RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < ... 282 283 284 285 286 [287] 288 289 290 291 292 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,18:41   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,19:40)
Who the hell do I have to sleep with to get an edit button???!!!1111!!!

Me, but I wouldn't have you.

I like women with brains.

ETA: and integrity.

Edited by Lou FCD on July 11 2008,19:43

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,18:44   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,15:33)
That's pretty much what I figured.  Selective reading.

Sigh...

What you aren't getting, is that for anyone with any knowledge in the fields Walt Brown is commenting on can see that his theory makes about as much sense as the babbling of schizophrenic. Oh, the grammar and spelling is OK, and there's all kinds of big sciency sounding words and nice looking footnotes, but it's basically word salad. It's really that bad. You appear to have confused presentation with content.

The fact is the part Nerull quotes says all asteroids and comets originate from the earth. If Walt Brown says some originate some other way later on, he's contradicting himself, which doesn't help his case. If he doesn't, no amount of footnotes and verbiage will save him from the facts:
1) Long period comets have orbits longer than 5000 years
2) A long period comet approaching aphelion must, according to Walts crazy theory, have completed nearly a full orbit.
A quick search of http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/ shows more than 10 comets with a period > 1 million years.

Hydroplate theory, destroyed.

This is why people call you a lying creobot FTK. Because you never ever actually address any real arguments. I'll be happy to point out a few errors in detail if you promise to actually respond to them.

Assasinator: lucky for you, the book is online!. Warning: Do not expose irony or tard measuring devices to this link.

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,18:54   

Ho-hum.

BTDT

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,19:05   

Hey, FtK!

Going back in time a few score pages, you owe me an explanation of 66 million cubic miles of water needed for The Flood.  Remember the geometry.

Did you run those equations, hon?  Simple geometry you would have learned in the 10th grade.  Pity you dropped out after the 5th grade.

Let me clue you in, oh, clueless hon.  I don't have to give Waltie a ring-a-ling because he published his "thesis" and not only can I read (gasp!) but I understand physics and math (double gasp!)  Therefore, and ergo, I read Walt's "thesis," the appendix, the footnotes and all that stuff.

Besides Walt's "geology" being totally non-descriptive of the earth we live on, his calculations are totally wrong, as has been pointed out many times before, and more to the point his most basic calculation involving how much water is needed to cover the earth to a depth of X feet yields the 66 million cubic miles of water for which you can't account.

Forget comets, FtK, you got a bad water problem.

Put up, FtK, or PLEASE STFU!

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,19:54   

Quote (Reed @ July 11 2008,19:44)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,15:33)
That's pretty much what I figured.  Selective reading.

Sigh...

What you aren't getting, is that for anyone with any knowledge in the fields Walt Brown is commenting on can see that his theory makes about as much sense as the babbling of schizophrenic. Oh, the grammar and spelling is OK, and there's all kinds of big sciency sounding words and nice looking footnotes, but it's basically word salad. It's really that bad. You appear to have confused presentation with content.

The fact is the part Nerull quotes says all asteroids and comets originate from the earth. If Walt Brown says some originate some other way later on, he's contradicting himself, which doesn't help his case. If he doesn't, no amount of footnotes and verbiage will save him from the facts:
1) Long period comets have orbits longer than 5000 years
2) A long period comet approaching aphelion must, according to Walts crazy theory, have completed nearly a full orbit.
A quick search of http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/ shows more than 10 comets with a period > 1 million years.

Hydroplate theory, destroyed.

This is why people call you a lying creobot FTK. Because you never ever actually address any real arguments. I'll be happy to point out a few errors in detail if you promise to actually respond to them.

Assasinator: lucky for you, the book is online!. Warning: Do not expose irony or tard measuring devices to this link.

It's simple, but she won't let her self comprehend it. I've been here long enough to know that. It's like she's got a filter embedded in her brain that just keeps her from seeing evidence.

You really shouldn't have directed me to Walt's book, FTK. The asteroid belt was disprovable, but it was more complex. Now that I know the full scope of his claims, its even easier to disprove.

All I have to do is say - look at that comet. It's been falling longer than your universe has existed.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,19:59   

Quote (Doc Bill @ July 11 2008,19:05)
Hey, FtK!

Going back in time a few score pages, you owe me an explanation of 66 million cubic miles of water needed for The Flood.  Remember the geometry.

Did you run those equations, hon?  Simple geometry you would have learned in the 10th grade.  Pity you dropped out after the 5th grade.

Let me clue you in, oh, clueless hon.  I don't have to give Waltie a ring-a-ling because he published his "thesis" and not only can I read (gasp!) but I understand physics and math (double gasp!)  Therefore, and ergo, I read Walt's "thesis," the appendix, the footnotes and all that stuff.

Besides Walt's "geology" being totally non-descriptive of the earth we live on, his calculations are totally wrong, as has been pointed out many times before, and more to the point his most basic calculation involving how much water is needed to cover the earth to a depth of X feet yields the 66 million cubic miles of water for which you can't account.

Forget comets, FtK, you got a bad water problem.

Put up, FtK, or PLEASE STFU!

If you say you read all of it, then I'll just have to take your word for it I guess.  But, simple 10th grade geometry wouldn't be a problem for Walt...try reading his credentials again.

You made want to consider having a second go at it.   But, if it's just Walt's supposed difficulties with geometry you're worried about, you might drop him a line before the 8th edition of his book goes to print.

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

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,20:14   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,20:59)
Quote (Doc Bill @ July 11 2008,19:05)
Hey, FtK!

Going back in time a few score pages, you owe me an explanation of 66 million cubic miles of water needed for The Flood.  Remember the geometry.

Did you run those equations, hon?  Simple geometry you would have learned in the 10th grade.  Pity you dropped out after the 5th grade.

Let me clue you in, oh, clueless hon.  I don't have to give Waltie a ring-a-ling because he published his "thesis" and not only can I read (gasp!) but I understand physics and math (double gasp!)  Therefore, and ergo, I read Walt's "thesis," the appendix, the footnotes and all that stuff.

Besides Walt's "geology" being totally non-descriptive of the earth we live on, his calculations are totally wrong, as has been pointed out many times before, and more to the point his most basic calculation involving how much water is needed to cover the earth to a depth of X feet yields the 66 million cubic miles of water for which you can't account.

Forget comets, FtK, you got a bad water problem.

Put up, FtK, or PLEASE STFU!

If you say you read all of it, then I'll just have to take your word for it I guess.  But, simple 10th grade geometry wouldn't be a problem for Walt...try reading his credentials again.

You made want to consider having a second go at it.   But, if it's just Walt's supposed difficulties with geometry you're worried about, you might drop him a line before the 8th edition of his book goes to print.

I'm not sure why I didn't see it earlier. Its staring me in the face...

The latest "Have you read *all* of it?" thing is just FTKs latest manifestation of the mental filter I mentioned.

If you haven't read every single page the barely coherent stream of consciousness he calls a book, you obviously can't critique any of his points, no matter how ludicrous.

It's what allows her to completely ignore evidence like comets.

She insists he has a point to counter everything, but has no idea what that point is. I get the district feeling FTK hasn't actually read it.

But there is nothing that can counter the comet evidence. It's a show stopper all on its own. If all comets came from the earth, we could not possibly see long period comets, because they will still be on the way out, and we wouldn't see them for a million years or so. Yet they're here. We see them. You can't ignore that.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1036
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,20:18   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,19:59)
If you say you read all of it, then I'll just have to take your word for it I guess.  But, simple 10th grade geometry wouldn't be a problem for Walt...try reading his credentials again.

You made want to consider having a second go at it.   But, if it's just Walt's supposed difficulties with geometry you're worried about, you might drop him a line before the 8th edition of his book goes to print.

10  Walt says something really stupid.

20  Walt can't possibly be that stupid.

30  Goto 10

This is the kind of loop Capt. Kirk would use to make some android/robot/giant computer explode.  Maybe everyone ought to stand back from FTK?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,20:22   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,17:59)
If you say you read all of it, then I'll just have to take your word for it I guess.  But, simple 10th grade geometry wouldn't be a problem for Walt...try reading his credentials again.

He alleged credentials don't affect the fact that what he produces is nonsense. Having degrees doesn't prevent a person from being nuts or lying.

It's also interesting that you completely ignore the credentials of thousands of real working scientists geologists, astronomers and biologists, yet somehow feel that Walt Browns engineering degrees make him more qualified than people who've spent their entire careers in those fields.

Double standard much FTK ?

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,20:25   

Like I said, Nerull, fine.  I have no interest in pushing creation science on our public schools, so this entire discussion is irrelevant.  I was merely giving you the opportunity to talk with Walt and correct him where need be.  No biggie.  Yes, I've read the entire book front to back, but it's been about a year since I've read through the section on asteroids other than skimming it now and then.  I know that you've not read his entire theory about asteroids due to your comments about the Oort cloud.

I just simply have no interest in discussing this stuff unless you want to actually address the issues with the man himself.  He's the one who should be answering your questions, not me.  If he's wrong, tell him.  Simple.

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

  
Jasper



Posts: 76
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,20:32   

Walt Brown asserts that the Oort cloud does not exist.

He used to say the same thing about the Kuiper belt, until it was directly observed.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,21:01   

(ported from the UD thread)
 
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,20:35)
 Well then I guess there's no point in addressing any of your posts Dave, because I believe I did answer your questions.  I think the problem is that you still don't understand that I agree with much of what evolution postulates.  You have this narrow vision of "Creationists" as some bizzarre religious cult that rejects science altogether.

Let's not talk about how you can read my mind again, shall we? I said nothing about creationists, I made no generalizations at all. I said that YOU personally have not addressed the questions that others have posed for YOU.

You also seem to think that merely writing words that skirt around the issues is an answer to questions. Let's explore that a bit more. You say that you agree with much of what evolution postulates. Yet you disagree with common descent, and advocate some undefined idea called common design. Further you say that common design and common descent are equal in their abilities to support solid scientific progress. I have offered evidence to the contrary. You have regurgitated your opinion. I have asked for evidence for that opinion. You have, for the past few days, posted dozens of comments, yet you ignore that request.

If you think that you have answered my question, you need to understand that you haven't come close. You argue that you need more time. Why? I can cite the evidence for my opinions quite quickly, because it is the basis for those opinions. If evidence is the basis for your opinion, you should be able to give me that evidence equally quickly. But you can't. In a day or so, if I keep bugging you, you might post something that gets nowhere near the goal of providing evidence, and then you will say that you "answered" my questions.  That's baloney.

What is the evidence that underlies your oft-stated and fervently-defended assertion that common descent and common design are both equally valid paradigms for supporting productive scientific research? The only evidence you have offered thus far is your personal incredulity - you can't see why common design isn't a good paradigm. That is not evidence, and certainly not on a par with the evidence I provided that contradicts your assertion.

Answer the question, succinctly and promptly for once, and I'll begin to think that you have something substantial underlying your opinions. Ignore it, or delay it, and you will only further confirm what we suspect. That YOU, not some general group, have no scientific basis for your opinions, and that YOU don't have a clue about scientific activities or argumentation. Even worse, it will confirm that you steadfastly refuse to learn.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,21:09   

No, FtK, you are wrong as usual.  Please flounce.

Walt's thesis is Published.  It's in print.  It's not about Walt, it's about his thesis

Walt's thesis is wrong, wrong, wrong.  It doesn't even survive simple geometry.  Please provide me with 66 million cubic miles of water, FtK.

You miss this point because, I can only assume, your dumb bunny brain comes to a point.  How difficult it must be to shop at Krogers with such a diminished capacity for thought.  It's beyond blonde.  Srsly.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,21:16   

Quote (Jasper @ July 11 2008,21:32)
Walt Brown asserts that the Oort cloud does not exist.

He used to say the same thing about the Kuiper belt, until it was directly observed.

In that case, I assume he has some other explanation for long period comets coming from every direction?

It doesn't matter if there is a huge cloud of them or a handful. The very fact that long period comets exist disproves it. A single long period comet would disprove it.

Also, we know the Oort cloud exists. We simply don't really know how large it is. All long period comets come from that region of space. We've even spotted a few objects in the inner Oort cloud from earth - Sedna looks like it might be part of the inner Oort cloud. Either that or a very extended Scattered Disk - something else that shouldn't exist. Sedna is another one of those objects with an orbital period longer than your universe as well.



Sedna will reach periapsis in 2075 or so. That means its on the way in. If it was blasted out there, it had to go out and come back. The Universe according to Walt Brown hasn't existed for long enough for that to happen either.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,21:31   

Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,22:16)
Quote (Jasper @ July 11 2008,21:32)
Walt Brown asserts that the Oort cloud does not exist.

He used to say the same thing about the Kuiper belt, until it was directly observed.

In that case, I assume he has some other explanation for long period comets coming from every direction?

It doesn't matter if there is a huge cloud of them or a handful. The very fact that long period comets exist disproves it. A single long period comet would disprove it.

Also, we know the Oort cloud exists. We simply don't really know how large it is. All long period comets come from that region of space. We've even spotted a few objects in the inner Oort cloud from earth - Sedna looks like it might be part of the inner Oort cloud. Either that or a very extended Scattered Disk - something else that shouldn't exist. Sedna is another one of those objects with an orbital period longer than your universe as well.

[img]
]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....mg]

Sedna will reach periapsis in 2075 or so. That means its on the way in. If it was blasted out there, it had to go out and come back. The Universe according to Walt Brown hasn't existed for long enough for that to happen either.

It's OK as long as you ignore the parts of reality that you don't like, Nerull.

...which in Walt's case appears to be "all of them"...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
jeffox



Posts: 533
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,23:14   

NEWSFLASH:  SUPER-SECRET PHOTOS OF THE TARD AND FAMOUS, STORY AT 11:00!!!!!

FTK:



Walt Brown:



Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski:



Denyse/Dennis O'Leary:



Davetard Springer:



STORY AT 11!!!

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,23:18   



Hrmph....

You'll all so mean to me!!!!

[Majestic hair flounce...]

I'm outta here...must get my beauty sleep.

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 533
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,02:00   

Speaking of crackers, anybody in here know the Latin phrase for "body of christ"?

My Webpage

Plankowner, and proud.

:)

  
jeffox



Posts: 533
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,02:05   

FTK wrote:

Quote
I'm outta here...must get my beauty sleep.


That should give us about 2 months of peace and quiet.   :)   :)   :)   :)   :)    :)    :)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,06:58   

(ported again from the UD thread)
 
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,22:11)
Thought not.

I won't bother to add that one to my sig...

It appears that your current strategy, when you have no logical or evidentiary responses, is to pretend that no one is listening to you and thus it is not worthwhile to continue the discussion. That may save you from further embarrassment, which usually ensues whenever you try to get out of the corners into which you paint yourself.

But it ignores the fact that subsequent comments by Bill, myself, and others actually DO address your latest pronouncements, as well as pointing out that you never really addressed some/all of the points made in previous discussion. It's not an either/or situation; you really need to ditch that addiction to the false dichotomy. So continued discussion is important if you really want to be seen as an honest participant here. Flouncing out with a "I guess it's not worth further discussion" is dishonest.

Thus we return to my latest point, so far unaddressed by you. You assert, and repeat, and defend with nothing but opinions so far, that common design and common descent are equal in their ability to support productive scientific research. I assert, and repeat, but support with historical and scientific evidence, that in an era where both of these paradigms did guide scientific research, common design proved inferior. Obviously you have no rebuttal of that. So if you bow out now, that's where it stands. You assent with your silence that common design is an inferior framework compared to common descent.

thanks for playing.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,07:10   

(Ported from UD thread)...

 
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,23:34)
You'll start acknowledging that I do address your points, or you'll not be getting any further responses from me.

Simple as that.

EvilPOSTer: Ftk, you're a disgrace to brain damage.

Ftk: Oh get off it, hon. Anyone that believes what you believe is a deluded, dishonest moron. Simple as that.

EvilPOSTer: You embody creobot ignorance. No, you give give blowjobs to creobot ignorance, then spit. Hence your last post.

Ftk: Why is this debate so polarized?? Why is everyone who disagrees with me so closet minded? And so mean?? So FUCK YOU, TWAT. But I'm only saying that to show how mean you are!

EvilPOSTer: Ftk, retarded fuckwit is your middle name. It's your first name. It's your maiden name. It's the descriptive portion of your hyphenated married name.

Ftk: Dickhead. TWAT. See I'm just showing you how it feels, asshole. Plus I have poison ivy on my...never mind. My kids are reading this.

EvilPOSTer: Little too much information, Ftk. And that would be a first. Whore.

Ftk: This place is a swamp!! You all think you're so smart, but just try to discuss science! Just try to be open to ideas and evidence! I listen to both sides of every coin. But you're all just INSANE. LOL.

Reciprocating Bill: I posted something substantive, here.

Ftk: I *shutter* to think of the poison you pour into the brains of our helpless youth. *Shutter.* And you call yourself a college professor.

EvilPOSTer: Hey, shit for brains, you'd drive nails into your head with a ball-peen hammer for Jesus before actually considering ideas and evidence.

Ftk: I'd sooner drive nails into my head then listen to you, luv...

EvilPOSTer: Here's the hammer. And these are 6-penny finishing nails.

Recipcrocating Bill: BTW, your post wasn't really responsive to my comment.

Ftk: Bill, how DARE you? You'll start acknowledging that I DO address your points, or you'll NOT be getting any further responses from me. So there.

EvilPOSTer: Want to get a room?

Ftk: Meet me at the usual. Bring protection.

EvilPOSTer: Think I want your disease?

Lcd: I really don't like how mean you all are to Ftk. Discuss the topics, not the person. After all, she's a married woman with children.



Edited by Lou FCD on July 12 2008,09:25

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,07:29   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 12 2008,07:10)
EvilPOSTer: Ftk, you're a disgrace to brain damage.

etc...

Bravo! This gets my vote for POTW!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,08:41   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,19:59)
...you might drop him a line before the 8th edition of his book goes to print.

Hot damn!  You mean he finally got rid of the first 7 copies he published?  <*snork*>

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,19:04   

Quote (csadams @ July 11 2008,16:54)
Ho-hum.

BTDT

Wow.

3 years later and FTK is still repeating the same tired crap. Still pedaling Walt Browns bullshit, still using the same excuses, still resorting to the OH POOR ME and OH TEH DARWINISTS SO MEAN and YOU HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE THING all the other same tired excuses. Still utterly blind to the fact that Brown is a total, obvious  fraud. Still ignorant of the fact Browns "science" is an incoherent string of straw men, quote mines and sheer lunacy.

I knew she had a pretty long history here and other evolution related blogs, but damn that's creotard extraordinaire.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,21:40   

Hey, FtK, I've got two questions for you.

1.  What's the boiling point of water in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in celsius?

2.  What's the freezing point of water in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in celsius?

Thanks

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2008,16:35   

1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?   NO

2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?  
No, I believe they would....that is why I was giving them the warning that someone may be listing personal information about me.


3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet?   I have not checked into that so I do not know.  I would assume that most do not.

4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC?   I believe I answered that on this page or the last page.  checking the previous 3 pages, there is no answer from Ftk as regards this question.  There are however, many complaints about having to answer questions and the ridiculous expectations of such. –blipey

5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books?   !!! This question is ridiculous.  Obviously, he wouldn't, and I'd have to ask Behe if he was every allowed to go through every book and article one by one and make two separate piles of what he had and had not read.  But, I tried desperately to explain in an earlier discussion that just because we have theories about how something *may have* occurred, that does not mean that all the questions have been answered nor should they be regarded as "fact". I’m counting this one as answered because of the first sentence “obviously, he wouldn’t”.  That being said, the commentary after that phrase proves that she’ll never be able to answer question 6.  perhaps this is why she stopped answering questions. –blipey

6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion?

7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop?

8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it?

9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science?

10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example?

11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE?

11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is?

12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks?

12A.  Added.  Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"?

13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID?

14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years?

15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published?

16. How?

17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction?

18. Yes or no: ID wouldn't benefit from publishing any articles, anywhere.

19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita?

20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008?

Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books.  Which begs several more questions I'll put here.  Why is reading material important?  Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them?  Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you?  Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go?  Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to?

21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?

22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference?

23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down?

25. What year was the Flood over? 2300 BC, answer provided for Ftk by blipey

26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire? 2030 BC, answer provided by blipey

27. What was the population of the world in that year? 30,000,000, answer provided by blipey

28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people?


29. Is Dembski a creationist?

30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage?

31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia?

32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea?  yes

33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police?

34. Are those same people Baptist?

35. What does this mean?

36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?

37. Do you think that gravity is “just a theory” and therefore should be “taught critically” (to use the ID phrase)?

38. If not, what makes the details we don’t know about gravity different from the details we don’t know about evolution?

39. Do you believe Common Descent = Common Design?

40. Do you believe that Macroevolution = (not observed so did not happen)?

41. Despite the documented evidence, do you believe that macroevolution is based solely on historical inference?

42. Can you define macroevolution (in your own words)?

43. What evidence would confirm this?

44. Did God just make it look like the horse evolved, but in fact tinkered with the design along the way?

45.  Is the horse the only thing that evolved, but everything else is designed?

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

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2008,16:41   

Ftk:
Quote
If you say you read all of it, then I'll just have to take your word for it I guess.  But, simple 10th grade geometry wouldn't be a problem for Walt...try reading his credentials again.


Then why did he get it wrong?  Or do you think his calculation was right?  How do you know this?  Is his being wrong about the amount of water needed a problem for Hydroplate Theory?  Why or why not?

I could just add these to the above list since you will completely fail to understand their relevance--as you completely miss the relevance of simple things like evidence.  You know, what it is, why it's important--the little stuff.

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

   
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2008,16:51   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,20:59)
If you say you read all of it, then I'll just have to take your word for it I guess.  But, simple 10th grade geometry wouldn't be a problem for Walt...try reading his credentials again.

Waltie's forgotten all he ever knew. Thermodynamics, physics, heat transfer, geometry ... the list goes on and on.

His writings proclaim him as an ignorant loon. No amount of credentials can save him from that.

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2008,16:55   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,21:25)
I just simply have no interest in discussing this stuff unless you want to actually address the issues with the man himself.  He's the one who should be answering your questions, not me.  If he's wrong, tell him.  Simple.

He's welcome here. And at KcfS. And at IIDB. And at TR. And at RD. And any of hundreds of science journals.

All places where he's scared stiff of showing up. He's a loon, but he's cunning enough to realize he can't cut the mustard except with those who've unquestioningly drunk the Kool-aid. He bugged out like a scared rabbit from KcfS and he'll never allow himself to be seen in a fair forum again.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8936
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2008,18:12   

Quote (blipey @ July 13 2008,17:35)

36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?

What did we figure up one time? That each ark passenger would have had 8 or 10 STD's apiece?

Edited by stevestory on July 13 2008,19:14

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

Pages: (341) < ... 282 283 284 285 286 [287] 288 289 290 291 292 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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