RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 149 150 151 152 153 [154] 155 156 157 158 159 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
NormOlsen



Posts: 104
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2012,20:59   

Quote (NormOlsen @ June 12 2012,16:43)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 12 2012,16:01)
   
Quote (NormOlsen @ June 12 2012,11:20)
Steve Matheson resigns over allegations of sexual involvement with a student.  Not surprisingly,
Sal kicks off the Schadenfreude-fest at UD.

         
Quote
I hope for Steve’s sake, the allegations are false and that he’ll return to debating the ID and UD community. He has a fine intellect, and he was the source of many lively scientific exchanges.


Such sincerity!  It's touching really.


     
Quote
By the way, this blog was posted also under “academic freedom”.

Calvin College sent out this letter to the students and media outlets to uphold students rights from abuse of office by professors.

What I’ve failed to mentions is that the letter was to help uphold students rights, and there has been a violation of students rights and hence academic freedom.

I feel very sorry for Steve, but there is a victim in this affair whose name is not known and whose academic freedom has been infringed on. Calvin published the story and made it widely available in the hope of furthering academic freedom.

Calvin felt that reporting of this story would help protect students rights, and I stand with them in that regard.


I'm going to puke now.

If you really want to read it at UD: http://tinyurl.com/7hqskzq....7hqskzq

"Think of the children!"
What's really amazing is that Sal thinks anyone will buy his rationalizations.  Even UD regulars ForJah and Starbuck are calling him a turd for this one.

So, in the course of this thread, Sal went from:
 
Quote
If Matheson left for personal reasons, he is entitled to privacy. But if he left for misconduct, and has been publicly called on it by a Christian College (Calvin College), and further if he has been accusing fellow Christians of being a “cancer on the Christian intellect”, we have some obligation to call him out on his double standard.


To:
 
Quote
Yes, Matheson is suffering immensely, and if it were only his personal suffering I wouldn’t have reported it. But at issue is the victimization of students, and Calvin vigorously reported and has taken action, and that is right thing to do, even if unpleasant.


In other words, Sal starts by calling out Steve on a supposed double-standard; he gets taken to task for that by his fellow UDers, and, without blinking, he switches to "it's all about the victims" shtick.  Yes, it is enough to make you puke.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,10:22   

Sal adds:
Quote
I think the allegations raised have cast a shadow on his qualification to speak in the name of Christ. He’s free of course to keep speaking in the name of Darwin, that’s fine by me.


Judge not? Or perhaps No true scots?

Either way, he's a shit.

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

  
REC



Posts: 567
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,11:50   

Anyone else check out the abstracts on johnnyb's "Engineering and Metaphysics 2012 Conference" ?

Design arguments have been reduced to a statement of faith--that they are Christian, so they know it is designed.

Searches:
God=22
Design=22
Christ=14
Science=17
Dembski-mentioned in a single abstract
Behe=0
CSI & permutations=0

"The effects described by the Constructal Theory are similar to the Christian concept of how the Holy Spirit is thought to flow through an individual. Examples of this are given in Luke when the Holy Spirit filled John the Baptist. Other examples included when power flowed out of Jesus when a women touched the hem of his garment in 5:30 “…Jesus realized that power had gone out from him."

SCIENCE!

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,12:09   



--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10114
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,12:53   

WOW: (ASSF)

Quote
The Choice of (and for) Your Life



June 13, 2012

Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design


No Comments



Suppose your enemy is trying to frame you for murder.  He does a good job of fabricating evidence, and you are arrested and charges are filed.  Of course you are not guilty, so you refuse all plea offers.  But being innocent does not guaranty you will win at trial, and your “no plea” position is very risky.  Indeed, the stakes could not be higher.  Under the law of your state the only allowable penalty for murder is life in prison without possibility of parole.  Your case goes to trial, and the DA’s entire case against you comes down to the testimony two witnesses.  Even though you are not guilty, it is clear to everyone that if either of these witnesses testifies against you, it is CERTAIN you will be convicted.  

Suppose the DA is feeling magnanimous and says to you, “I don’t need both of these witnesses.  If either of them testifies against you, I will get a conviction, so I will call only one of them and what’s more, I will let you choose.”  

Finally, suppose that all you know about the witnesses is that one of them is an orthodox Christian and one is an atheist and that your enemy has offered each of them ten million dollars to testify falsely against you.

Two questions:

1.  Do you have enough information so that you would be other than indifferent about which witness to choose?

2.  If the answer to the first question is “yes,” which do you choose and why?


What about if one was a Muslim and the other a Christian, Barry?

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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,13:10   

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 13 2012,12:53)
WOW: (ASSF)

Quote
The Choice of (and for) Your Life



June 13, 2012

Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design


No Comments



Suppose your enemy is trying to frame you for murder.  He does a good job of fabricating evidence, and you are arrested and charges are filed.  Of course you are not guilty, so you refuse all plea offers.  But being innocent does not guaranty you will win at trial, and your “no plea” position is very risky.  Indeed, the stakes could not be higher.  Under the law of your state the only allowable penalty for murder is life in prison without possibility of parole.  Your case goes to trial, and the DA’s entire case against you comes down to the testimony two witnesses.  Even though you are not guilty, it is clear to everyone that if either of these witnesses testifies against you, it is CERTAIN you will be convicted.  

Suppose the DA is feeling magnanimous and says to you, “I don’t need both of these witnesses.  If either of them testifies against you, I will get a conviction, so I will call only one of them and what’s more, I will let you choose.”  

Finally, suppose that all you know about the witnesses is that one of them is an orthodox Christian and one is an atheist and that your enemy has offered each of them ten million dollars to testify falsely against you.

Two questions:

1.  Do you have enough information so that you would be other than indifferent about which witness to choose?

2.  If the answer to the first question is “yes,” which do you choose and why?


What about if one was a Muslim and the other a Christian, Barry?

He's supposedly a lawyer?  People must feel real safe going with him.
:O

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,13:14   

Atheism and christianity have dick all to do with who will accept the money and slam dunk your ass.

Sadly, Barry doesn't even recognize the fact.

BTW: That picture from 2001 is full of win.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,13:24   

Quote (Amadan @ June 13 2012,13:09)

POTCentury

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,14:45   

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 13 2012,10:53)
WOW: (ASSF)

   
Quote
The Choice of (and for) Your Life



June 13, 2012

Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design


No Comments



Suppose your enemy is trying to frame you for murder.  He does a good job of fabricating evidence, and you are arrested and charges are filed.  Of course you are not guilty, so you refuse all plea offers.  But being innocent does not guaranty you will win at trial, and your “no plea” position is very risky.  Indeed, the stakes could not be higher.  Under the law of your state the only allowable penalty for murder is life in prison without possibility of parole.  Your case goes to trial, and the DA’s entire case against you comes down to the testimony two witnesses.  Even though you are not guilty, it is clear to everyone that if either of these witnesses testifies against you, it is CERTAIN you will be convicted.

Suppose the DA is feeling magnanimous and says to you, “I don’t need both of these witnesses.  If either of them testifies against you, I will get a conviction, so I will call only one of them and what’s more, I will let you choose.”  

Finally, suppose that all you know about the witnesses is that one of them is an orthodox Christian and one is an atheist and that your enemy has offered each of them ten million dollars to testify falsely against you.

Two questions:

1.  Do you have enough information so that you would be other than indifferent about which witness to choose?

2.  If the answer to the first question is “yes,” which do you choose and why?


What about if one was a Muslim and the other a Christian, Barry?

What a joke!  I'd choose the atheist, of course, because based on the polls, the atheist would have far less credibility with your average American jury jury than just about anybody, even a Muslim.
 Besides, since I know I'm innocent, the christian must be a lying sack, just like Barry.
 What a sad fuck Barry is.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2596
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,15:24   

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 13 2012,12:53)
WOW: (ASSF)
 
Quote
The Choice of (and for) Your Life

June 13, 2012

Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design


No Comments



Suppose your enemy is trying to frame you for murder.  He does a good job of fabricating evidence, and you are arrested and charges are filed.  Of course you are not guilty, so you refuse all plea offers.  But being innocent does not guaranty you will win at trial, and your “no plea” position is very risky.  Indeed, the stakes could not be higher.  Under the law of your state the only allowable penalty for murder is life in prison without possibility of parole.  Your case goes to trial, and the DA’s entire case against you comes down to the testimony two witnesses.  Even though you are not guilty, it is clear to everyone that if either of these witnesses testifies against you, it is CERTAIN you will be convicted.  

Suppose the DA is feeling magnanimous and says to you, “I don’t need both of these witnesses.  If either of them testifies against you, I will get a conviction, so I will call only one of them and what’s more, I will let you choose.”  

Finally, suppose that all you know about the witnesses is that one of them is an orthodox Christian and one is an atheist and that your enemy has offered each of them ten million dollars to testify falsely against you.

Two questions:

1.  Do you have enough information so that you would be other than indifferent about which witness to choose?

2.  If the answer to the first question is “yes,” which do you choose and why?






--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,15:51   

And it's not even Friday!

--------------
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: June 13 2012,15:57   

Gordon Mullings:
Quote
And of course stuff about dog or cabbage/mustard family varieties is utterly irrelevant to the actual issue on the table: how to get from a unicellular organism to a cabbage or a dog/wolf.


FFS. And how precisely does ID get us from unicellular organism to cabbage?

Go on Gordo! Tell us!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-426382

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

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,16:17   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ June 13 2012,14:24)
Quote (Amadan @ June 13 2012,13:09)

POTCentury

well, at least potw.  maybe two weeks.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,18:38   

Quote (rhmc @ June 13 2012,17:17)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ June 13 2012,14:24)
Quote (Amadan @ June 13 2012,13:09)

POTCentury

well, at least potw.  maybe two weeks.

Of course, 2001 is a beautiful imagining of ET style ID.

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2119
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,22:35   

Quote (rhmc @ June 13 2012,14:17)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ June 13 2012,14:24)
Quote (Amadan @ June 13 2012,13:09)

POTCentury

well, at least potw.  maybe two weeks.

potf, then.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2012,23:46   

It was apparent from his dishonest debating style that Steve Matheson was a sleazeball, so I can't say I'm shocked by the news that he was taking advantage of at least one of his students.

Also, I'm not the least bit surprised that you degenerates would overlook Matheson's deplorable actions and instead point the finger at Sal Cordova for reporting it. In fact, I predicted it, which is what brought me here: To verify that my prediction was accurate.

It was, of course.  :p

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
Cubist



Posts: 349
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,00:03   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 13 2012,23:46)
It was apparent from his dishonest debating style that Steve Matheson was a sleazeball, so I can't say I'm shocked by the news that he was taking advantage of at least one of his students.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" is just a sextet of irrelevant words to you, eh Dr. Jammer? And it looks like you also regard "presumption of innocence" as a foreign concept. When atheists rush to judgement on someone who may well be wholly innocent, well, I guess that sort of thing is only to be expected of people who don't believe in God.
What's your excuse, Dr. Jammer?

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,01:15   

[quote=Cubist,June 14 2012,01:03][/quote]
 
Quote (Cubist @ June 14 2012,01:03)
"Judge not, lest ye be judged" is just a sextet of irrelevant words to you, eh Dr. Jammer?


Anyone's more than welcome to judge me at anytime. They'll find that, while I'm far from a perfect human being, I'm much higher on the morality totem pole than is Steve Matheson.

 
Quote (Cubist @ June 14 2012,01:03)
And it looks like you also regard "presumption of innocence" as a foreign concept.


The presumption of innocence applies to a court of law, not to public opinion.

 
Quote (Cubist @ June 14 2012,01:03)
When atheists rush to judgement on someone who may well be wholly innocent, well, I guess that sort of thing is only to be expected of people who don't believe in God.

What's your excuse, Dr. Jammer?


That Calvin College sided with the student, and that I know of Steve Matheson's shadiness from viewing his actions in the Darwin vs. design debate, is good enough for me.

In my always-humble opinion, the onus is now on Steve Matheson to prove his innocence.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,01:46   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 14 2012,05:46)
It was apparent from his dishonest debating style that Steve Matheson was a sleazeball, so I can't say I'm shocked by the news that he was taking advantage of at least one of his students.

Also, I'm not the least bit surprised that you degenerates would overlook Matheson's deplorable actions and instead point the finger at Sal Cordova for reporting it. In fact, I predicted it, which is what brought me here: To verify that my prediction was accurate.

It was, of course.  :p

   
Quote
1
ForJah

This article is really foul…and I don’t mean what Matheson said, I mean how irrelevant it is to any scientific argument. I know you acknowledged this at the bottom but still leave the ad hominems for the Darwinists. The high level of intellectual discussions based on actual arguments are what drew me to this site. This is a crap article and should not have been posted.

Quote
3
Starbuck

Uncommon Descent has hit bottom with this post.

Quote

10
Timaeus

Scordova:

I’ve often enjoyed your contributions to UD on biological matters, so I write out of respect for your past entries, but I must say, this is one column that I wish you hadn’t written.

I take into account your explanation of your motives, and your sincere expressions of sympathy for Matheson’s personal situation. And I understand the frustration you feel with Matheson’s constant accusations of dishonesty against fine Christian ID people like Behe and Meyer.

Nonetheless, I think that Matheson’s (real or alleged) moral failings are not something that UD should be devoting columns to. Even if he is guilty of a form of personal dishonesty himself, and even if it is somewhat inconsistent of him to lecture others on personal dishonesty given that fact, I still think we should let the subject go. Certain wrong acts carry their own “natural punishment,” and I imagine that Matheson has suffered enough of this without us “piling on.”

I don’t take your motivation here as malicious or spiteful, but I think perhaps a certain overzealousness has overtaken your judgment. It’s not for me to tell you what to do, but I would recommend that you seriously consider removing this column from the site. As author, I believe you have the right and the power to do that.

Steve is not one of my favorite TEs — his abrasive manner of arguing puts me off. But I think it would be the high road for us not to seek the slightest rhetorical advantage over him due to his personal actions in the non-scientific sphere.
 
Quote

16
scordova

[...]
I came close to retracting this thread, but you know, I want to keep it. It shows that despite me, there are some really good guys here at UD. Their comments on this thread are evidence.

I'm sure you'll now proceed to tell ForJah, Starbuck, and Timaeus that they're degenerates, too.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,02:35   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,16:50)
i also take time out of every day to go shit.  drop what i am doing, actually.  amazing, isn't it?


Defecation is a necessity; obsessing over Intelligent Design is not, at least not for mentally healthy people.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10114
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,02:45   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 14 2012,02:35)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,16:50)
i also take time out of every day to go shit.  drop what i am doing, actually.  amazing, isn't it?


Defecation is a necessity; obsessing over Intelligent Design is not, at least not for mentally healthy people.

That's terrible trolling. Way too obvious! Woo us with some intrigue, tease a bit first. Unsophisticated debutantes like yourself wont get much of a rise here.

*edited*

Edited by Richardthughes on June 14 2012,03:10

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

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,03:01   

BarryA
Quote
Now let’s turn to johnnyb.

He says that atheists live on the ethical capital bequeathed to them by a Judeo-Christian civilization and therefore tend to make the same ethical choices as Christians. Both of these observations are indubitably true, and beside the point. The question we must ask ourselves is not what atheists tend to do. The question we must ask is whether atheists are JUST AS LIKELY to act in accord with Judeo-Christian principles as orthodox Christians? Why? Because even if what johnny says is true and atheists tend to act according to Christian ethical principles, we would still have reason to choose the Christian if we believe that Christians act according to Christian ethical principles AT A GREATER RATE than atheists.

Do we have any information that would help us with this “greater rate” question. I believe we do.

We can infer the following about the orthodox Christian:

He probably believes in an objective grounding for ethical norms.

He probably believes that God Himself commanded “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

He probably believes that God would be deeply displeased if he breaks his oath.

He probably fears that if he breaks his oath God will punish him in both this life and perhaps also the afterlife.

What can we infer about the atheist.

He certainly does not believe in God. That’s what it means to be an atheist.

He certainly does not fear that a non-existent God will punish him in this life or the (non-existent) next life.

He probably does not believe in an objective basis for ethical norms.

If he has even thought about the ethics issue, he is probably a consequentialist of some sort.

From these inferences could anyone really rationally answer that he would rather have his life riding on the atheist’s commitment to telling the truth over the Christians. I anticipate that later commenters will say yes, but I know for a certain fact they will not really believe that.

Yes, the only reason atheists may not commit perjury on the stand is because they "live on the ethical capital bequeathed to them by a Judeo-Christian civilization". As we all know, lying is A-OK in all other cultures.
I agree with BarryA, if we lived in an ideal world were people would always live according to their professed principles, Christians would never lie. Shame, though, that reality doesn't agree with BarryA. Every statistic shows that there is no difference in "moral" behaviour between Christians and atheists. There are no more atheists in jail than Christians. Sweden or France or Germany aren't less "moral" than the US. Atheists aren't more likely to divorce or have an abortion than Christians. There are lots and lots of examples of unethical behaviour of Christians.
But in BarryA's fantasy world, where Christians never lie, none of this matters.

I could argue that a Christian at least has the option of praying for forgiveness, while an atheist knows that he would have to live with his guilt for the rest of his life. Or that perjury is a criminal offence. Or that I don't trust a Christian to have a problem with sending one innocent man to jail when they obviously don't have a problem with believing that their God is sending everyone to eternal hell who isn't a Christian no matter how "moral" they behaved during their life.

But why bother.

Linky

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,03:03   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,16:52)
Lol. Let's get the people who intelligently designed the comment system at UD in then, they'll fix it up a treat!


Uncommon Descent operates under the WordPress content management system, the most popular in the world, according to Wikipedia:

     
Quote (Wikipedia @ June 14 2012,03:44)
WordPress is a free and open source blogging tool and a dynamic content management system (CMS) based on PHP and MySQL. It has many features including a plug-in architecture and a template system. WordPress is used by over 14.7% of Alexa Internet's "top 1 million" websites and as of August 2011 manages 22% of all new websites. WordPress is currently the most popular CMS in use on the Internet.


While I do prefer U.D.'s previous look, I can say that there's nothing wrong with the comment system of the new layout.

Uncommon Descent has gotten with the times; Anti-Evolution.org has not. How very apropos.

As for this website's decade-old forum software: My recommendation would be to convert the data to Simple Machine Forum data using their conversion tool, then installing the far more modern, feature-rich, and aesthetically-pleasing SMF 2.0.2.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10114
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,03:08   

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science....rs.html

Quote
...


Dr Marc Hauser, from Harvard University, one of the co-authors of the research, said that he and his colleagues were interested in the roots of religion and morality.


"For some, there is no morality without religion, while others see religion as merely one way of expressing one's moral intuitions," he said.

The team looked at several psychological studies which were designed to test an individual’s morality.

Dr Hauser added: "The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments.

"However, although it appears as if co-operation is made possible by mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion, religion can play a role in facilitating and stabilising co-operation between groups."

He added that the findings could help to explain the complex relationship between morality and religion.

"It seems that in many cultures religious concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualising moral intuitions,” he said.

"Although, as we discuss in our paper, this link is not a necessary one, many people have become so accustomed to using it, that criticism targeted at religion is experienced as a fundamental threat to our moral existence."



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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 980
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,04:19   

dr jammer:

"The presumption of innocence applies to a court of law, not to public opinion."

Is that what your so-called god and his holy book condones and teaches? Is that what cordova's and arrington's so-called god and holy book condones and teaches? Where's all your christian godsy stuff about not judging, and  forgiveness, and logs in your eyes, etc., etc., etc.?

And you are aware, aren't you, that UD is operated and controlled by barry arrington, a lawyer, and being a lawyer he's supposed to be well versed in the concept that people should be presumed innocent unless and until they are convicted in a court of law, not in a court of "public opinion", yet arrington, who also claims to be an evangelical christian, is allowing the hypocritical, completely irrelevant post by slimy sal and the comments supportive of it. I wonder if the people of Colorado would like to be informed about the sanctimonious swill that arrington allows, encourages, and contributes on his site? Maybe you should ask him.

By the way, you IDiots seem to have missed something. IF Matheson, a christian, and the woman, also a christian, actually did do something that is immoral according to your bible, what does that say about the alleged power of christianity to keep people from doing immoral things? Hmm, I can't help but wonder what immoral and/or illegal things you and the other IDiots have done or are doing and just haven't been caught for, yet.

One more thing: The woman was and is over the age of consent, right? The only thing that applies is a technicality in the policy of the college, right? Matheson didn't break any laws, right?

What is Matheson 'guilty' of, and why aren't you IDiots judging and condemning the woman? In the eyes of the law, which legally represents "public opinion", she's an adult and is as responsible for her actions as any other adult. In the eyes of your so-called god and his holy book she's a fornicator. She's reported as saying that she had a multi-year sexual affair with Matheson. Did Matheson force her to do that? Did she claim that Matheson forced her? And why do you suppose she suddenly told the college about the alleged sexual affair after engaging in it for so long? A "woman scorned" comes to mind.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,04:34   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 14 2012,03:03)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,16:52)
Lol. Let's get the people who intelligently designed the comment system at UD in then, they'll fix it up a treat!

I write forum software in my spare time. What do you do?

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

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,04:47   

Quote (JLT @ June 14 2012,02:46)
   
Quote
1 ForJah

This article is really foul…and I don’t mean what Matheson said, I mean how irrelevant it is to any scientific argument. I know you acknowledged this at the bottom but still leave the ad hominems for the Darwinists. The high level of intellectual discussions based on actual arguments are what drew me to this site. This is a crap article and should not have been posted.


ForJah seems confused. His first complaint is irrelevant; Sal never claimed the entry was any sort of a scientific rebuttal to Matheson (there's a recent entry for that).

His second complaint, that U.D. should be limited to scientific discussions, is nothing more than an opinion with little-to-no supporting argument.

Personally, I disagree with his opinion. I believe U.D. should be devoted to any subject relevant to I.D. in any way, including exposing the appalling behavior of those who fight against I.D.

Don't just expose their weak arguments and evidence; expose their weak moral fiber. Make it clear that I.D.'s battle isn't against science, but against a group of sleaze buckets who have corrupted science. That sounds like a winning strategy to me.


     
Quote (JLT @ June 14 2012,02:46)
   
Quote
3 Starbuck

Uncommon Descent has hit bottom with this post.


Judging by her YouTube account (linked to in all of her U.D. comments), I'd say there's a strong possibility that Starbuck is, in fact, a degenerate (as well as Steve Matheson's kinda girl).

 
Quote (JLT @ June 14 2012,02:46)
   
Quote
10 Timaeus

Scordova:

I’ve often enjoyed your contributions to UD on biological matters, so I write out of respect for your past entries, but I must say, this is one column that I wish you hadn’t written.

I take into account your explanation of your motives, and your sincere expressions of sympathy for Matheson’s personal situation. And I understand the frustration you feel with Matheson’s constant accusations of dishonesty against fine Christian ID people like Behe and Meyer.

Nonetheless, I think that Matheson’s (real or alleged) moral failings are not something that UD should be devoting columns to. Even if he is guilty of a form of personal dishonesty himself, and even if it is somewhat inconsistent of him to lecture others on personal dishonesty given that fact, I still think we should let the subject go. Certain wrong acts carry their own “natural punishment,” and I imagine that Matheson has suffered enough of this without us “piling on.”

I don’t take your motivation here as malicious or spiteful, but I think perhaps a certain overzealousness has overtaken your judgment. It’s not for me to tell you what to do, but I would recommend that you seriously consider removing this column from the site. As author, I believe you have the right and the power to do that.

Steve is not one of my favorite TEs — his abrasive manner of arguing puts me off. But I think it would be the high road for us not to seek the slightest rhetorical advantage over him due to his personal actions in the non-scientific sphere.


Timaeus is brilliant, and, while I disagree with him, his reasoning for disapproving of Sal's article is respectable. Notice, also, that he's not making Sal out to be a bad guy, but a well-meaning individual who simply become overzealous.

That's a sharp contrast from the degenerates here who are trying to make Sal out to be a bad guy, while deflecting from Steve Matheson's disgusting (alleged) behavior.


   
Quote (JLT @ June 14 2012,02:46)
   
Quote
16
scordova

[...]
I came close to retracting this thread, but you know, I want to keep it. It shows that despite me, there are some really good guys here at UD. Their comments on this thread are evidence.


Sal's a wonderful human being. Had the roles been reversed, had Sal been exposed for comitting highly dubious behavior, I have no doubt that Darwinists, including Steve Matheson, would've picked his ones dry.

   
Quote (JLT @ June 14 2012,02:46)
I'm sure you'll now proceed to tell ForJah, Starbuck, and Timaeus that they're degenerates, too.


ForJah: You're confused.
Timaeus: You're brilliant. Keep up the good work.
Starbuck: You're probably a degenerate.

Happy?

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,05:11   

Quote
Sal's a wonderful human being.


That is all anybody needs to know about you.

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 780
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,05:17   

Quote (Amadan @ June 13 2012,18:09)

:O

A thing of beauty, aye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2012,05:20   

Here's Sal saying that a young girl would like a pig as a husband:
Quote
I’m refraining commenting on the morality of human-animal sex in this post, but human animal sex just sounds plain icky, ICKY with a capital “I”. Imagine you are the proud parent of a young lady, and then she introduces you to her prospective fiance, the “man” she wants as her husband:


http://udoj.wordpress.com/2008.......he-year

Here's Sal using a quotemine as a sig:

http://www.kcfs.org/forums.....dba5459

Quote
"I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power" -- Charles "Gas" Darwin


Here's Sal saying that in 2007:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-100318

Here is is again in 2010:
Quote
1. Get a gun and shoot birds like Darwin did just for fun

“I do not believe that anyone could have shown more zeal for the most holy cause than I did for shooting birds” –Darwin

2. lie for the thrill of it like Darwin did as kid (and likely as an adult)

3. beat puppies like Darwin did when he was boy


but:
Quote
I was really hoping the Darwinist blog sphere would go into a tizzy and accuse me of quote mining. I mean, when I quoted Darwin as saying, “I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power,” in no wise was I being totally serious (even though Darwin did say those words). Those guys are so humor challenged.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-126470

Odd thing to do over the course of 5 years. I suspect he really just created a quotemine and when called on it said it was a joke. Some joke!

And on and on. Just type his name into google and see for yourself.

No wonder you like him so much, he personifies so many things about ID in one single person.

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

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 149 150 151 152 153 [154] 155 156 157 158 159 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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