RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < ... 208 209 210 211 212 [213] 214 215 216 217 218 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,20:20   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2008,20:15)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,20:02)
Hereís my take on this...the post is still up, so everyone who visits UD is still privy to the PZ/Simmons debate. †

No, that's not true. It's a new post a new author, with completely new comments.

We'd never delete a thread here. That's the difference. You're on the side of censorship.

It's a new post??!  I went back and read the comments and I remember some of being on the last one.  

sigh....

Give me a second to go look again.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,20:32   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,19:02)
 
Quote
So what do you think of an institution that frequently practices clandestine revisionism on one hand and then makes dubious censorship claims on the other?

Are they to be trusted?


Hereís my take on this...the post is still up, so everyone who visits UD is still privy to the PZ/Simmons debate. †Nothing was censored except for the comments that were negative toward Simmons along with some information that Simmons could have used in the debate. †

Like I said, I see no reason why they felt the need to take down the comments...no need. †You win some, you lose some. †Neither evolution nor ID are ever going to negate the other...itís simply not going to happen. †Iíve never had any intention of trying to get evolution taken out of science curriculum, but I believe that ID should be discussed as well. †The inference of ID is certainly more scientific than Seti or primordial slime. †I simply donít agree that many aspects of the ToE are ďfactĒ, and I think itís harmful to science to commit to a overlying †paradigm in which everything has to be squashed into.

Are the UD crew to be trusted? †Sure, as much as anyone else in this debate. †Iíve seen evolutionists claim many things that are simply not accurate, whether knowingly or not. † I canít imagine that you believe all those scientists who support your overall views are right about every single thing they do or say, yet you still support them.

Quote
First "refuse to read" is a bit misleading. By that logic there are millions of books I "refuse to read" - Oh what an anti-intellectual. The truth is there are many other things I'd rather read, and Vox day has already displayed has tard plumage many times. He doesn't think women should vote. BAD BAD BIGOT TARD, GO TO THE BACK OF THE CLASS. You think he's an alpha male. presumably if I slapped him silly, I'd be the alpha male. You don't believe in cavemen, yet go for knuckle draggers. Oh the Irony.


Same as above, I donít have to agree with everything that Vox stands for to consider his arguments against what the New Atheists (their own descriptive word) have put forth in their recent books. †Iíve not read the whole book yet, and Iím sure there will be things I donít agree with...Iíve been warned up front about that from people other than yourselves. †But, just as you believe Vox to be a bigot in regard to womenís suffrage, the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens trio are horrendous bigots, and their goal is one of complete intolerance of anything that looks to them to be religious...they want religion eradicated. †

Thatís the reason why Vox wrote the book.

If I understand Bill correctly, he believes Vox wrote the book to change the minds of atheists in regard to their beliefs. †His preface of the book and the first chapter donít follow that logic. †Heís pointing out the intolerance and inaccuracy of the arguments put forth against religion by D/H&H. †

And, donít worry Rich, I prefer you over Vox, so you donít have to slap him silly to prove your masculinity.

[I apologize for any typos up front, because as proven time and time again, I simply can't put forth one single post without a typo...and, alas...no edit button.]

Vox Day just today: †
Quote
I'm not particularly into biology, but I've never bought into the "science" that oil is nothing but squished dinosaurs and sufficiently fermented ferns. Like many boys [excuuuuse me?], I was a huge dinosaur enthusiast when I was five, and I didn't believe it then any more than I do now. (Apparently, I was so disgusted with my kindergarten teacher's inability to recognize that my nametag was an Allosaurus on my first day that in the evening, I informed my father that I wasn't going to school anymore, as there was obviously no point trying to learn anything from a woman who couldn't even tell an Allosaurus from a Tyrannosaurus Rex. He managed to keep a straight face and patiently convinced me that there just might be other, non-dinosaur related subjects worth learning about.)

I don't pretend to know precisely what oil is or how it is created

What a piece of work!

Look at CeilingCat's archive in the Uncommonly Dense thread. You'll see that the whole thing was deleted and that the link goes to a 404 page. Again.

All the evolutionary "gaps" are at UD, and someday, they'll all be squished dinosaurs, too. :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,20:32   

See, this is your problem, right here.

 
Quote
Neither evolution nor ID are ever going to negate the other...itís simply not going to happen.


This is stupid. I'm flat-out saying it, because any softening of the fact would be an effective lie. It is stupid and unscientific to say that two mutually contradictory theories are never going to negate each other. They can't both be right, since ID is wrapped up in "irreducible complexity" and similar evolution-negating arguments. It's like saying "gravity exists" and "gravity does not exist" are two statements that might both deserve consideration forever.

Saying they won't "ever negate each other" is, however, perfectly in line with the actual practice of ID, because ID is a political agenda. This is your problem. Any scientist, on any side of any debate, wants one side or the other to be negated. Once something is negated, you know which side is right. This is a good thing for scientific progress. Scientists negate their own hypotheses with fair regularity, and get much credit for doing so.

You, on the other hand, would rather sit back and say you simply don't believe X, Y and Z, and that science teachers should waste time espousing disbelief on your behalf because you can't do enough of it by yourself. You don't want the theories to "negate each other", because it was never about having an empirically correct theory in the first place. It's about good, fuzzy, godly theories that make you feel warm, like hydroplates and privileged planets and designers-who-might-be-aliens, wink wink, nudge nudge.

End rant. Note to FtK: In future, please do not say things about contradictory theories not negating each other. I already know you're utterly anti-science, but you won't trigger rants if you don't say things like this with such regularity.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,20:37   

Of course it's a different post about the debate. What's more, that post and the first five comments are dated January 30. PZ didn't do the debate until the next day!

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,20:40   

Forgot to add that the disappeared post and all comments were from January 31, the day of the debate.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,20:48   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,21:02)
If I understand Bill correctly, he believes Vox wrote the book to change the minds of atheists in regard to their beliefs. †His preface of the book and the first chapter donít follow that logic. †Heís pointing out the intolerance and inaccuracy of the arguments put forth against religion by D/H&H.

You're right. Where could I have gotten the idea one aim of the book was to refute atheism generally?
† †
Quote
In the end, I settled upon The Irrational Atheist for the following reason. This book is a direct challenge to the idea that atheism is the proper philosophical standard for human reason, that being an atheist is an inherently rational perspective, and that attempting to build a civilized society without religion is a rational object. (page 2)

Naw, Ftk. You're right.

--------------
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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,20:57   

there's no excuses.. she's read the first 7 pages..

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

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,20:58   

This made me think of this argument. Possibly because I was browsing and found it just now. But also because it applies, I think.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:06   

Rich:  You're right...different post.  I didn't pay much attention to it when it was up the first time because I knew I wouldn't have time to listen to it live anyway.

IMHO..mistake.  Like I said, both sides make them.  End of story.

Anyday:
Quote
It is stupid and unscientific to say that two mutually contradictory theories are never going to negate each other.


You simply don't get it.  Evolution and ID have two different theories about human origins, and ID focuses primarily on the extent to which organisms are able to evolve.  ID postulates a designing force, which considering the complexity of nature, is probable.

Evolution postulates nothing as the mechanism in which all of life evolved.  The theory starts with the mechanisms of evolution already in place and the system of life evolving already well established.  How in the bloody hell the process got started is a complete mystery.  Now, IMO, there is virtually no way to *prove* (yes, very unscientific of me) how the process of evolution got it's jump start, and furthermore it's horrifically unscientific to assume that the process got started from something that blurped together from something else that fell from the sky after *nothing* exploded which resulted in the big bang.  Following me?  Probably not.  End result is that we're working with inferences, not all knowing facts...on both sides of the fence.

The point is that various versions of designer vs. no designer theories have been contemplated in both science and theology since the beginning of time, and that will never change.  Amen.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:11   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,21:06)
Rich: †You're right...different post. †I didn't pay much attention to it when it was up the first time because I knew I wouldn't have time to listen to it live anyway.

IMHO..mistake. †Like I said, both sides make them. †End of story.

Please, tell us about the thread we deleted that gives a 404 now...

or why you can't edit any more.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:13   

FtK, I do however applaud your disapproval of their thread removal at UD. Will you tell then there you disapprove, and earn my respect, or are you afraid of being banned?

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

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:15   

You're wrong. Fractally so.

I've already said, about four times in three paragraphs, why you're wrong about non-negation of scientific theories. You've now both reiterated what was wrong in the first place, and gotten entirely new things, things I hadn't even mentioned, wrong in your response. I'm not sure if it's remotely possible to address the sheer amount of wrong you can compress into a single paragraph.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:15   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2008,20:48)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,21:02)
If I understand Bill correctly, he believes Vox wrote the book to change the minds of atheists in regard to their beliefs. †His preface of the book and the first chapter donít follow that logic. †Heís pointing out the intolerance and inaccuracy of the arguments put forth against religion by D/H&H.

You're right. Where could I have gotten the idea one aim of the book was to refute atheism generally?
† †  
Quote
In the end, I settled upon The Irrational Atheist for the following reason. This book is a direct challenge to the idea that atheism is the proper philosophical standard for human reason, that being an atheist is an inherently rational perspective, and that attempting to build a civilized society without religion is a rational object. (page 2)

Naw, Ftk. You're right.

Bill, he also stated that he could care less if atheists change their minds or not (that's my point).  I think his exact words were something like..."I could care less if you end up in hell or not" (tough guy...also not nice).

The point of the book is that he wants people (theists, agnostics, and atheists who will listen) to be able to confront the bogus "facts" that D,H & H are pushing in the public square.

Of course he's pointing out that it's irrational to be an atheist...it is.  But, he's not trying to convince *YOU* of that.  Most of us know when we run across a die hard atheist...there is no changing them...simply no chance of it.  So, we give up...it's your life, your decision.  But, we certainly have the responsibility of pointing out the irrational stance that many atheists take against religious thought.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:15   

How can somebody who refuses to learn the facts about biology and maths accuse somebody of not understanding something. It's not opinion but there is enough out there to show that Dembski and Behe's ramblings are just souped up god of the gaps and easily refuted. Brown is the easiest to refute with only high-school physics.
The ATBC, PZ and PT crowd may be rude and noisy but they are not dishonest they will only get rid of people who have continually trolled over months, not get rid of somebody who has asked a question apparently answered before. And they would never ban somebody and pretend that the person has not been banned.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:36   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,22:15)
Bill, he also stated that he could care less if atheists change their minds or not (that's my point). †I think his exact words were something like..."I could care less if you end up in hell or not" (tough guy...also not nice).

I don't care whose minds he is attempting to change. I was expecting to encounter challenging ideas, as promised by editorial blurb that accompanies the book:
† † † † †  
Quote
While other religious apologetics have challenged atheism on theological or biblical grounds, this book fights fire with fire, disproving the scholars' logic through modern, secular reason.

In light of that promise, I was a bit surprised and disappointed by these early sections, because there are almost no extended arguments 'based upon modern, secular reason' that address the general thesis of atheism. Most of the "scholarly" passages go nowhere; what remains are bald ad hominem declarations to which the "scholarly" material is not very relevant.

Perhaps those high quality arguments lie in the sections I haven't read. What I did read doesn't rise to the standard he has set for himself, and the Dennett chapter ultimately went way off the rails.

Just offering my impressions, based upon this partial reading.

--------------
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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:39   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2008,21:13)
FtK, I do however applaud your disapproval of their thread removal at UD. Will you tell then there you disapprove, and earn my respect, or are you afraid of being banned?

Rich, I am NOT here to "earn your respect".  It really doesn't matter what I do or say, I will never be respected here, and that is truly okay with me.  

I simply am not comfortable with people *not liking, or hating me* because of my beliefs.   I always try my very best to be honest about my views and how I perceive the views of others.  

I'm not going to go back to UD and publicly ask them why they deleted that thread.  I've never seen any of you confront someone from your side when you think they may have made a poor decision or said something you disagree with.  

I did make the comment "good grief...", and no doubt they understood my meaning.

I may privately ask questions, but those conversations will not be shared here.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:45   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2008,21:36)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,22:15)
Bill, he also stated that he could care less if atheists change their minds or not (that's my point). †I think his exact words were something like..."I could care less if you end up in hell or not" (tough guy...also not nice).

I don't care whose minds he is attempting to change. I was expecting to encounter challenging ideas, as promised by editorial blurb that accompanies the book:
† † † † †  
Quote
While other religious apologetics have challenged atheism on theological or biblical grounds, this book fights fire with fire, disproving the scholars' logic through modern, secular reason.

In light of that promise, I was a bit surprised and disappointed by these early sections, because there are almost no extended arguments 'based upon modern, secular reason' that address the general thesis of atheism. Most of the "scholarly" passages go nowhere; what remains are bald ad hominem declarations to which the "scholarly" material is not very relevant.

Perhaps those high quality arguments lie in the sections I haven't read. What I did read doesn't rise to the standard he has set for himself; the Dennett chapter ultimately went way off the rails.

From what I've read, the strong parts of the book were his responses to Dawkins and Harris's latest books.  Like I said, I've not read it....may never get to it at this point.  I should never stick my head in here...

It doesn't really matter one way or the other, Bill.  I doubt you'd support a thing he said anyway.  I just think it's important for people to always consider both sides of the issues, especially when it comes to those who want to "eradicate" people who have certain beliefs.  We should be cautious of the New Atheists in the same way we should be cautious of the fundamentalists who send their children to places like "Jesus Camp".  Get me drift?

We should support neither...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:46   

I like the part where Ftk said she remembered some of the comments being the same, because it wasn't a new thread.  Then agreeing that maybe it was a new thread after all.

BUT!

She didn't acknowledge her obvious mistake and the censorship issue it clearly invokes.

Nothing like ignoring the facts, huh, Ftk?

And she seemed okay with the clear censorship that erasing *just the stuff that made Simmons look bad* implies.  Sure, she doesn't understand it (but she doesn't understand much), but it's no big deal.

Not like those evil scientist intellectuals censoring ID research, Ftk?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:47   

Quote
I had a little chat with Vox Day, and after reading his blog for a while, checking out some of his homies and considering the conversations of the "Ilk" (their name for the regulars at VD), I've come to a preliminary assessment of them.

Care to hear it??

You never followed through on this.

--------------
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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:50   

Hard to follow through on anything here...sheesh.

Give me a sec....

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:50   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,21:39)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2008,21:13)
FtK, I do however applaud your disapproval of their thread removal at UD. Will you tell then there you disapprove, and earn my respect, or are you afraid of being banned?

Rich, I am NOT here to "earn your respect". †It really doesn't matter what I do or say, I will never be respected here, and that is truly okay with me. †

Or do your enjoy your sycophantic status there and not want to be banned? We'll never know.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:51   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,22:45)
It doesn't really matter one way or the other, Bill. †I doubt you'd support a thing he said anyway.

Perhaps not. But I do recognize and respect a strong argument when I see one. I didn't see one - again, in my partial reading.

I'll read the Dawkins chapter. I've gathered the gist of what Dawkins has to say from talks, etc.

--------------
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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,21:53   

Ftk:
Quote
I've never seen any of you confront someone from your side when you think they may have made a poor decision or said something you disagree with.

This is just plain wrong.  On this very thread, Reciprocating Bill defended YOU by calling to task those of us who had called you a liar.  There was a multipage discussion on the topic between regulars who disagreed with each other.

I know you love to play the poor, put-upon, house mom, but try not to lie about things that anyone can look up.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,22:00   

Quote (blipey @ Feb. 02 2008,22:53)
Ftk: † †
Quote
I've never seen any of you confront someone from your side when you think they may have made a poor decision or said something you disagree with.

This is just plain wrong. †On this very thread, Reciprocating Bill defended YOU by calling to task those of us who had called you a liar. †There was a multipage discussion on the topic between regulars who disagreed with each other.

I know you love to play the poor, put-upon, house mom, but try not to lie about things that anyone can look up.

I've also observed how ridiculous the "narration" discussion had become vis the cell movie, observed, vis "The Design of Life," that it is inappropriate to review a book without having actually read it (and have consistently qualified my remarks on Day by noting what I have and have not read), strongly challenged ERV and others when they attributed mental illness to Dembski, extensively disputed what I regarded as misleading statements about various psychological theorists and procedures...

Hell, I even got in trouble with Wesley for commenting critically upon your banning (which is out of bounds, per board rules) (<- appropriately obsequious comment designed to avert further trouble.)

--------------
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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,22:03   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2008,21:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,21:39)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2008,21:13)
FtK, I do however applaud your disapproval of their thread removal at UD. Will you tell then there you disapprove, and earn my respect, or are you afraid of being banned?

Rich, I am NOT here to "earn your respect". †It really doesn't matter what I do or say, I will never be respected here, and that is truly okay with me. †

Or do your enjoy your sycophantic status there and not want to be banned? We'll never know.

Rich, I rarely post at UD anyway, so if they banned me it really wouldn't make much of a difference, now would it?

It's difficult to get to know them over there because they don't get personal, but rather stick very closely to the subject of each post.  I'm more of a get to know you type of person, which helps me clearer understand where people are coming from and whether I can trust them.  

They simply can't have more relaxed conversations over there because they are under a microscope, and if someone talked about their private life or decided to just shoot the shit for a while, it would be picked up, copied, and posted at every evolution site on the Internet.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,22:07   

Ftk:
Quote
They simply can't have more relaxed conversations over there because they are under a microscope, and if someone talked about their private life or decided to just shoot the shit for a while, it would be picked up, copied, and posted at every evolution site on the Internet.

Oh, I don't think THAT'S the microscope they're under.  I think they know they're under the Nixplan-o-scope!

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,22:16   

Quote (blipey @ Feb. 02 2008,21:53)
Ftk:  
Quote
I've never seen any of you confront someone from your side when you think they may have made a poor decision or said something you disagree with.

This is just plain wrong. †On this very thread, Reciprocating Bill defended YOU by calling to task those of us who had called you a liar. †There was a multipage discussion on the topic between regulars who disagreed with each other.

I know you love to play the poor, put-upon, house mom, but try not to lie about things that anyone can look up.

Oh Blipey, shut the fuck up for a while, will you please?  I'm talking about going to main players (sciencebloggers, etc.) in this debate and calling them on their attitude, their bigotry or there not-facts.  

Yeah, Bill's been known to disagree with some of you at times.  Why in the hell do you think I have more respect for him than most of you.  I think it's pretty apparent that I do.  

You, on the other hand, are simply a pain in the butt and more of a thread jacker than anything else.  It's no wonder Dave and Joe don't want to meet up with you.  Who the heck wants to spend any time with someone who is constantly...and I mean *constantly* acting like a non-relenting troll.  You're endless posting at my blog is off the charts crazy.

I'd actually considered meeting up with you some time, but I honestly have absolutely no want to to that now, whatsoever.   That has nothing to do with being scared or threatened of you or anything remotely similiar.  I've attended many lectures here in KS given by die-hard evolutionists and have met many of the Internet regulars involved in the debate here in Kansas as well.

Honestly, every once in a great while I get a small glimpse of who I think the real you probably is, but that person comes out so rarely that it's sad.  When it comes to this debate, your simply a loon.  When you are able to put that to the side and talk about something else, you almost seem normal.

Go away for a while...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
stevestory



Posts: 8859
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,22:28   

FtK said:
Quote
I've never seen any of you confront someone from your side when you think they may have made a poor decision or said something you disagree with.


Quote
They simply can't have more relaxed conversations over there because they are under a microscope, and if someone talked about their private life or decided to just shoot the shit for a while, it would be picked up, copied, and posted at every evolution site on the Internet.


You can't possibly believe either of these statements. Are you just trolling for your own amusement here? Because no one in her right mind would say either of those things. You've got to be just kidding around.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,22:30   

OK. I've started the Dawkins chapter, and Day isn't off to a good start. His opening statements are ad hominem, pure and simple:
† †
Quote
So, at sixty-six, three decades after publishing the controversial bestseller The Selfish Gene, itís clear that Richard Dawkins is well past his scientific expiry, and his latest book, The God Delusion, offers copious evidence that Dawkins has become as careless †as he is crotchety in his old age.

His writing style remains as †approachable as ever, but what he no longer possesses is a firm grasp of †the very Reason of which he believes himself a champion.

ÖThe worldís foremost spokesman for secular science, that method of advancing human knowledge based upon the primacy of empirical evidence, increasingly shows a tendency to ignore mountains of conclusive evidence in favor of mystical pronouncements about ontological possibilities. Whether this drift into what could reasonably be described as metascience is a function of Dawkinsís boredom with science proper or merely an age-related disinclination for doing the required intellectual heavy-lifting is impossible to say, but it is readily apparent to anyone who has read a substantial portion of his published ouvrť. (pages 135-136)

Here Vox Day attacks Dawkins vis his credentials to write The God Delusion:
† †
Quote
Whereas he describes †himself as a ďpassionate DarwinianĒ as an academic scientist, he calls himself ďa passionate anti-DarwinianĒ with regards to the proper conduct of human affairs. This naturally puts Dawkins in an untenable position, as he not only lacks both education and professional experience in the academic fields that relate to human conduct, such as history, philosophy, political science, literature, psychology, and †theology, it also renders his book somewhat of a fraudulent bait-and-switch. (page 136)

But here is Vox Day on his OWN qualifications to write The Irrational Atheist:
† †
Quote
At first glance, it may seem crazy that a computer game designer, one whose only significant intellectual accomplishment of note is to have once convinced Michelle Malkin to skip an opportunity to promote herself, should dare to dispute an Oxford don, a respected university professor, a famous French philosopher, a highly regarded journalist, and an ecstasy-using dropout who is still working toward a graduate degree at forty . . . okay, perhaps that last one makes sense. As Gag Halfrunt is reliably reported to have said of the immortal Za- phod Beeblebrox, Iím just zis guy, ya know?

But donít be tempted by the logical fallacy of the Appeal To Authority; after all, in this age of academic specialization, an evolutionary biologist is less likely to be an expert on the historical causes of war and religious conflict than the average twelve-year-old wargamer, and even a professor in the field of cognitive studies may not have spent as much time contemplating the deeper mysteries of intelli- gence as a game designer who has seen many a sunrise while experimenting with the best way to make the monsters smarter. (page 3)

If you didn't laugh at that, there is something wrong with you. Ftk, this is hypocritical, very damning, and disinclines me to read much further. Day has a glib and facile writing style, but passages like these cast serious doubt upon the integrity of his argument as a whole.

--------------
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

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,22:33   

Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,22:03)
It's difficult to get to know them over there because they don't get personal, but rather stick very closely to the subject of each post.

You are talking about UncommonDescent are you?

The place where they had a post asking about predictions made by Intelligent Design that later proved to be correct and got something like 150 comments, not one of which addressed the point of the post?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
  10200 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < ... 208 209 210 211 212 [213] 214 215 216 217 218 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]