RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < ... 312 313 314 315 316 [317] 318 319 320 321 322 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,12:13   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 23 2008,09:13)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 23 2008,16:47)
If Humpty-Dumpty connotes "creation scientist" to mean "Walt Brown", no, I haven't had discussions with Walt Brown. Nor do I plan to.

The comment about having discussions with creation scientists was also completely irrelevant to the point I was making (yes, I do make points): modern creationists don't believe the same stuff that the early geologists did, and don't put their religious precommitments on the line like those early geologists did. Therefore, trying to use the early geologists as part of the class of people the modern creationists represent just doesn't work. It's a bad argument.

Yes, I've had discussions with creation scientists (meaning people who have advocated "creation science"), sometimes pretty lengthy and with a beer or two. That, though, doesn't make a speck of difference to the fact that Ritland's essay shows why Ftk is making a bad argument with the "early geologists did science 140+ years ago, so stop criticizing these guys who aren't doing anything like that today and who don't even believe the same things as those guys did".

[WHISPER]

Wes,

Erm, dude, I know you're, like, old and stuff, but, um, you're kind of, uh, you know, errr, repeating yourself.

[/WHISPER]

What do you mean that's not the reason?

{sound of dawning realisation}

OoooohhHHH!

Louis



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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,12:36   

Wes:  
Quote
The comment about having discussions with creation scientists was also completely irrelevant to the point I was making (yes, I do make points): modern creationists don't believe the same stuff that the early geologists did, and don't put their religious precommitments on the line like those early geologists did. Therefore, trying to use the early geologists as part of the class of people the modern creationists represent just doesn't work. It's a bad argument.


That's the problem with Wes; he's always sooooooo hard to follow.  Even reading this a second time, I have no clear idea what the hell he's trying to say.  But, I do know one thing:

I'll carefully considered both sides of the argument.  Whatever it is; I cant really be bothered to get into the details.

Atheist scumbags.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4502
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,12:41   

You forgot the [ftk] ... [/ftk] tags.

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

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,12:45   

This thread is the merry-go-round from Hell.

PAGING MR. BARKER. MR. BARKER, PLEASE PICK UP THE RED COURTESY PHONE.

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,12:57   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 23 2008,18:45)
This thread is the merry-go-round from Hell.

PAGING MR. BARKER. MR. BARKER, PLEASE PICK UP THE RED COURTESY PHONE.

I don't know what you mean. None of us have ever done any of this before.

{pauses}

NO! NONE OF US HAVE EVER DONE ANY OF THIS BEFORE!!

Capiche?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,13:19   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 23 2008,18:13)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 23 2008,09:13)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 23 2008,16:47)
If Humpty-Dumpty connotes "creation scientist" to mean "Walt Brown", no, I haven't had discussions with Walt Brown. Nor do I plan to.

The comment about having discussions with creation scientists was also completely irrelevant to the point I was making (yes, I do make points): modern creationists don't believe the same stuff that the early geologists did, and don't put their religious precommitments on the line like those early geologists did. Therefore, trying to use the early geologists as part of the class of people the modern creationists represent just doesn't work. It's a bad argument.

Yes, I've had discussions with creation scientists (meaning people who have advocated "creation science"), sometimes pretty lengthy and with a beer or two. That, though, doesn't make a speck of difference to the fact that Ritland's essay shows why Ftk is making a bad argument with the "early geologists did science 140+ years ago, so stop criticizing these guys who aren't doing anything like that today and who don't even believe the same things as those guys did".

[WHISPER]

Wes,

Erm, dude, I know you're, like, old and stuff, but, um, you're kind of, uh, you know, errr, repeating yourself.

[/WHISPER]

What do you mean that's not the reason?

{sound of dawning realisation}

OoooohhHHH!

Louis


Too complex for you?

Shall I use smaller words?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,14:05   

The Wilkins has a very informative post up that might be of interest. I'm not stating a position of course, just FYI.

Fallacies on Fallacies

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,18:34   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 23 2008,09:53)
Quote (JonF @ Sep. 23 2008,07:38)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 22 2008,22:16)
I never really paid much attention to Ftk (mostly 'cause she's been banned from the more respectable venues, methinks)

No, she just hasn't shown up at the venues many of us frequent. IIRC she's banned at KCFS, but that's about it.

I think PZ has tossed her in the Dungeon, too.

Whoops, guess I was wrong. Thanks for the correction.
















See how easy it is?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,18:36   

Now that that current round of Ftkdoodle has run its course, some thoughts.

First, I think Ftk formulates an interesting question that could provoke some interesting answers when she asks, rather desperately, "Right here, right now, I want you to tell me about your philosophical beliefs. How do you think this little molecule of life could have been responsible for everything we observe in nature today."

I haven't responded to this question myself largely because Ftk has lately elected to ignore my comments. However, such a response might be worth sharing, if not with Ftk in particular, then with others here, if there is interest. I'd expect considerable diversity in philosophical outlook. For example, Louis, in my view, goes a bridge too far when he states that belief plays no role in fixing his, well, beliefs. This suggests that science is akin to an automated fact machine that runs independently of, and produces products that stand apart from, human belief. I don't see it that way, and that might be worth exploring some time. I'd expect there are other differences of perspective to be found here on sane street.  

Second, I noted a subtle/clever bit of illogic on Ftk's part (although this may also have been accidental) in the same post: "If you believe that a bloggy spore can result in everything we observe in nature today, then I question your logic.  If you give me a reason to think your logic is in tact, then perhaps I'd venture out on the science issues with you."

Here she uses one's putatively unjustified confidence on abiogenesis to impeach reasoning on vastly more secure topics such as common descent. I swear, Ftk must ask to have her tires conflated when she gets an oil change - but I also found this to be a semi-interesting move. Assumptions regarding OOL certainly do fill a rather large void - although it does not follow (as Ftk fervently hopes) that other findings (common descent) are therefore less secure. I think here again she is pulling, legitimately (and perhaps again accidently), for those philosophical assumptions. For example, I certainly DO assume that OOL was a natural phenomenon and that science proceeding on the basis of methodological naturalism may succeed in articulating those ancient events. But I don't know that. And if I am wrong, then the world is a somewhat different place than I previously grasped.

Third, some dangling Ftkdoodlisms worth noting:

- Ftk never really responded to my challenge to her to describe how creation scientists operating from a framework of "common design" could possibly accomplish work comparable to that conducted by Johanne Haile-Selassie. Again, I take it that she has no real response.

- Tom Ames patiently asked Ftk to affirm or deny that he had provided examples of practical benefit of research into human origins. This after he articulated several careful responses to her repeated question. She failed to respond in any way.

- Ftk has openly and repeatedly declared that she simply cannot and will not accept common descent, one of the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory, regardless of any evidence presented. I take her at her word.

- Similarly, Ftk has openly and explicitly declared her disinterest in the scientific method, in a statement that is now carried forward in several signatures. We have it in her own words: she doesn't give a flying fuck how science works. (I, for one, WOULD like to see how a flying fuck works.) Again, I take her at her word. Perhaps this is why she can't perceive the courage of those "creationists" who, in the 18th and 19th century, believed their eyes rather than their indoctrination and understood the essential implications of their observations within geology. As Wesley has underscored, there is no identity between these scientists, and the cultural context in which they operated, and present day creationists within their manufactured context, who refuse to know things that we already know.

Ultimately, the combination of this "flying fuck" declaration, and that above vis common descent, explains the complete futility to date in engaging Ftk on these scientific questions. Her beliefs are fixed, and there is no likelihood that scientific reasoning is going to break them.

[edits for clarity]

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,19:04   

That Paul Nelson thing has me thinking she's a fraud. I can't help but think one has to deliberately try to misunderstand everything everybody says to her all the time. I'm starting to think she just wants a lot of attention and figured out how to act looney and stir people up.

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,19:28   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 23 2008,16:36)
(I, for one, WOULD like to see how a flying fuck works.)

Mile-High Club

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1011
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,19:39   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 23 2008,12:45)
This thread is the merry-go-round from Hell.

PAGING MR. BARKER. MR. BARKER, PLEASE PICK UP THE RED COURTESY PHONE.

Well, at least their not talking about Prince Charles' legs again...

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,20:44   

I, for one, give no credence at all to the possibility that Ftk formulated a subtle logical argument.  She has shown now grasp of logic or, indeed, of reading; I can't see how she would be capable of any sort of analytical thinking.

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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4363
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,21:21   

You know, I seem to recall WAY Back When, in the Dark Ages, must be oh, @ early 2007, maybe late 2006 or so,  when FTK first joined the board, when the same damn conversation came up.  

We were all hap, hap, happy to share our life stories and philosophies as we bonded with our New Best Friend FTK.  

But it didn't matter then, and it doesn't matter now.  Science does not care about how we feel or what our world views are.  It just is, and it's truth goes marching on.  Glory Glory Halle-effin-luja.  And FTK has her head.... up her in the sand... and is not listening, la, la, la.

And I don't think that she can blame this on Louis being mean, or Blipey acting like a clown.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2008,21:37   

Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 23 2008,22:21)
We were all hap, hap, happy to share our life stories and philosophies as we bonded with our New Best Friend FTK.  

But it didn't matter then, and it doesn't matter now.

I'm thinking it's an interesting starting point for a discussion among ourselves. And I think there is a core of legitimacy - say, emotional legitimacy - in the question "how can you believe that stuff" (e.g. evolutionary theory). I'm interested in the likely diversity of answers to that question.

There is a symmetry to that - sometimes I want to peel back an eyelid of my creationist siblings, check their pupils for reactivity and ask "how can you believe that ridiculous stuff?"

--------------
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: Sep. 24 2008,00:18   

Bill,

I am going to try extremely hard to respond to that line of shit you just posted whilst extending as much patience as I can possibly muster...and, believe me: IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO DO SO.

 
Quote
Ftk never really responded to my challenge to her to describe how creation scientists operating from a framework of "common design" could possibly accomplish work comparable to that conducted by Johanne Haile-Selassie. Again, I take it that she has no real response.


I’m still trying to figure out *why* it would be necessary from a design standpoint to try to locate a jawbone of a “transitional”.   I need to understand WHY scientists *must* adhere to the concept of molecule to man in order for science to thrive.  That is why I found Tom’s posts interesting.  

 
Quote
Tom Ames patiently asked Ftk to affirm or deny that he had provided examples of practical benefit of research into human origins. This after he articulated several careful responses to her repeated question. She failed to respond in any way.


Grrrrrr  [taking a very deep breath]  Bill.  I cannot “affirm or deny” anything until I look into the things he said more thoroughly.  I spent all day in here yesterday which put me way behind on the things I should have been getting done at work & with my family.  I acknowledged that what he wrote was very thought provoking and that I would consider it further.  Why I have to “affirm or deny” anything immediately is beyond me.  Chill out.

 
Quote
Ftk has openly and repeatedly declared that she simply cannot and will not accept common descent, one of the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory, regardless of any evidence presented. I take her at her word.


At present it is true that I cannot accept common descent because it seems completely illogical to me, and as yet I haven’t been provided with evidence that has convinced me that it’s possible for all of nature to have evolved in a purely naturalistic manner.  I don’t believe I have ever said that I *will not* accept common descent.  That would be a rather silly thing to say.  If I eventually run across evidence that makes it extremely clear that we evolved from a blob, I would certainly accept it.

 
Quote
- Similarly, Ftk has openly and explicitly declared her disinterest in the scientific method, in a statement that is now carried forward in several signatures. We have it in her own words: she doesn't give a flying fuck how science works.


You seem to have lost the quotations marks around “science works”...

 
Quote
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works".


....meaning that I find it unacceptable that we’ve allowed materialists to hijack science and insist that all of science much adhere to naturalistic explanations.  I also find it unacceptable that scientists hide behind their elitist peer review process.  They tell creationists that they must submit to peer review knowing that the grand majority of scientists in that process are materialists who reject the concept of design in nature from the get go.    

I then went on to tell him that if you folks want that 50% of the *general public* who believes in special creation to listen and learn from you, you’re going to have to gain their trust (which you currently do not have).  I went on to explain to Oleg that...

 
Quote
If you *really* want to do some convincing, you'll have to quit hiding behind your peer review process and your blackballing of anyone who doesn't bow to the status quo in regard to Darwinism.


*That* is how science currently “works”.  Every one of you hides behind the peer review process which rejects ID from the get go.  *Sternburg.*  We see it time and time again.  

Again, you’re going to have to gain the trust of the public...I explained that that will have to be done by participating in open debate *with creationists* about the science...not using the rhetorical nonsense that ID=religion.  I’ve talked to people after ID lectures who have been shocked that actual science was being discussed rather than religion.  From what they had heard in the past, they expected a priest to be talking about God rather than a scientist talking about the scientific aspects of IC, etc..  Here is a good example of what I mean.  NCSE actually agreed to a little on line debate with the Discovery Institute (unbelieveable but true).  The Discovery Institute writes primarily about *science*, and their opposition makes the standard attacks that ID is religion in disguise.  The DI posts endless notes and articles on every one of their posts while their opposition provides very little.  The DI offers rebuttals to every post the opposition offered, while the NCFS offers no rebutals to the DI articles at all.  You're all so sure that if you keep repeating the mantra that ID = religious nutcakes that's going to solve your problem and do away with ID.  WRONG.  You're going to eventually be forced to respectfully communicate with debate creationists or the public will view you as running scared.  The DI absolutely romped their opposition in that on-line debate.  

Also, Wes, along with everyone else I have ever talked to in these hard core Darwinist forums *refuses* to contact creationists like Walt Brown.  Now, truth be told I think you’re all a bunch of pussies due to the fact that you can’t confront one measly creationist.  You act as if it’s beneath you or that you don’t have the time to go back and forth with someone whom you believe has everything wrong.  YET, some of you seem to have hours upon hours to sit in this forum and banter with a 43 year old mother of 2 who is neither a scientist nor much of an intellect at all, for Gods sake.   Get off your high horses and start communicating respectfully with your opposition.

Science is no long a search for the truth about our origins, but rather a search for the best current materialist explanation.  Methodological naturalism was not always forced upon scientists, yet today materialists (who own “science” at the moment) deem it the *only* way to conduct science.

There is just no way that science, properly defined, *has* to be the best materialistic explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans.  Science should be the search for a true understanding of the cosmos based on empirical evidence, observation, hypothesis and empirical testing through experiment and observation. That means that we cannot impose a priori restrictions on the sort of explanations that we will allow -- that is censorship that hijacks science to a worldview or agenda!

 
Quote
Again, I take her at her word. Perhaps this is why she can't perceive the courage of those "creationists" who, in the 18th and 19th century, believed their eyes rather than their indoctrination and understood the essential implications of their observations within geology. As Wesley has underscored, there is no identity between these scientists, and the cultural context in which they operated, and present day creationists within their manufactured context, who refuse to know things that we already know.


My patience is waning at this point....Bill, don’t ever talk to me about indoctrination.  You materialists have your own forms of indoctrination.  You are no different than theists in this respect.  No one ““refuses” to know things that [evolutionists] already know“.  You want to tell me how to reverse engineer the evolutionary steps from humans back to their ancestral blob???  IDists are at least interested in considering another options other than the primordial goo story, and here’s why:  The grand majority of people in the world hold that logic tells us there is a higher power responsible for the grand design we observe in nature.  Even the most ardent materialist alive has stated over and over that design in in nature is overwhelmingly apparent...he merely “refuses to know things that *we* already know”.  I think that most of you here suffer from that same failure to *know*.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,00:50   

Ftk said:
Quote
I cannot “affirm or deny” anything until I look into the things he said more thoroughly.


So, I thought I'd take the time to remember way back, 300ish pages ago.  I realize that 18+ months is hardly time enough to form an opinion on whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 6 billion years old.  It would be too much to ask for a person to form an opinion in such a short period of time as 1 and 1/2 YEARS as to whether or not it is important to read a book before commenting on its veracity.

But, I thought it would be fun times to peer back in time:

Ftk's 3rd comment here:

Quote
My contributions to this forum will be sparse.  I find no reason to carry on sincere conversations with people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.


This is decidedly true.  Many comments, zero contributions.  Nice call, Ftk.

On page 4 of this thread (that's right—313 pages ago):

Quote
Oh, btw, yes, I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles.


These remain unnamed.  Is 18 months not enough ime to google an obscure paper to lie about?  Would you care to name any of them, Ftk?  We could discuss some science perhaps?  Maybe a topic discussed in the paper you name?

Also from page 4:

Quote
I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.


Speaking of facts, have you come up with one fact that is being taught in University biology classes which is, in fact, not a fact?  Or, failing that could you discuss in your own words what a fact is?

Your track record is brutal; it's quite amazing that you can remember to breathe without looking at a Post-It note.

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

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,00:59   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 23 2008,22:18)
The grand majority of people in the world hold that logic tells us there is a higher power responsible for the grand design we observe in nature.

The grand majority of people?

Please don't project your own provincial American fundie delusions on to most of the world's 4+ billion people. Mercifully, most people in the world DON'T think like you. So don't give us some line of shit about how YOUR ideas are somehow 'what the grand majority of people' think.

Do you have any particular reason why YOUR religious preconceptions are so desperately needed to 'rescue science'? Why yours? Why not those of a liberal Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Wiccan? Or an agnostic? Why are YOUR religious beliefs so privileged?

And of course, since you don't care how science works, why should science give a fuck what you think?

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

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,00:59   

Quote
Also, Wes, along with everyone else I have ever talked to in these hard core Darwinist forums *refuses* to contact creationists like Walt Brown.  Now, truth be told I think you’re all a bunch of pussies due to the fact that you can’t confront one measly creationist.  You act as if it’s beneath you or that you don’t have the time to go back and forth with someone whom you believe has everything wrong.  YET, some of you seem to have hours upon hours to sit in this forum and banter with a 43 year old mother of 2 who is neither a scientist nor much of an intellect at all, for Gods sake.   Get off your high horses and start communicating respectfully with your opposition.


And the train falls off the tracks.
You were on the page. You should know better than to lie.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8939
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,01:19   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 24 2008,01:50)
Ftk said:
Quote
My contributions to this forum will be sparse.

Sometime approximately 40 days ago she passed afdave to be the number 1 all time creationist commenter here, in terms of volume.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,02:46   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 24 2008,00:36)
Now that that current round of Ftkdoodle has run its course, some thoughts.

First, I think Ftk formulates an interesting question that could provoke some interesting answers when she asks, rather desperately, "Right here, right now, I want you to tell me about your philosophical beliefs. How do you think this little molecule of life could have been responsible for everything we observe in nature today."

I haven't responded to this question myself largely because Ftk has lately elected to ignore my comments. However, such a response might be worth sharing, if not with Ftk in particular, then with others here, if there is interest. I'd expect considerable diversity in philosophical outlook. For example, Louis, in my view, goes a bridge too far when he states that belief plays no role in fixing his, well, beliefs. This suggests that science is akin to an automated fact machine that runs independently of, and produces products that stand apart from, human belief. I don't see it that way, and that might be worth exploring some time. I'd expect there are other differences of perspective to be found here on sane street.  

Second, I noted a subtle/clever bit of illogic on Ftk's part (although this may also have been accidental) in the same post: "If you believe that a bloggy spore can result in everything we observe in nature today, then I question your logic.  If you give me a reason to think your logic is in tact, then perhaps I'd venture out on the science issues with you."

Here she uses one's putatively unjustified confidence on abiogenesis to impeach reasoning on vastly more secure topics such as common descent. I swear, Ftk must ask to have her tires conflated when she gets an oil change - but I also found this to be a semi-interesting move. Assumptions regarding OOL certainly do fill a rather large void - although it does not follow (as Ftk fervently hopes) that other findings (common descent) are therefore less secure. I think here again she is pulling, legitimately (and perhaps again accidently), for those philosophical assumptions. For example, I certainly DO assume that OOL was a natural phenomenon and that science proceeding on the basis of methodological naturalism may succeed in articulating those ancient events. But I don't know that. And if I am wrong, then the world is a somewhat different place than I previously grasped.

Third, some dangling Ftkdoodlisms worth noting:

- Ftk never really responded to my challenge to her to describe how creation scientists operating from a framework of "common design" could possibly accomplish work comparable to that conducted by Johanne Haile-Selassie. Again, I take it that she has no real response.

- Tom Ames patiently asked Ftk to affirm or deny that he had provided examples of practical benefit of research into human origins. This after he articulated several careful responses to her repeated question. She failed to respond in any way.

- Ftk has openly and repeatedly declared that she simply cannot and will not accept common descent, one of the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory, regardless of any evidence presented. I take her at her word.

- Similarly, Ftk has openly and explicitly declared her disinterest in the scientific method, in a statement that is now carried forward in several signatures. We have it in her own words: she doesn't give a flying fuck how science works. (I, for one, WOULD like to see how a flying fuck works.) Again, I take her at her word. Perhaps this is why she can't perceive the courage of those "creationists" who, in the 18th and 19th century, believed their eyes rather than their indoctrination and understood the essential implications of their observations within geology. As Wesley has underscored, there is no identity between these scientists, and the cultural context in which they operated, and present day creationists within their manufactured context, who refuse to know things that we already know.

Ultimately, the combination of this "flying fuck" declaration, and that above vis common descent, explains the complete futility to date in engaging Ftk on these scientific questions. Her beliefs are fixed, and there is no likelihood that scientific reasoning is going to break them.

[edits for clarity]

I'm extremely interested. I'm always up for an opportunity to learn something new. Let's have at it!

Separate thread? What do you want to call it?*

Could I ask one tiny favour, please? I think a lot of this will hinge on various definitions of words like "belief", so if we could get a series of (perhaps personal) definitions out of the way first, I think it would seriously help us out. It might be a bit dull, but I reckon that once we know what tools we are working with, the conversation will be several orders of magnitude more productive. Sound fair?

Louis

ETA: * Bill and Louis' Existential Adventure?

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,02:50   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 24 2008,01:04)
That Paul Nelson thing has me thinking she's a fraud. I can't help but think one has to deliberately try to misunderstand everything everybody says to her all the time. I'm starting to think she just wants a lot of attention and figured out how to act looney and stir people up.

I think that's been obvious from the start.

That doesn't mean participation isn't sometimes fun for others too though.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,02:53   

FtK,

Given our earlier exchange, I'm curious: do you accept that humans and other great apes share (or could conceivably share) a common ancestor?

Because if you don't, all that explaining I did about segmental duplication would have made zero sense to you. The technical details I tried (unsuccessfully, I fear) to convey really have no meaning outside of the context of a phylogenetic tree.

If you're still working on digesting the details, I'd suggest in that case that it might not be worth pursuing.

ETA: The question is a sincere one, and not meant to put you on the spot.

Edited by Tom Ames on Sep. 24 2008,00:55

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,02:59   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,00:18)
Every one of you hides behind the peer review process which rejects ID from the get go.

   
Quote
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)


http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

   
Quote
Editors's Note: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don't publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists "aren't published because they don't have scientific data."

Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals -- as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books -- including Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, Newton's Principia, and Darwin's Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.

We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design.  


So FTK, it appears you are dead wrong on that. Try again. It also appears that your view and the discovery institutes view differs somewhat on the issue. And after all, they should know right?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,05:54   

FTK:    
Quote
You're right, oldman.  I am pro-choice.  I don't think I've ever said I wasn't.


FTK:    
Quote
infanticide could only be supported by someone who has ice blowing through their veins


Have you announced on your blog and to your family that you are pro-choice FTK?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,06:19   

I didn't get any further than this, which is not only wrong, but also indicates that she really never assimilates anything here if it doesn't mesh with her misconceptions.
 
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,00:18)
.....I need to understand WHY scientists *must* adhere to the concept of molecule to man in order for science to thrive....

Here's a quick answer for you to ignore again, FtK. You're off the hook; you don't need  to understand that. It's simply not true.

Does getting that strawman out of the way help you see the light better?

--------------
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: Sep. 24 2008,06:48   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,01:18)
Bill,

I am going to try extremely hard to respond to that line of shit you just posted whilst extending as much patience as I can possibly muster...and, believe me: IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO DO SO.

Ftk, you skipped the interesting parts of my post. That figures.
 
Quote
I’m still trying to figure out *why* it would be necessary from a design standpoint to try to locate a jawbone of a “transitional”.   I need to understand WHY scientists *must* adhere to the concept of molecule to man in order for science to thrive.  That is why I found Tom’s posts interesting.

IOW, no response - because you don't have one. My statement was accurate.
 
Quote
Grrrrrr  [taking a very deep breath]  Bill.  I cannot “affirm or deny” anything until I look into the things he said more thoroughly.  I spent all day in here yesterday which put me way behind on the things I should have been getting done at work & with my family.  I acknowledged that what he wrote was very thought provoking and that I would consider it further.  Why I have to “affirm or deny” anything immediately is beyond me.  Chill out.

IOW, no response affirming or denying his example. So my post was accurate.
 
Quote
At present it is true that I cannot accept common descent because it seems completely illogical to me, and as yet I haven’t been provided with evidence that has convinced me that it’s possible for all of nature to have evolved in a purely naturalistic manner.

When I hae a free moment I'll gather all your statements to this effect in one place, where they will speak for themselves. And for you.
 
Quote
You seem to have lost the quotations marks around “science works”...

Because they don't change the meaning of your statement.

In the balance of  your post you are describing public relations, not science.
 
Quote
Science should be the search for a true understanding of the cosmos based on empirical evidence, observation, hypothesis and empirical testing through experiment and observation. That means that we cannot impose a priori restrictions on the sort of explanations that we will allow...

You just did. It restricts scientific investigation to phenomena that are amenable to testing through experiment and observation. So out goes ID.

Gotta run...

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4502
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,07:04   

Ftk:

Quote

Also, Wes, along with everyone else I have ever talked to in these hard core Darwinist forums *refuses* to contact creationists like Walt Brown.  Now, truth be told I think you’re all a bunch of pussies due to the fact that you can’t confront one measly creationist.  You act as if it’s beneath you or that you don’t have the time to go back and forth with someone whom you believe has everything wrong.  YET, some of you seem to have hours upon hours to sit in this forum and banter with a 43 year old mother of 2 who is neither a scientist nor much of an intellect at all, for Gods sake.   Get off your high horses and start communicating respectfully with your opposition.


Weird. I have communicated with the "opposition". I've presented at conferences, been in debates, appeared on stage with antievolutionists, written peer-reviewed papers, and contributed book chapters on the subject. Plus the various conversations that don't have a public record of having happened.

I've concentrated on William Dembski's work. Back in 1997, it seemed to me that Dembski was making the most interesting errors of the available antievolutionists, so that's what I spent my time on. Walt Brown's errors are not interesting, at least not to me, so I don't have any particular reason for interacting with him.

You present yourself on a discussion forum that I provide and pay for. It's not as if I went looking for you.

Again:

If Humpty-Dumpty connotes "creation scientist" to mean "Walt Brown", no, I haven't had discussions with Walt Brown. Nor do I plan to.

The comment about having discussions with creation scientists was also completely irrelevant to the point I was making (yes, I do make points): modern creationists don't believe the same stuff that the early geologists did, and don't put their religious precommitments on the line like those early geologists did. Therefore, trying to use the early geologists as part of the class of people the modern creationists represent just doesn't work. It's a bad argument.

Yes, I've had discussions with creation scientists (meaning people who have advocated "creation science"), sometimes pretty lengthy and with a beer or two. That, though, doesn't make a speck of difference to the fact that Ritland's essay shows why Ftk is making a bad argument with the "early geologists did science 140+ years ago, so stop criticizing these guys who aren't doing anything like that today and who don't even believe the same things as those guys did".

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4502
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,07:08   

I should have noted as well that I at least know who the antievolutionists are and have read a whole bunch of the antievolution literature, things that Ftk apparently can't say of herself.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4502
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,07:16   

Ftk:

Quote

Get off your high horses and start communicating respectfully with your opposition.


Earlier Ftk:

Quote

Screw you Wes.


I'm looking for a word, nine letters, starts with "h" and ends with "e".

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

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

Pages: (341) < ... 312 313 314 315 316 [317] 318 319 320 321 322 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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