RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 209 210 211 212 213 [214] 215 216 217 218 219 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Bebbo



Posts: 161
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,07:46   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,14:03)
For months I've thought the dumbest guy over there was Joseph.

My vote is for Mats.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,14:43   

Quote
[Updated 9.10.06] I don\’t know what I was thinking. He\’s back if he\’ll have us.

–WmAD

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,16:28   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Sep. 10 2006,19:43)
Quote
[Updated 9.10.06] I don\’t know what I was thinking. He\’s back if he\’ll have us.

–WmAD

Wow! I guess he must have backed down due to the bad publicity.

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

  
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,18:23   

DaveTard wrote:

Quote

Fross

An ID research programs is not eligible for public funding and could not be discussed in a public school. So where is the funding supposed to come from when any taxpayer derived is verboten and how is interest in it going to be sparked in budding young scientists when it’s illegal to mention it in public schools?

ID as a legitimate area of scientific interest has been crippled by the political/legal chicanery of its opponents. Winning the legal right of equal access to money and minds must be accomplished.

Comment by DaveScot — September 10, 2006 @ 7:55 am



Huh.

I'm guessing he's referring to the KvD decision? I had no idea the federal court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania was so influential as to make public funding for an ID research program illegal, at any time anywhere.  And this merely by finding against ID in a lawsuit prompted by a singularly clueless policy enacted by an equally clueless school board.

I can only assume that this region of Pennsylvania was the epicenter of some truly groundbreaking ID, um, research.  This was undoubtedly research that was cruelly and wantonly snuffed in its infancy from lack of funding, due solely to an activist judge who turned out to be a latent toady for the elitist clique of scientists demanding testable hypotheses, predictions of phenomena resulting from those hypotheses and supportive or falsifying evidence garnered as the results of testing.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,18:36   

Quote
An ID research program is not eligible for public funding and could not be discussed in a public school. So where is the funding supposed to come from when any taxpayer derived is verboten and how is interest in it going to be sparked in budding young scientists when it’s illegal to mention it in public schools?


Howard Ahamanson and the Discovery Institute. Already happened. Remember?

And what about the private sector? If ID has such massive implications, shouldn't there be some private corporations not riddled with liberal atheists who'd just be ITCHING to fund it?

"Oh yes, we'd have all this research going now, and all these testable hypotheses except for all those mean godless liberals who are repressing us, and taking away our money, it's just not fair! Because of those meanies we have to content ourselves with press releases and Christian apologetics websites and Ann Coulter books!" Oh boo fucking hoo.

Another amusing question to ponder is, if ID 'researchers' actually did get some huge grant, what would they DO with it? No, seriously, what would they do with it? Honestly, I think they'd hire a bunch of flunkies with theology degrees, hire a PR firm, and then have absolutely no idea how to proceed.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,19:07   

Will someone who is not banned at UD remind those IDiots that the John Templeton Foundation still has had no one apply for its millions of dollars in annual science-related grants for intelligent-design research?

Quote
Cambridge Templeton Consortium: The Emergence of Biological Complexity

The John Templeton Foundation has made up to $3 million available for research grants to stimulate and sponsor new research insights directly pertinent to the 'great debate' over purpose in the context of the emergence of increasing biological complexity. Areas of research supported include:

1. Chemistry, "fine tuning" in biocentricity, emergent order and the origin and existence of life
2. Evolution directionality and convergence
3. Archeological and anthropological research in human evolution and the origins and early developments of purpose-seeking and spirituality or religiosity

The focus is primarily on innovative scientific and systematic research, but projects with strong philosophical or theological components are also encouraged.  Grant proposals from all sides of this 'debate' are welcomed.


--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,19:34   

OA:

Someone with the delightful name of cjok raised this point:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1576#comment-59899

DaveScot hasn't replied.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,19:53   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 11 2006,00:07)
Will someone who is not banned at UD remind those IDiots that the John Templeton Foundation still has had no one apply for its millions of dollars in annual science-related grants for intelligent-design research?

 
Quote
Cambridge Templeton Consortium: The Emergence of Biological Complexity

The John Templeton Foundation has made up to $3 million available for research grants to stimulate and sponsor new research insights directly pertinent to the 'great debate' over purpose in the context of the emergence of increasing biological complexity. Areas of research supported include:

1. Chemistry, "fine tuning" in biocentricity, emergent order and the origin and existence of life
2. Evolution directionality and convergence
3. Archeological and anthropological research in human evolution and the origins and early developments of purpose-seeking and spirituality or religiosity

The focus is primarily on innovative scientific and systematic research, but projects with strong philosophical or theological components are also encouraged.  Grant proposals from all sides of this 'debate' are welcomed.

They spent it on publishers for their books...

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,03:45   

Quote (Bebbo @ Sep. 10 2006,13:46)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,14:03)
For months I've thought the dumbest guy over there was Joseph.

My vote is for Mats.

I'm sticking with Jerry:

Quote
I think most of us are aware of the biological possibility that some strain of something like e-coli could kill every other life form on the planet and this would theoretically be within the theory of evolution.


--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,04:04   

A typical weekend in the whirlwind romance of JAD and Le Tard, taken from the thread entitled "John Davison, Are You Listening?":
Quote
I’m listening but I won’t participate until my several papers are restored to the side board. I hope Uncmmon Descent can understand my position.

Comment by John A. Davison — September 8, 2006 @ 9:17 am

Quote
In regard to Dr. Davison’s papers on the sideboard, if someone else wants to gather them together and reformat for html...I’ll put them back on the sideboard...

Before I do this I need a promise from Doctor Davison that he’ll remain civil with everyone here including me, he’ll respect the beliefs of even the most profoundly religious members here, he’ll strictly avoid writing anything obscene or suggestive of something obscene (sex, bodily fluids, etcetera), and will otherwise not use language inappropriate for young ears. Bill, Denyse, and I all agree that we want a G-rated blog suitable for all audiences. No exceptions.

I realize that I am guilty of breaking these rules in the past, especially in regard to respecting the beliefs of others, and for that I offer my humble apology. It was wrong of me.

Comment by DaveScot — September 8, 2006 @ 10:58 am

Quote
I will promise nothing to David Sprnger or anyone else [remainder deleted, presumably by Sgt. Tard].

Comment by John A. Davison — September 8, 2006 @ 12:03 pm

Quote
Have it your way, John. Your papers will not be restored and you\’re back to having all your comments requiring approval by an editor before seeing the light of day.

Comment by DaveScot — September 8, 2006 @ 12:36 pm

Quote
I am not only listening, I am trying to respond to those who question my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I guess Uncommon Descent doesn’t need any help from the author of the PEH and the subject of this thread.

Comment by John A. Davison — September 9, 2006 @ 5:05 pm

Quote
Sorry about that, John. Your comments were stuck in moderation.

Comment by Patrick — September 9, 2006 @ 8:34 pm

Quote

That’s fine. Just don’t let it happen again. What of course is unknown is what would have been done had I not complained both here and elsewhere, notably at “brainstorms.” And where is my other comment or is it comments. I can’t remember? They were far more significant than these. I am old you know and my short term memory is not what it used to be. What I do remenber is something my mother once told me. John, she said, it is only the squeeky wheel that gets the grease. Apparently this is an example of my mothers wisdom. Thank you mom!

Oh I remember now. It was the one where I accused the Darwinians of being so weak minded as to believe that population genetics ever had anything whatsoever to do with creative evolution. See if you can’t cough that one up. As I recall it was one of my better efforts.

If I can’t be treated as a peer here at Uncommon Descent I would prefer that you deny me the opportunity to submit messages. I don’t care to be treated as a second class citizen anywhere, anytime or anyplace and I am likely to make that widely known whenever and wherever it occurs, as I just did.

Comment by John A. Davison — September 9, 2006 @ 9:51 pm

Quote
Okay, much as I hate to ever have to say this, I now give my solemn promise in advance that will never make any lewd or vulgar remarks here at Uncommon Descent and humbly beg the blogczar to be granted the same priveleges as other contributors have here. If this is not sufficient, please have the common decency to outright ban me from wasting my time posting messages that may never appear.

Maybe you could do what they did over at Panda’s Thumb. No matter where I said it, it immediately appeared on “The Bathroom Wall.” Or perhaps you could do what they did at EvC where it was “Boot Camp.” Heck, I will take whatever I can get. It is a cruel world out there don’t you know. But seriously, it is no fun for a published scientist to be treated as a second class citizen anywhere. I am sure you can understand.

“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison

Comment by John A. Davison — September 9, 2006 @ 10:40 pm

Quote
If I promise to continue to be good boy (79 next June), do you suppose my papers might be restored? If they were it would make it much easier to respond to many of the questions that I have provoked. The answers would be a touch of the mouse away don’t you know. I just realized that I have not kept my word when I promised that I would not participate until they were. I guess my word isn’t worth a nickel is it? Oh well, that is just old senile John again. He can’t remember anything any more.

I know I am senile because I get the senile citizen’s discount (10%) every Tuesday at Ben Franklins, one of the few virtues of getting old. They used to have it at KMart but it stopped when Martha Stewart went into stir.

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. davison

Comment by John A. Davison — September 10, 2006 @ 1:55 pm

Quote
John, the self deprecation is unbecoming. Won’t you just please be the professional scientist with the great ideas about organic evolution that we all know you can be when you want to be? The scientist with your name writing on brainstorms, for instance, before I came along to set you off. That’s the guy we’re looking for here. If I beg, will you please be the same here? I’m begging!

Comment by DaveScot — September 10, 2006 @ 5:43 pm

Quote
John, check the sidebar and your email.

Comment by DaveScot — September 10, 2006 @ 7:18 pm

Quote
DaveScot

I am behaving and you known it. It is very true as you just admitted that you “set me off.” You sure have, big time and many times. That is a matter of record. I recommend that should be put in the past. What says DaveScot?

Comment by John A. Davison — September 11, 2006 @ 3:30 am

Quote
Doctor Davison

It’s all water under the bridge. Let’s focus on our common belief that chance never had anything significant to do with organic evolution.

Comment by DaveScot — September 11, 2006 @ 4:31 am

Quote
Let’s do just that. Set them up in the other alley. So far I am bowling a perfect game!

Who is next?

I love it so!

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. davison

Comment by John A. Davison — September 11, 2006 @ 7:03 am

Bravo.  A true pas de deux des tards.

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

  
Bebbo



Posts: 161
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,04:33   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 11 2006,08:45)
Quote (Bebbo @ Sep. 10 2006,13:46)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,14:03)
For months I've thought the dumbest guy over there was Joseph.

My vote is for Mats.

I'm sticking with Jerry:

Quote
I think most of us are aware of the biological possibility that some strain of something like e-coli could kill every other life form on the planet and this would theoretically be within the theory of evolution.

It's a close contest. Here's one of Mats's latest:

"Sure they are [claims that God acts in nature are not testable], and Alvin Platinga gave an example. If someone were to say ‘God created 3 meters rabbits in Iceland, is this testable? Yes, go to ICeland, and check it. Is it falsifiable? Yes."

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,05:13   

I guess he'd expect to see a guy with a long white beard with his hand stuck in a tophat.

Oh, hang on.  Rowan Atkinson use to do a sketch about that.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,05:18   

Plantinga spent years trying to philosophically prove that 'god exists' was something that can be assumed a priori, and therefore didn't have to be proven.

Reminds me of a certain Freddy Fender song....

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,07:39   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 11 2006,09:04)
Bravo.  A true pas de deux des tards.

How touching... *sob*  :(

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4821
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,07:41   

Quote

Sure they are [claims that God acts in nature are not testable], and Alvin Platinga gave an example. If someone were to say ‘God created 3 meters rabbits in Iceland, is this testable? Yes, go to ICeland, and check it. Is it falsifiable? Yes."


Really? Plantinga? I thought he was supposed to be above the general philosophical dunderheadedness of ID advocates. Certainly, a number of ID advocates have already shown a remarkable inability to take Karl Popper's simple point about falsifiability, that it is about what must be true if a theory or hypothesis is true. That's only available to universal statements; existential statements like, "There exist 3 meter long rabbits in Iceland" need not apply.

Got an exact citation in Plantinga for that?

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

    
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,07:55   

Plantinga:
Quote
First, he said that ID is not science by virtue of its “invoking and permitting supernatural causation.” Second, and connected with the first, he said that ID isn’t science because the claims IDers make are not testable — that is verifiable or falsifiable. The connection between the two is the assertion, on the part of the judge and many others, that propositions about supernatural beings — that life has been designed by a supernatural being — are not verifiable or falsifiable.

Let’s take a look at this claim. Of course it has proven monumentally difficult to give a decent definition or analysis of verification or falsification. Here the harrowing vicissitudes of attempts in the 50s and 60s to give a precise statement of the verifiability criterion are instructive. But taking these notions in a rough-and-ready way we can easily see that propositions about supernatural beings not being verifiable or falsifiable isn’t true at all.

For example, the statement “God has designed 800-pound rabbits that live in Cleveland” is clearly testable, clearly falsifiable and indeed clearly false. Testability can’t be taken as a criterion for distinguishing scientific from nonscientific statements. That is because in the typical case individual statements are not verifiable or falsifiable.


http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2690.htm

If you ask me, Plantinga's a Foundationalist, and the distinction between Science and Pseudoscience is a Coherentist one.

(But I am not a Philosopher)

   
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,08:25   

Newsflash! BarryA says that Dembski's buddy Ann Coulter "has a profound lack of understanding" of christianity.

Quote

Russ is certainly correct. Anyone who suggests that Christian doctrine supports environmental irresponsibility has a profound lack of understanding of the doctrine they purport to be explicating.

Comment by BarryA — September 11, 2006 @ 1:09 pm

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1590#comment-60210


Quote
Ann Coulter: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.
Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn: Oh, OK.
Coulter: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.
Fenn: This is a great idea.
Coulter: God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."
Fenn: Terrific. We're Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth's resources...
Coulter: Yes! Yes.
Fenn: ... as fast as we possibly can.
Coulter: As opposed to living like the Indians.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Quotes/Ann_Coulter



I have enjoyed no other rhetorical tactic, as much as I have enjoyed the Juxtaposed Quote.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,11:14   

I must be missing where there is something that Coulter doesn't have a profound lack of understanding of?

Oh, wait, that's right, she knows how to write ridiculous drivel and make lots of money doing it.

To be consistent, the only thing she actually should write a book about is something on the order of:

"The Idiot's Guide to Writing Books that Appeal to Idiots".

as a side note, I've certainly met a lot of "armaggedonists" (the correct term escapes me) that have clearly expressed how their views on the certain and near coming of the end times dicatates that they should have no need to care for the environment.

This is simple fact.  I'm sure they would claim that Barry is no true scottsman.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,11:51   

Quote
On September 29, 2006 at 7PM, the debate about Darwinian Evolution continues as well known speakers on the topic  attempt to further ‘resolve the conflict.’  This event will occur at the University of Southern Florida (USF) Sun Dome.  Get your tickets now!!

Featured speakers include Dr. Michael Behe - Biologist and author of “Darwin’s Black Box” - and Dr. Jonathon Wells - Biochemist and author of “Icons Of Evolution.”  Both are experts on the current debate regarding Darwinian Evolution and the Intelligent Design Movement.

How do you resolve a conflict by bringing only one side to the table?

Conflict resolution involves letting both sides present their case in a neutral forum before a neutral third-party arbiter.  That's how Tammy Kitzmiller did it, and the conflict was resolved very nicely.

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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,13:39   

BarryA threatens to bury his head in the sand
Quote
Carlos writes: “I wanted a term that would capture what makes human culture different from chimp culture.”

If we use any meaningful definition of the word “culture,” chimps don’t have a culture. Don’t bother providing counter arguments. I don’t argue for the obvious. I just point it out from time to time.

Comment by BarryA — September 11, 2006 @ 4:10 pm

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1590#comments

I must admit, that's a tactic I've never seen before.  I wonder if he uses it in court.

BarryA:  There is no separation between church and state, your honor.  We won't bother with the plaintiffs' counter arguments.  I don't argue for the obvious.

Judge:  Um, I'll be the judge of that.  That's why they call me Judge.

BarryA:  You just wait till I get back to Uncommon Descent where I get to be Judge!

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,13:50   

Do you think the Tardtopians read this thread and grimace?

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,14:00   

Quote
Do you think the Tardtopians read this thread and grimace?


do you?

based on the substance of their posts, I rather think they just lump it all in some sort of... Black... Box...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,14:25   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 11 2006,20:00)
Quote
Do you think the Tardtopians read this thread and grimace?


do you?

based on the substance of their posts, I rather think they just lump it all in some sort of... Black... Box...

I have actually been worried in the past that they'd use this thread to learn from their mistakes.

Reality does not seem to bear that out, however.

They have little room to maneuver, though. A commitment to ID is a commitment to make some kind of erroneous argument. The question is merely, will it be a kindergarten-level error (Joseph), a jr. high-level error (Davetard), a high-school statistics-level error (Dembski, Heddle), or a college senior philosophy-level error (Plantinga).

On the other hand, DougMoron hasn't posted anything since July 25, so who knows. Maybe some people can be humiliated into quitting. Not bloody likely.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,16:10   

If you accept what scientists say about science, you're just a dumb conformist, Denyse O'Leary tells us.

bonus tardity: the 'An anonymous scientist privately confirms the persecution' nonsense. Who does she think she is, Paul Nelson*?

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

* is it Nelson that usually makes that claim? I can't remember.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,16:28   

Uncommonly Dense often leaves me in this quantum superposition state, a Clebsch-Gordon combination of the [stunned> vector and the [unstunned> vector.

Joel:

Quote
We deserve evil – This is a harsh statement, one that people do not want to think about, but it does ring as true. A working definition of evil is that which is a consequence of disobeying God, thus, evil is merely what we have brought upon ourselves. We deserve what we are given.

How does this work with a child dying of AIDS? How does this work with a family starving? Do they deserve such things? No, they do not deserve it, however it has occurred and we must deal with these things in the world because somewhere down the line, someone sinned. The child has AIDS because someone sinned at some point which then gave AIDS to this child. The family is starving because at some point, someone sinned.


(http://www.stoplyingtous.com/2006/why-does-god-allow-evil/#more-53)


"I agree with Joel. They deserved it!"

   
Fross



Posts: 71
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,16:59   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2006,21:10)
If you accept what scientists say about science, you're just a dumb conformist, Denyse O'Leary tells us.

bonus tardity: the 'An anonymous scientist privately confirms the persecution' nonsense. Who does she think she is, Paul Nelson*?

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

* is it Nelson that usually makes that claim? I can't remember.

I actually have an entire family of I.D. "scientists" hiding out/living in my attic.  One of them is writing a diary as we speak.

--------------
"For everything else, there's Mastertard"

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,17:08   

Joeltard:

Quote
Evil allows for God’s grace – Sometimes evil occurs so we can understand and experience God’s grace. Imagine being out in the bitter cold and then dipping into a warm bath. We appreciate the warmth of the bath because we have been surrounded by cold. If we had been in a comfortable spring day then the warm bath would mean nothing to us and we would take it for granted


Joel, beat yourself with a stick, so that you can appreciate not being beaten with a stick later. ???

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,17:14   

Joel's comments are shockingly close to some very offensive South Park banter from a while back:

Quote
Stan : "Why would God let Kenny die, Chef? Why? Kenny's my friend. Why can't God take someone else's friend?"
Chef : "Stan, sometimes God takes those closest to us, because it makes him feel better about himself. He is a very vengeful God, Stan. He's all pissed off about something we did thousands of years ago. He just can't get over it, so he doesn't care who he takes. Children, puppies, it don't matter to him, so long as it makes us sad. Do you understand?"
Stan : "But then, why does God give us anything to start with?"
Chef : "Well, look at it this way: if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away. If you never give it a lollipop to begin with, then you would have nothin' to cry about. That's like God, who gives us life and love and help just so that he can tear it all away and make us cry, so he can drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, it's our tears, Stan, that give God his great power."
Stan : "I think I understand."

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,17:27   

Quote
Joel, beat yourself with a stick, so that you can appreciate not being beaten with a stick later.  


two words:

corporal mortification

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1746
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,17:27   

At http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1567#comments
, John Davison gripes:  
Quote

While you are at it, explain why the Darwinians never bothered to test Darwin’s finches for hybrid sterility, which is the only reliable criterion for true speciation. After all, finches are among the easiest birds to demesticate. The canary is a finch!


That would presumably be other than David Lack’s largely unsuccessful attempts to hybridize finches from different islands in 1937    
Quote
Ornithologist David Lack visited the islands in 1937 and stayed through one breeding season. He built cages and tried to encourage the thirteen 'species' to mate, noting that they were reluctant to mate and did so only 'rarely'. Lack also noted in his monograph, Darwin's Finches 'In no other birds are the differences between species so ill-defined.' ....... David Lack tried to observe a finch of one species pairing off with another but did not find a single case. He reached the conclusion that 'Clearly hybridization between species is rare, if not absent.'
http://www.alternativescience.com/darwin's_finches.htm

Then we had some work by the Grants, showing that hybridization can occur in the finches
(the March 1996 paper “High survival of Darwin's finch hybrids: effects of break morphology and diets”
by B. Rosemary Grant &  Peter R. Grant, in Ecology, available for free at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2120/is_n2_v77/ai_18191332

Then the Grants studied a really important instance of hybridization in 2002 http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2002/articles_2002_4.html
and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/296/5568/707

So all in all, no, no one has ever evaluated the finches for hybridization and hybrid fitness, except for Lack and Grant, the most famous scientists to have worked with the finches since Darwin.  

Also check out O'Leary's claim that an editorial from the Akron Beacon Journal argues against allowing any student to know that Darwinism could be questioned on factual grounds.  You can find the editorial (which is a good one) at http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/editorial/15485421.htm
and it doesn't say any such thing.  It just argues against inserting false debates and crackpot concepts into science education.  Personally, I want all science students to know that all scientific theories can and should be tested and should be thrown out if and when the facts go against them.  I'm just against inventing false facts and using political strength to force them into science classes in order to bolster weak religious viewpoints.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 209 210 211 212 213 [214] 215 216 217 218 219 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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