eyes, Miller wins. So why do I think the ID folk are more accurate in this case? Because they have a different blind spot. The blind spot for the people here involves how evolution theory supports their worldview (perhaps their career), and they do not want to scrutinize it honestly. The people at a site like UD, have a blind spot that is about their religion. They have no more willingness to look at that than you guys do here to look at yours. Since the question of origins is not on the exact bullseye of their blind spot, they can evaluate it fairly honestly. Behe is a prime example. He already had a career in molecular biology, and he was already comfortable with his religion, so when he read Denton's book he could decide either way without it hurting him where he lives. If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, it is written by a secular person who is not in with any group. Arden, I have pretty much the same thing to say about Judge Jones. Plenty has been written about this. I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side. Yes, that does make a person look foolish, or perhaps that is too kind a word. I am interested in seeing why Dave Scot gets himself banned from various sites. Why here, and what's the PT story? Does he behave in a manner he would not tolerate on his own site?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:13    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:01) Arden, I have pretty much the same thing to say about Judge Jones. Plenty has been written about this. I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side. Yes, that does make a person look foolish, or perhaps that is too kind a word. Ah.. Gotcha. You don't need to follow the event too closely if you think he might have ignored one side using your ESP powers or whatever. Perhaps you could make an 'intent' detector, they could use one in the ID camp. You are one bad hand-waving Tard. No offense, like. -------------- "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

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:24    Quote I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side. Let me get this straight: You didn't follow the trial, but you have reached your conclusion.  And now you're accusing Jones of only looking at the evidence from one side? I personally did follow the trial.  I read the daily transcripts, not just the news bites.  I read the decision multiple times.  ID had a fair hearing, and that's all there is to it.  They brought the best they could offer (those that weren't too afraid that is) and got shut down.  Read the transcripts to find out why.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:33    Quote I am interested in seeing why Dave Scot gets himself banned from various sites. Why here, and what's the PT story? Does he behave in a manner he would not tolerate on his own site? On April 2, 2005, DaveScot made the following post at PT:   Quote Posted by DaveScot on April 2, 2005 9:30 PM (e) H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn’t wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm. You will see this got disemvowelled. With the vowels put back in, this is:   Quote Hey you fucking assholes. Apologize to Davison NOW before I get pissed off and start fucking with you. You don't want to make me mad. Trust me on this. Your security sucks big time. This is Dave's version of events:   Quote My comments were arbitrarily deleted and disemvoweled at Panda's Thumb. Trying to escape that treatment I resorted to using randomly selected names. I was then banned for using multiple names. You can judge for yourself whether Dave would tolerate this at UD.     Quote Plenty has been written about this. Yes, but most of the anti-Jones polemics I've seen -- pretty much all of them actually -- are wildly disingenuous or outright dishonest and depend heavily on attacks on his character. I guess we were wondering if you had something a little more substantial than that. But all I'm seeing is that you didn't like Judge Jones's decision, which all by itself proves Jones 'didn't listen to the evidence'. If Judge Jones had 'listened to the evidence', he certainly would have come to a pro-ID conclusion which somehow still eludes the vast majority of scientists -- and thereby avoided looking 'foolish'. -------------- "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

don_quixote Posts: 110 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,15:05    Oh, dear. This looks as if it's going to be another car-crash. I should look away, but..... nah, can't resist. Avocationist, It would be great if you could bring something new to the table, but I suspect you are going to give us the same old canards we've all heard before. PROVE ME WRONG! In order to help you, I strongly suggest that before you post your comments, you consult this easy to navigate list of creo/ID arguments, and check that your's hasn't already been addressed. It will save everyone's time, and may help prevent you from making a complete fool of yourself. As the great Mark Twain once said: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Bon chance!

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,15:05    Quote (Russell @ Jan. 22 2007,07:18) We get rid of the wacky funhouse world of afdave, only to re-acquire the pretzel-logic of avocationist? Oh come on; I'm having a great time murdering Dave's "Arguments." He never runs out of wacky things to say. His latest is his claim that physical cosmology, abiogenesis, and for all I know, number theory, are all part of the Theory of Evolution. You can't write comedy like this! -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,15:21    Quote I was told to do my homework but I was the only one who did so. I tried to go through some essays about the flagellum, but no one but me would read the texts. OK. Now you are lying. Quote I was told to read Mayr's book, so I bought it and tried to read it. It was simplistic and utterly boring, since the pabulum it spoke of I had long since seen refuted in great detail. Avo, meet afdave; dave, meet Avo. The two of you appear to have been separated at birth. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,16:08    avocationist. Let me give you a clue about behaviour here. If you make a claim that is disputed, you are expected to back your argument up with evidence, logic or something else that supports your statements. You will not get a free ride. On the other hand you will not be censored for a long time. May I suggest that you pick one statement made by you that was quoted by Louis in the opening post and argue the case? IF avocasionist does that, would everyone else agree to deal with one topic at a time? Otherwise this thread will be "all over the place". My bid would be for positive evidence for ID (that should be the quickest to be got-done with).

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,16:16    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,14:01) If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, it is written by a secular person who is not in with any group. I checked out some of the "Darwinsim FAQs" on Milton's (author of Shattering) website.  They're somewhat amusing if you haven't checked them out yet. Quote For example, an old favourite that Darwinists often try to slip in by the back door is the idea that all the different breeds of dog are different species, when in fact all breeds of dog, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, are all members of a single species, Canis familiaris, and are capable of interbreeding. Quote In precisely the same way, because of its infinitely elastic definition, natural selection can be made to explain opposed and even mutually contradictory individual adaptations. For example, Darwinists claim that camouflage coloring and mimicry (as in leaf insects) is adaptive and will be selected for, yet they also claim that warning coloration (the wasp's stripes) is adaptive and will be selected for. Yet if both propositions are true, any kind of coloration will have some adaptive value, whether it is partly camouflage or partly warning, and will be selected for. Avocationist, regardless of whether or not Milton claims to be a creationist, he is using creationist sources when he researches his book.  And please, try to prove me wrong on this point.  Check the references he cites and tell me how many of them are either creationists, DI fellows, or well-known quotemines of actual scientists. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,16:24    I'm getting the distinct impression that because Avocationist has been asked to talk about his/her ID ideas on this thread, this is the very last thing he/she will do. So at least we have somewhere troll free! Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels. I really am suspicious! Louis -------------- Bye.

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,16:35    Maybe trolls are territorial, or maybe they don't like to get in each other's way?

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,17:14    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2007,16:24) Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels. I really am suspicious! Maybe you need to ask a knowledgeable person who runs the board to track some IPs   -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,17:46    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:01) Lenny, I will not entertain your silly nonquestions. I don't blame you. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,17:53    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2007,16:24) I'm getting the distinct impression that because Avocationist has been asked to talk about his/her ID ideas on this thread, this is the very last thing he/she will do. She seems interested only in discussing her religious opinions.  Apparently she's holier than everyone else, because of her aura, or something.   Seems she's some sort of New Agey nutter.  They are every bit as tard-filled as the fundies.   Remember what I said before about the finger pointing at the moon -- how some people never see the moon at all, but instead study the finger minutely, in every wrinkley detail? Ding ding ding. Back in my younger days, I was always excited to meet girls like this at Rainbow Gatherings.  It was always absurdly easy to get them in the sack. Waddya say, Avocation?  Wanna help me find my Spiritual Harmonic Convergence? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,18:25    A fisking "review" of Richard Milton's "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" can be found at http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml Quote "In summary, Milton falls woefully short of the title's claim. It would take a book longer than the one Milton wrote to fully debunk and analyze his errors. I have merely scratched the surface in this too-brief review. He is unfocused, unclear, and hypocritical. He offers no alternative theory, doesn't adequately do away with any aspect or aspects of neo-Darwinism, and his fact- gathering skills need work." I'd be glad to discuss Milton's claims about the "myths" of radiometric dating, uniformitarianism and natural selection, if you're up to that, Avocationist. I assume you have his book. I won't mind dismantling it, but I have a sneaking suspicion you may not actually know much about these topics. I'll be visiting the bookstore tonight to read through Milton's work, so you won't be able to say that I really NEED to read it before criticizing the ideas it contains. In the meantime, perhaps you can tell me why I should not accept carbon dating and ...oh, say potassium-argon dating? Be clear, and use valid arguments, not just isolated examples where creationists and others have misapplied the methods. Radioactive decay is a statistically valid concept that can be used to measure the age of materials, Avocationist...Show me why it's specifically invalid in all cases. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,18:46    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:01) Yeah, and you're right, but you might be ignoring the very real and persistent tendency to state, for example, that divine intervention isn't needed because the theory accounts for everything. I hate to just make this an even larger dogpile, but... Don't you see what argument you are making here? All you are saying is that if the theory doesn't explain it, then divine intervention is a plausible alternative. That's not really testable, is it? I've never seen a good way to scientifically rule-in divine intervention.     Quote Also, I think that the time is probably close at hand when science will either hit a wall, or open itself to the possibility of what the new agers call 'subtle energies.' Ay ay ay. Call Deepak Chopra. If you want to call Dark Matter and Dark Energy 'subtle energies' that's fine, but to think that they are somehow mystical or magical is silly and again, I've never seen a good scientific way in which to rule-in divine intervention or supernatural forces.   Quote I am not actually convinced that there is such a thing as the nonmaterial. Uh, really?   Quote What there is, is energies and particles that we cannot measure or access but I think that we can discover them either indirectly, or improve our instruments and access more than currently. Hey, now that's starting to sound all sciency.   Quote This will open up our understanding greatly about how the universe really works and solve problems like ESP. I think ESP has been debunked by more traditional methods.     Quote Traditionally, when people get an intuition about these less perceivable realms, they assign them to the 'supernatural' but it isn't supernatural. No more supernatural than an ultraviolet ray. Um ok. But in science, traditionally, people don't assign these less perceivable realms to the supernatural. They assign them to the "I don't know" realm.   Quote So why do I think the ID folk are more accurate in this case? Because they have a different blind spot. The blind spot for the people here involves how evolution theory supports their worldview (perhaps their career), and they do not want to scrutinize it honestly. The people at a site like UD, have a blind spot that is about their religion. They have no more willingness to look at that than you guys do here to look at yours. Since the question of origins is not on the exact bullseye of their blind spot, they can evaluate it fairly honestly. Are you really really serious when you say that ID people, particularly the people at UD, do whatever it is they do HONESTLY?     Quote Behe is a prime example. He already had a career in molecular biology, and he was already comfortable with his religion, so when he read Denton's book he could decide either way without it hurting him where he lives. Behe isn't at UD. But it definitely was Behe's "honesty" that helped in ID's defeat at Dover. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,18:53    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,14:01) Cedric, I tried that, and it ended up eating all my free time, while I argued against 8 or 9, and got called a liar and evasionist by GCT who it seemed to me often twisted my words and referred back to things I had said pages earlier. You are a lying sack.  I documented your words and mine in detail and showed how you did just what you are accusing me of.  You are pathetic.  Normally I wouldn't speak this way, but you have shown yourself to be dishonest, unworthy of respect, and completely contemptible. Quote I was told to read Mayr's book, so I bought it and tried to read it. It was simplistic and utterly boring, since the pabulum it spoke of I had long since seen refuted in great detail. You couldn't refute your way out of a paper sack. Quote So why do I think the ID folk are more accurate in this case? Because they have a different blind spot. The blind spot for the people here involves how evolution theory supports their worldview (perhaps their career), and they do not want to scrutinize it honestly. And, I've already refuted that by pointing out those who believe in god/Christianity/etc. that also accept evolution.  Good job bring up old arguments that have already been shot to h*ll. Quote If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. Because none of those authors give an account of what ID is, except as a religious apologetic.  You are too blind to notice that (using your own verbage). Quote I have pretty much the same thing to say about Judge Jones. Plenty has been written about this. I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side. Yes, that does make a person look foolish, or perhaps that is too kind a word. How precious.  "I haven't followed the case, but I know Jones is stupid because I just know that ID is right...but don't ask me how...oh, and all of you are blind and unwilling to see." Quote I am interested in seeing why Dave Scot gets himself banned from various sites. Why here, and what's the PT story? Does he behave in a manner he would not tolerate on his own site? Yes, he threatened to hack the site.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,23:44    Improvius, Quote Avocationist, regardless of whether or not Milton claims to be a creationist, he is using creationist sources when he researches his book.  And please, try to prove me wrong on this point.  Check the references he cites and tell me how many of them are either creationists, DI fellows, or well-known quotemines of actual scientists. His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist. I see nothing wrong with quotemining so long as it is in context, and so long as the author is not misrepresented. I looked through his bibliography at the end and it is quite extensive, including many different sorts of people. If ID is true, then many of the creationist arguments will also be true and overlap, although many won't. This is a strange argument you use - that creationists are some sort of bad people (witches anyone?) and can not only be dismissed as a group, but any honorable mention is tainting. Louis, Quote Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels. I really am suspicious! It's called serendipity! Midnight, Quote Maybe you need to ask a knowledgeable person who runs the board to track some IPs I have been the same persona here before and at UD for quite a long time. I inherited my husband's old computer a few months ago, though. You guys are so full of it. Who else writes with my ideas and style? Quote Waddya say, Avocation?  Wanna help me find my Spiritual Harmonic Convergence? I told my husband that I find monogamy to be a mindless instinct controlling us via our selfish genes, but he said he is just not into sharing. Deadman, Quote I'd be glad to discuss Milton's claims about the "myths" of radiometric dating, uniformitarianism and natural selection, if you're up to that, Avocationist. I assume you have his book. I won't mind dismantling it, but I have a sneaking suspicion you may not actually know much about these topics. I'll be visiting the bookstore tonight to read through Milton's work, so you won't be able to say that I really NEED to read it before criticizing the ideas it contains. Deadman, I think that is just great that you plan to go to so much trouble. But I don't see how standing and reading through it in a bookstore would help us go through the text. I think we should both have a text available. It doesn't need to be that book. And no, I am certainly not qualified to discuss the various dating methods. Why would you pick that one? I have always read thru that stuff and just kept it in mind without taking it too strongly. I definitely think we don't know for sure if our dating methods are accurate, and I certainly have read some good criticisms, for example, of getting wildly different readings on the same sample with several methods. Yo Phonon, loved your documentary- Quote Me:Yeah, and you're right, but you might be ignoring the very real and persistent tendency to state, for example, that divine intervention isn't needed because the theory accounts for everything. You: Don't you see what argument you are making here? All you are saying is that if the theory doesn't explain it, then divine intervention is a plausible alternative. That's not really testable, is it? I've never seen a good way to scientifically rule-in divine intervention.   No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered. That is uncalled-for, it is a metaphysical statement, and it is a positive statement. Quote Uh, really?   When I say nonmaterial, I am not referring to nonmaterial things such as a concept. I mean I doubt the so-called spiritual realm is nonmaterial. But I do suspect that we have not been able to explore the whole enchilada, and that we are confined within a narrow band, much like our ability to percieve within the electromagnetic spectrum. On the other hand, I am not quite sure where consciousness fits into materiality. Quote Are you really really serious when you say that ID people, particularly the people at UD, do whatever it is they do HONESTLY? Well, I do tend to be a little naive and give people the benefit of the doubt...Yes, what I said was that the ID people are in a better position to evaluate the claims of ID because they have less to lose. It's just pure probability! Of course, a lot of ID folk have not evaluated it much because it's just easier for them to accept it as it fits with their views. I think the Dover school board used it without even caring what it was about. Quote Behe isn't at UD. But it definitely was Behe's "honesty" that helped in ID's defeat at Dover. I didnt say he had to be. I was simply showing that he was free to evaluate the ID book he read - Denton's - because he could go either way without much loss. What do you think Behe said that was dishonest? I read most of his testimony. GCT, Quote You are a lying sack. We can leave it at that. Of the six remarks you made, 4 showed misinterpretations of what I said. So it would just be a go-round to little purpose.

Serendipity Posts: 28 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,00:11    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44) It's called serendipity! You called? Suffice to say is there any evidence for Intelligent Design? -------------- Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,04:10    Avocationist, I wouldn't call it serendipity, I'd call it suspicious at worst or unfortunate at best. Some people, no names mentioned, no fingers pointed, use the internet as a sheild between themselves and the deep loathfulness of their behaviour. I have to confess I have no idea why anyone would do this, beyond the obvious pranking. Louis P.S. Serendipity, based on experience of Avocationist thus far, no we are not going to see any evidence of ID. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Of course I am extremely happy to be proven wrong about this (those like Avocationist never get this part) but what proving me wrong requires is actually knowing what they are talking about and being intellectually deft and honest enough to form a coherent argument (another thing they don't get). Based on 14/15 years of dealing with creationists on a nearly daily basis, my bet would not be an optimistic one. I live in hope of being proven wrong about that though, it did happen a couple of times, less than 1% of the total though. Oh well. -------------- Bye.

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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