RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 152 153 154 155 156 [157] 158 159 160 161 162 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
didymos



Posts: 1822
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,05:17   

OK, so I googled "clivecopus".  Interesting candidates.  Here's one commenting on a BBC article:      
Quote

The woman is not the most important person to consider in all this and you don't have to be a man to recognise that. Science has conclusively demonstrated that a 20 week old foetus is a living, sentient human being and its right to life is therefore paramount. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of reason and ethics.
Clive Copus, London, England


And possibly the same dude writing into FAITH Magazine (pdf linkage), but almost certainly the one on UD:
     
Quote

Intelligent Design and Cardinal Schönborn

Dear Fr Editor,

I was disappointed to read the dismissive attitude towards Intelligent Design Theory (ID) in the last issue of Faith.

To imply that ID is as flawed and as far away from Catholic teaching as neo-Darwinian evolution is a gross distortion of the truth. Whilst neo­-Darwinism seeks to replace God with a wholly materialist and naturalist explanation for life on earth, ID, in stark contrast, is an attempt to demonstrate that God is an essential pre­requisite for life.

ID is indeed “creationist” (and why should a word that clearly implies a Creator be regarded with such evident disdain in the Catholic community, incidentally?), insofar as it seeks to demonstrate that life required a creator. Far from criticising it, we should be recognising it as the most rigorously scientific approach, at least in the biological sciences, to proving the existence of God and isn’t that, ultimately, what all those who seek to reconcile Catholicism with science are seeking to achieve?

It is certainly far more persuasive than simply pointing out that the natural world appears to have “an “internal finality”, or that it displays “a remarkable unity and finality in its dynamic development”. Frankly, this will not wash with the likes of Richard Dawkins.

If I could now turn to some of the more specific criticisms, it is simply not true to describe ID as a “God of the gaps” philosophy. This is the type of ill-informed labeling that the naturalists in the neo­-Darwinian camp indulge in and which Mr. Conway-Morris himself criticised in his article. In pointing out that there are aspects of living organisms for which design is the only rational explanation, ID theory in no sense excludes or precludes the possibility that design was required elsewhere in the organism. The point is that, having demonstrated that design is required to explain at least one part of an organism, whether or not it is present elsewhere becomes wholly irrelevant, because one need only demonstrate that design was required in one aspect to show that a designer must exist. Nothing is conceded to atheists”.

The fact that some although by no means all) scientists are dismissive of ID is neither here nor there. They are equally dismissive of the Faith synthesis and other theistic evolution theories. In fact, there is a case for saying that the zeal with which ID is attacked by materialist scientists and philosophers is, arguably, evidence of its explanatory force and the threat it poses to the materialist orthodoxy.

Mr. Conway-Morris refers to the many objections” raised against ‘Din the scientific community, but fails to cite a single example. He then attempts to criticise it on theological grounds, describing it as a ‘deist option”, presumably an the grounds that emphasising the machine-like irreducible complexity of organisms at the biochemical level somehow implies the existence of a machine-liike creator. I am no theologian but it seems to me that it implies nothing of the sort? indeed, ID theorists have gone to great lengths to point out that evidence of design tells us nothing about the nature of the designer.

Not content with that, be goes on to describe it as a theology that “turns its back on the richness arid beauty of creation”. This is bizarre. In identifying and describing the interconnectedness and interdependence of life at the molecular level, ID has brought out the true majesty of creation.

Finally, I find it odd that Mr. Conway-Morris is quite prepared to recognise the power of the design argument in the realm of physics, in the form of the remarkable fine-tuning and interdependence of the various laws and constants of the cosmos, whilst at the same time being SO dismissive of the biological equivalent.

Together, the Anthropic Principle and ID provide us with not just the keys to a real synthesis of science and religion, but, potentially, two of the most powerful weapons in the battle for people’s minds.

Yours Faithfully,
Clive Copus
Worple Road
Epsom
Surrey


O Google, how I heart thee!  

(edited for crappy formatting, but those weird punctuation errors ARE in the original)


ETA:  OK, he has to be the same as the BBC guy, 'cause here's another of his letters-to-the-editor, this time to the Independent:
Quote
The Catholic church and 'eternal truths'

Sir: I write with reference to Mark Steel's article "The Inconvenient Lessons of Papal History", published on 21 April. The thrust of Mr Steel's piece is that the Church is prepared to adapt its "eternal truths" when it sees fit.

In the article, Mr Steel cites the Church's decision, in the 11th century, to prohibit priests from marrying as an example of an adaptation of an eternal truth. However, priestly celibacy is not, never has been and never will be an "eternal truth"; rather, it is a discipline that the Church can alter (and has altered) as it sees fit.

He goes on to accuse Pope Gregory XVI of declaring, in 1832, that democracy was sinful, and freedom of the press "heretical", and decreeing that every Jew who insulted Catholicism should be killed. No sources are quoted, but I assume that he is referring to Pope Gregory XVI's 1832 Encyclical "On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism".

Having undertaken some fairly exhaustive research into this I have failed to find any of the declarations attributed to Pope Gregory. There is a reference to the evil and danger of books containing false doctrine, but that is something the Church has believed since Apostolic times. If the declarations are contained in another document, perhaps Mr Steel could let us know which one.

CLIVE COPUS

LONDON SW12


Oh, check it out.  I found his "fairly exhaustive research"  as mentioned above:
Quote
Pro-life issues
Question from Clive Copus on 6/3/2005:

I am trying to draft a response to an anti-Catholic article in a UK newspaper. The article alleges that Pope Gregory XV1 declared in 1832 that democracy was sinful, and freedom of the press heretical. He also decreed that any Jew who insulted Catholicism should be killed.

Do you know how I should respond to this? What did the Pope really say?

I would be grateful for your advice.

Thanks very much.
Answer by Judie Brown on 6/3/2005:

Clive

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a biographical sketch of Pope Gregory XVI which does not contain any of the apparent myths you have seen. Check it out: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07006a.htm

Judie Brown


And here's another letter to Faith about ID (again, pdf), which shall not be quoted, except for a bit from his closing:
Quote
Perhaps this can form the basis of a new synthesis of the Faith Movement's Unity Law and the specified complexity of ID. Now that really would have Mr Dawkins quaking in his boots!


Everyone's gay for Dawkins in ID-Land apparently.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,05:59   

Anyone who can write a phrase like "The thrust of Mr Steel's piece..." is either Joe G or chunkdz. Or both...

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

   
didymos



Posts: 1822
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,06:46   

OK, more of the fabulous Mr. Copus:  

A query on TalkOrigins back in Ought Six:

 
Quote
From: Clive Copus

Comment: With reference to CC216.2, I note that your response states that "evolution was not smooth and gradual" and that some species arose "suddenly". I think Darwin would have something to say about that, were he alive today.

Could you explain how a species can evolve "suddenly"?


Wes himself replied!

Clive later had a complaint:

 
Quote
From: Clive Copus

Comment: Thanks for publishing one of my posts last month - but what about the other two? I am particularly concerned that the response to CA662 was not published, as it is important that historical accuracy does not become a victim of the evolution/creation debate.

Thank you.


And got a little Wilkins:

 
Quote
From: John Wilkins

Response: We don't publish every feedback response - it would be too long. But be assured that we read them all. Mark Isaak will have seen it. Thanks for your response. We really do appreciate it.


That seems to have ended his TO career.

A comment to the editor (London Evening Standard) on his fave mayoral candidate (in 2008 I think):

 
Quote

I'm voting for Alan Craig. He's the only one with the guts to say what needs to be said, even if it isn't politically correct, e.g. opposing the super-casino and supporting the traditional family. The root cause of our broken society is the breakdown of traditional families and he seems to be the only one who recognises this.

Clive Copus, Balham


Alan Craig on teh Wickedpedia, for those not in the know.

Some abortion petition from I don't know when about I don't what exactly.


An e-letter to the editor
sent regarding an article about a British Medical Association meeting on various issues in 2005:
 
Quote

Clive Copus,
Civil Servant
Pimlico - SW1P 4QP

Send response to journal:
Re: Why doctors should not decide ethical issues

If ever there was an example of the danger of allowing doctors to determine ethical issues, this article is it. It is riddled with logical inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies, whilst displaying a callous disregard for the most vulnerable people in our society.

It is difficult to know where to begin:

1) Firstly, I find it impossible to believe the suggestion that there have been no advances in neo-natal care since 1990;

2) How many premature babies are required to survive - and how many must be completely able-bodied - before the law can be looked at? 10, 100, 10,000? Is not every human life precious, or are only the able-bodied worth saving?

3) The developing foetus does not grow into a baby - the 4D images conclusively demonstrate to anyone prepared to believe the evidence of their own eyes that it is a baby.

4) Once you accept that the foetus is a child, it must surely follow that the focus should be on preserving the life of that child. This is not a "difficult decision" - or, at least, it shouldn't be to anyone with a basic grasp of ethics.

5) It's disappointing to see the old chestnut about "decriminalising" being trotted out again. If something is intrinsically wrong - as the ddeliberate destruction of a sentient being clearly is - it can never be right to legalise it on the grounds that it becomes "easier to access".

6) If a time limit is "not desirable", is it being suggested that abortion should now be available at any time in the pregnancy, leading to the horrors of partial birth abortion; and the grotesque situation whereby premature babies are being kept alive in one ward whilst, further down the corridor, older babies are being killed in the womb?

Please stick to trying to save lives and curing people, and leave the ethics to those with a modicum of rationality and moral fibre.

Yours faithfully

Clive Copus

Competing interests: None declared


Comment to the editor at MailOnline, 2006, also Abortion. The dude is definitely consistent.

And finally, I present his most recent "work" prior to UD...a letter to the fucking editor!  Imagine that, if you dare!  So, yeah, Catholic Herald (Britain's Leading Catholic Newspaper!) this time:

 
Quote
Darwin's elephant

From Mr Clive Copus

SIR - Stratford Caldecott's piece (Comment, October 2) is fine as far as it goes, but, like so many Catholic commentators on the decline of belief in this country, he is either unable or unwilling to take the necessary final step and identify the elephant in the room: namely, the Darwinian world-view that underpins our secular culture.

As Mr Caldecott says, we have lost a sense of who we are and how we fit into the cosmos. There is no mystery about why this has occurred: it follows naturally from the Darwinian view that we are merely the product of blind forces, rather than the deliberate creation of a loving God.

The key is not, as he suggests, to highlight the complementary relationship of the arts and sciences, their common search for beauty, and the attraction of elegant solutions that please the heart: much of Darwinism's superficial attraction lies in the fact that it appears to satisfy all these criteria, while clearly leaving no room for religious belief.

Rather, we should be highlighting the latest research in such diverse fields as information theory, biochemistry and cosmology, which provide compelling evidence for traditional Catholic teaching on mankind's unique status within God's creation.

Until we (and the Church generally) grasp this nettle, it will not matter one jot how many "humane and intelligent alternatives to the increasingly oppressive secularism of our schools" are devised: our children will continue to regard religious belief as fundamentally irrational.

Yours faithfully,
Clive Copus
London SW12


And that's pretty much all he wrote (that Google could find).  I'm pretty sure it's all he's gonna write at UD, too.  Can't wait.  Srsly.


ETA:  Louis, are you gonna do something about this guy?  What gives?

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,07:03   

Quote (didymos @ Feb. 26 2010,11:46)
[SNIP]

ETA:  Louis, are you gonna do something about this guy?  What gives?

We thought we'd shipped the lot of them off to the Colonies. It seems we missed one or two. Excuse me while I get my Fundy Gun and my Puritan Catholic Boat. The situation will be resolved shortly.

Louis

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 780
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,07:26   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2010,00:15)
N.WELLS:        
Quote
Denyse tells an odd story, and comes back later to clarify            
Quote
 
The reason I told the story about my rescue by a bus driver from the snowbank (yes, yes, I should have spelled it out – we artsies sometimes speak in riddles) – is to say that, among humans, altruism can never be reduced to mere Darwinism.

(A bus driver from a snowbank? - that still sounds like a riddle.  Or possibly just bad sentence construction.)  (It is also interesting how she assumes that guys only offer help to females out of altruism - clearly there's no possibility of anything even vaguely Darwinian in that at all.) (/snark)

Actually, in Denyse's case, I think we CAN rule that out.

Yes, that is one of the things that makes her assumption interesting (along with all the evolutionary explanations for kin selection and for broader cultural cooperation not involving kin), but it was in a snowstorm, so you have to figure that she was all bundled up, and the driver was operating in conditions of limited visibility.  Plus, perhaps the bus driver had a thing for eskimo ladies - a) it's Canada, b) evolution has worked for eskimos too.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,08:25   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 26 2010,07:26)
Quote
 
The reason I told the story about my rescue by a bus driver from the snowbank (yes, yes, I should have spelled it out – we artsies sometimes speak in riddles) – is to say that, among humans, altruism can never be reduced to mere Darwinism.

The rest of the story:

Quote
Toronto, CA

Police were called to a street in downtown Toronto today, when the passengers of a cross-town bus, collectively rose up, and in an unusual show of group unity, threw another women passenger into a snow bank.  

The woman, identified as one Denyse O’Leary, address and occupation unknown, was at first thought by police on the scene to have been viciously assaulted, but it was later discovered that, as one observer reported, “her obvious gruesomeness” was her normal appearance.

Upon investigation by the Toronto PD, it was also discovered that Ms. O’Leary was thrown into the snow bank quite deliberately, after she had begun to read aloud from what she later indicated was one of her own articles about a little-known subject called “coffee and design”.  As one of the vigilante riders put it, ”Well, what was we supposed to do then, eh?  I’ve faced down terrorists before, but nothin’ quite as bad as that awful screechin’ sound.  Another rider continued, “What are we paying the bloody coppers for then, if not to protect us from the likes of that?”  

After reading what Ms. O’Leary had written, an officer that wished to remain anonymous reported, “It wasn’t making any sense at tall, and to be bloody honest, I would have pulled my club out and beat her severely for spouting that nonsense”.  The unfortunate buss driver that eventually pulled Ms. O’Leary from the snow bank, was later excoriated for his actions by the angry citizens, and was reported to have been seen sobbing and repeating “I didn’t mean to do it, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to do it.” He was last seen leaving for the US, and as this reporter notes, “good riddance to bad rubbish”.


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

  
didymos



Posts: 1822
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,08:48   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 26 2010,06:25)
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 26 2010,07:26)
 
Quote
 
The reason I told the story about my rescue by a bus driver from the snowbank (yes, yes, I should have spelled it out – we artsies sometimes speak in riddles) – is to say that, among humans, altruism can never be reduced to mere Darwinism.

The rest of the story:

 
Quote
Toronto, CA

Police were called to a street in downtown Toronto today, when the passengers of a cross-town bus, collectively rose up, and in an unusual show of group unity, threw another women passenger into a snow bank.  

The woman, identified as one Denyse O’Leary, address and occupation unknown, was at first thought by police on the scene to have been viciously assaulted, but it was later discovered that, as one observer reported, “her obvious gruesomeness” was her normal appearance.

Upon investigation by the Toronto PD, it was also discovered that Ms. O’Leary was thrown into the snow bank quite deliberately, after she had begun to read aloud from what she later indicated was one of her own articles about a little-known subject called “coffee and design”.  As one of the vigilante riders put it, ”Well, what was we supposed to do then, eh?  I’ve faced down terrorists before, but nothin’ quite as bad as that awful screechin’ sound.  Another rider continued, “What are we paying the bloody coppers for then, if not to protect us from the likes of that?”  

After reading what Ms. O’Leary had written, an officer that wished to remain anonymous reported, “It wasn’t making any sense at tall, and to be bloody honest, I would have pulled my club out and beat her severely for spouting that nonsense”.  The unfortunate buss driver that eventually pulled Ms. O’Leary from the snow bank, was later excoriated for his actions by the angry citizens, and was reported to have been seen sobbing and repeating “I didn’t mean to do it, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to do it.” He was last seen leaving for the US, and as this reporter notes, “good riddance to bad rubbish”.



"YEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,09:06   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 26 2010,08:26)
...perhaps the bus driver had a thing for eskimo ladies...

sounds like someone familiar.

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,09:16   

Cornelius Hunter is a tard:
Quote
Finally, the evidence suggests the multiple mutations work together. Alone, some of the mutations have little affect on helping the snake resist the tetrodotoxin, but together the mutations have a tremendous effect. The weak mutations alone would have been less likely to have been selected and therefore, according to evolution, essentially simultaneous mutations are more likely to have occurred.


Zachriel is already on his case, but really.  Slight advantages aren't selected for?  Simultaneous mutations are more likely than single mutations?  And this guy is on the faculty at Biola?

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,11:25   

"On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism".

Perfectly unobjectionable. With minor adaptation is would fit in on most Faux Noose commentaries.

--------------
"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.

   
KCdgw



Posts: 368
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,12:23   

Quote (Maya @ Feb. 26 2010,09:16)
Cornelius Hunter is a tard:
Quote
Finally, the evidence suggests the multiple mutations work together. Alone, some of the mutations have little affect on helping the snake resist the tetrodotoxin, but together the mutations have a tremendous effect. The weak mutations alone would have been less likely to have been selected and therefore, according to evolution, essentially simultaneous mutations are more likely to have occurred.


Zachriel is already on his case, but really.  Slight advantages aren't selected for?  Simultaneous mutations are more likely than single mutations?  And this guy is on the faculty at Biola?

An "Ilion" sighting in the comments! One of my bestest favorites!

--------------
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

  
didymos



Posts: 1822
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,12:34   

Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 26 2010,10:23)
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 26 2010,09:16)
Cornelius Hunter is a tard:
 
Quote
Finally, the evidence suggests the multiple mutations work together. Alone, some of the mutations have little affect on helping the snake resist the tetrodotoxin, but together the mutations have a tremendous effect. The weak mutations alone would have been less likely to have been selected and therefore, according to evolution, essentially simultaneous mutations are more likely to have occurred.


Zachriel is already on his case, but really.  Slight advantages aren't selected for?  Simultaneous mutations are more likely than single mutations?  And this guy is on the faculty at Biola?

An "Ilion" sighting in the comments! One of my bestest favorites!

There's a doozy of a comment in response to Zach over there:
Quote

Blas said...

   "selection will tend maintain the optimized sequence"

   by which process?


You fail biology forever!

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
olegt



Posts: 1386
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,12:43   

Quote (Maya @ Feb. 26 2010,09:16)
Cornelius Hunter is a tard:
Quote
Finally, the evidence suggests the multiple mutations work together. Alone, some of the mutations have little affect on helping the snake resist the tetrodotoxin, but together the mutations have a tremendous effect. The weak mutations alone would have been less likely to have been selected and therefore, according to evolution, essentially simultaneous mutations are more likely to have occurred.


Zachriel is already on his case, but really.  Slight advantages aren't selected for?  Simultaneous mutations are more likely than single mutations?  And this guy is on the faculty at Biola?

Well, Hunter is just an adjunct.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1659
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,12:58   

Quote
Zach:"That's a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection."

Corny: Another fact-free and erroneous escape hatch. We see sequence identity from snakes to humans, but no, evolution doesn't need selection to explain such conservation. It just happened ...

Even evolutionists, in their honest moments, admit the sequence conservation is due to selection. They can say it, but a skeptic can't. When the skeptic says it, just tell him he has a "fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection."


"Even evolutionists, in their honest moments, admit the sequence conservation is due to selection."  Yeah, whenever they're being honest, they can 'admit' that.  Like when they're writing text books.  Jeeze, that much concentrated stupid actually hurts!

He may be an adjunct professor, but he's a Pro Tard.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
didymos



Posts: 1822
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,13:07   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2010,10:58)
Quote
Zach:"That's a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection."

Corny: Another fact-free and erroneous escape hatch. We see sequence identity from snakes to humans, but no, evolution doesn't need selection to explain such conservation. It just happened ...

Even evolutionists, in their honest moments, admit the sequence conservation is due to selection. They can say it, but a skeptic can't. When the skeptic says it, just tell him he has a "fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection."


"Even evolutionists, in their honest moments, admit the sequence conservation is due to selection."  Yeah, whenever they're being honest, they can 'admit' that.  Like when they're writing text books.  Jeeze, that much concentrated stupid actually hurts!

He may be an adjunct professor, but he's a Pro Tard.

It seems that what he's trying to get at is that selection won't allow any change, ever, which would  mean a winner is Cornhole.  Or am I suffering from TARDic pareidolia?

ETA: You know, I really hate his little fucking catchphrase. So much pretension and self-righteous ignorance.  Sorry, got nothing all that funny: that thing just really pisses me off, for some reason.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,15:05   

Quote (didymos @ Feb. 26 2010,11:07)
ETA: You know, I really hate his little fucking catchphrase. So much pretension and self-righteous ignorance.  Sorry, got nothing all that funny: that thing just really pisses me off, for some reason.

Didymos hates Cornelius Hunter's catchphrase, and it matters.

*ducks*

  
didymos



Posts: 1822
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,15:07   

Quote (bfish @ Feb. 26 2010,13:05)
Quote (didymos @ Feb. 26 2010,11:07)
ETA: You know, I really hate his little fucking catchphrase. So much pretension and self-righteous ignorance.  Sorry, got nothing all that funny: that thing just really pisses me off, for some reason.

Didymos hates Cornelius' Hunter's catchphrase, and it matters.

*ducks*

LOL...

Well played.  Well played indeed.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
dmso74



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,16:08   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 26 2010,12:43)
 
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 26 2010,09:16)
Cornelius Hunter is a tard:
   
Quote
Finally, the evidence suggests the multiple mutations work together. Alone, some of the mutations have little affect on helping the snake resist the tetrodotoxin, but together the mutations have a tremendous effect. The weak mutations alone would have been less likely to have been selected and therefore, according to evolution, essentially simultaneous mutations are more likely to have occurred.


Zachriel is already on his case, but really.  Slight advantages aren't selected for?  Simultaneous mutations are more likely than single mutations?  And this guy is on the faculty at Biola?

Well, Hunter is just an adjunct.

so Corny George has library privileges (more or less what is entailed in being an adjunct) at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. quite a step down for someone who once had an NIH molecular biophysics grad training grant:
how the tardy have fallen

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,18:26   

Quote (dmso74 @ Feb. 26 2010,16:08)
so Corny George has library privileges  (more or less what is entailed in being an adjunct) at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. quite a step down for someone who once had an NIH molecular biophysics grad training grant:
how the tardy have fallen

Beautiful!  

Gee, I hope he doesn't accidently file the coloring books in with the science books... or mistake a wolf for a thalycine.  Again.

--------------
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: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,18:39   

WAD asks for top Christian profs:
     
Quote
I’m trying to determine which Christian faculty would be regarded as absolutely tops in their respective disciplines but which would also be completely up front about their Christian worldview. Who would be on your top ten list? Of those on the list, how many would be supporters of or at least sympathetic to ID?

A Mormon is proffered:
     
Quote
Allen Bergin in psychology challenged therapists’ claims of unbiased therapy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Bergin

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=270

He co-wrote “Casebook for a Spiritual Strategy in Counseling”

Cue awkward silence...

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

  
afarensis



Posts: 1003
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,19:46   

Quote (Maya @ Feb. 26 2010,09:16)
Cornelius Hunter is a tard:
Quote
Finally, the evidence suggests the multiple mutations work together. Alone, some of the mutations have little affect on helping the snake resist the tetrodotoxin, but together the mutations have a tremendous effect. The weak mutations alone would have been less likely to have been selected and therefore, according to evolution, essentially simultaneous mutations are more likely to have occurred.


Zachriel is already on his case, but really.  Slight advantages aren't selected for?  Simultaneous mutations are more likely than single mutations?  And this guy is on the faculty at Biola?

Coincidence?

Or can a design inference be made? I was going to write a post about the PNAS paper but I guess I will have to expand it some...

--------------
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.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,19:57   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 26 2010,18:39)
WAD asks for top Christian profs:
       
Quote
I’m trying to determine which Christian faculty would be regarded as absolutely tops in their respective disciplines but which would also be completely up front about their Christian worldview. Who would be on your top ten list? Of those on the list, how many would be supporters of or at least sympathetic to ID?

Most of those morons couldn't name a professor in any discipline except theology... What a joke!

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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,20:14   

It's interesting how increasingly isolated is WAD at his little bible college.

He has his students out fishing for new ID arguments, trying to find something that works.  He doesn't care about his students "mixing it up" with rational people.  The great and powerful Wizard of WAD is out of ideas.  Bone dry.

Second, he's having morons like Sal and batshitcrazy77 feed him names of professors with mental illness, er, similar "worldviews"  (whatever that is!) to his.

As a grad student I could name the top 5 professors in each of the top 10 colleges representing my discipline, and what their research interests were and possibly the names of a few of their graduate students.

The fact that WAD can't research his own list only highlights what a clueless, incapable git he really is.

  
REC



Posts: 566
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,21:38   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 26 2010,20:14)
It's interesting how increasingly isolated is WAD at his little bible college.

He has his students out fishing for new ID arguments, trying to find something that works.  He doesn't care about his students "mixing it up" with rational people.  The great and powerful Wizard of WAD is out of ideas.  Bone dry.

Second, he's having morons like Sal and batshitcrazy77 feed him names of professors with mental illness, er, similar "worldviews"  (whatever that is!) to his.

As a grad student I could name the top 5 professors in each of the top 10 colleges representing my discipline, and what their research interests were and possibly the names of a few of their graduate students.

The fact that WAD can't research his own list only highlights what a clueless, incapable git he really is.

Maybe Dr. D was begging for a compliment, hoping someone would name him in their top ten.  

No takers yet.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2010,22:15   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 26 2010,18:14)
As a grad student I could name the top 5 professors in each of the top 10 colleges representing my discipline, and what their research interests were and possibly the names of a few of their graduate students.

Wow. As a grad student, I was working on such obscure stuff that I could name every anthropologist that had ever visited the villages I was working in, and where they had slept. I didn't always know who they had slept with, but could identify about half of them.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
sparc



Posts: 1688
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,00:19   

Quote (REC @ Feb. 26 2010,21:38)
   
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 26 2010,20:14)
It's interesting how increasingly isolated is WAD at his little bible college.

He has his students out fishing for new ID arguments, trying to find something that works.  He doesn't care about his students "mixing it up" with rational people.  The great and powerful Wizard of WAD is out of ideas.  Bone dry.

Second, he's having morons like Sal and batshitcrazy77 feed him names of professors with mental illness, er, similar "worldviews"  (whatever that is!) to his.

As a grad student I could name the top 5 professors in each of the top 10 colleges representing my discipline, and what their research interests were and possibly the names of a few of their graduate students.

The fact that WAD can't research his own list only highlights what a clueless, incapable git he really is.

Maybe Dr. D was begging for a compliment, hoping someone would name him in their top ten.  

No takers yet.

I wonder what the good Dr. would prefer: Being seen as a bad Christian or being recognized as a bad scientist non-scientist.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,00:30   

He's hoping to get on the list three times for three different disciplines.

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

  
didymos



Posts: 1822
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,02:42   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2010,22:30)
He's hoping to get on the list three times for three different disciplines.

Bullshit, nonsense, and claptrap?

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,06:31   

David Tyler and primordial soup:
 
Quote
William Martin and colleagues have presented a strong case for retiring the primordial soup concept from active service. It has reached the grand old age of 81 and, as a hypothesis, it has not been confirmed. Normally, when hypotheses are tested and found wanting, they are discarded – but we are now overdue for this to happen with the primordial soup. It is “well past its sell-by date”.

Gee, David, the notion of a primordial chef has lingered through time immemorial without a shred of dispositive evidence or meaningful test, yet it survives. Indeed, you embrace it, I'll wager.

What's up with that?

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,06:36   

KF:
Quote
Seversky:

I must repeat.

That is so true.

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

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < ... 152 153 154 155 156 [157] 158 159 160 161 162 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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