RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 8862
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,17:10   

Yeah, I get the same sense. While DaveScot seems malevolent, and Dembski a wolf fleecing the sheep, Casey just seems like a poor dumb guy who doesn't know any better. When I first started mocking him, he emailed me asking why in the world I thought his Intelligent Design club was religious in nature. Despite the fact that he was a minister, despite the fact you had to be a christian to be an officer in his club, despite every ID advocate being on record at some point saying a variant of "Of course ID is really just christianity in disguise", Casey really didn't seem to understand that it wasn't science. He seemed to really think he was doing science. After all, it sure sounded like science.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2006,17:46   

I've noticed a real desire on the part of reasonable people for science to find God (their version). After all, people know that science does really neat stuff and learns a lot, investigates nearly everything, produces useful technology, etc. And they know that God (their version) is perfectly real, clear and present. So WHY can't science find Him?

This makes for an audience very willing and eager to believe a claim that science HAS found God (their version). Combine this with the fact that for the most part, this audience has little clue what science is or how it works. There's a lot of force available in telling people what they dearly wish to hear, who aren't equipped to evaluate these claims.

I suspect Casey feels as most such Believers do, that if ordinary atheistic science can do such wonderful stuff, imagine what full-buckwheat Christian science can do! After all, Christian scientists have TheBigGuy in their hearts, leading them in the right direction and telling them the answers.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8862
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,05:07   

LOL now they're getting mad that people are using the phrase "Unintelligent Design" to refer to things in biology.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/693#comments

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,05:42   

Dave Scot booted me fro UD yesterday. On the same thread that Steve Reuland got kicked out.

I had the temerity to point out that his opening article actually asked  Steve R. questions. Therefore it was very ungentlemanly not allowing him to answer.

 :(

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,08:31   

Hey, Stephen Elliott, turn that :( into a  :) ! Anyone not banned by DaveScot has to be either an @$$#0!e, a moron, or has failed to be noticed.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8862
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,10:04   

Here's the top of Uncommon Pissant at the moment:

Quote
January 22, 2006

On a Level Playing Field - We Win

It has come to my attention that some of our best informed ID supporters don’t believe politics are important to winning and that science education is the key. Now I dearly love science but without politics providing us a level playing field our arguments from math and science are doomed to being censored.
(more…)
Filed under: Education, Legal, Courts, Laws, Constitution — DaveScot @ 1:04 pm
Comments (0)


Yeah, that's the problem. IDers have focused too much on science, not enough on PR.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8862
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,12:25   

Quote
The anti-theist is free to exercise his faith, but the theist is not free to express her intelligent observation.

It is obvious to every fair minded person that if one view is religious, then both are religious; if one view is scientific, then both are scientific.

But now the courts allow only the anti-theistic view; the theistic view is absolutely prohibited by the power and force of the Federal Government….in absolute convolution  of the First Amendment.

Comment by Red Reader — January 22, 2006 @ 3:58 pm

{I added the boldfacing -Steve}
From Uncommon Pissant, an example of what happens when people use big words to sound all smart-like.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,13:16   

Quote
It is obvious to every fair minded person that if one view is religious, then both are religious; if one view is scientific, then both are scientific.
Indeed, I would go further: I see no reason why all views are not equally religious and scientific. It's a corollary of the deep philosophical observation that everything is everything.

But seriously... do these people really think that science and higher education are dominated - nay, tyrannized - by unusually unfair minded people?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,13:21   

Quote
stevestory wrote:
From Uncommon Pissant, an example of what happens when people use big words to sound all smart-like.

Red Reader regularly makes a fool of himself on UD.  My favorite example is his response to John Davison's "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis".  Apparently the word "Evolutionary" set Red off like Pavlov's bell:
Quote
Red Reader wrote:
Just a desperate “big idea” for funding and publicity which necessarily includes enough bogus obfuscation to brand those who oppose or even question it as “unscientific”.

After a few other comments were posted, Red realized he was on the "wrong" side of the issue.  He sheepishly retracted his criticism:
Quote
Red Reader wrote:If I may, I would like to apologize to Dr. Davison for my ill considered and intemperate remark. It is obvious that Prof. Davison has put a lot of thought into his hypothesis. I hate to say it but it’s true: I engaged my opinion before I put my brain in gear.

I love it when ID supporters have to be told what the "correct" position is.  Of course it's even worse when your opponents know your position better than you do.  I once had to tell Josh Bozeman to "stay on your own side of the argument!" when he picked the "wrong" side.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,13:32   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2006,16:04)
...
Yeah, that's the problem. IDers have focused too much on science, not enough on PR.

LOL.
Now, that is funny!

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,13:41   

Another good Red Reader story.  He criticized me once for not agreeing often enough with ID supporters:
Quote
Red Reader wrote:
I see Dave, Josh, Pav (in the this post) continously making good points–logical, fair, reasoned.
But the contrarian never acceeds a single point.
Why is this? The law of averages suggests that between them–Dave, Josh & Pav (not to mention numerous others in different threads)–they would by complete accident make at least one statement in three (more or less) that the contrarian could agree with.

Apart from the bizarre probabilistic reasoning and the oxymoronic idea of Josh Bozeman making a "logical, fair, reasoned" point, the fact was that I did agree with ID supporters (including DaveScot -- forgive me) when they said something sensible.  I even defended Bill Dembski on a couple of occasions when he was unfairly attacked.
Quote
I wrote to Red:
Perhaps you can show me the many comments in which you agree with Darwinians, so I’ll have an example to follow.

Needless to say, no such examples were forthcoming.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,13:51   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 22 2006,19:21)
Of course it's even worse when your opponents know your position better than you do.  I once had to tell Josh Bozeman to "stay on your own side of the argument!" when he picked the "wrong" side.

Josh does get confused easily.

How long did this go on for before you were banned?

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,16:14   

Quote
Needless to say, no such examples were forthcoming.


I thought just today they were pointing out how they have all now decided that common descent works with ID?

I remember WD40 putting forth this unusual (at the time) statment during his first "debate" with Ruse.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,20:16   

In the strangest journalism I have ever seen....DaveScot is now linking to the forum that is discussing the site that DaveScot is linking to the forum from?!?!?

I love DaveScot.  Honestly.

Sorry if some of you dont know me....I havent really posted frequently.  

William Dembski originally banned me....and told everyone on the blog that he had done so.  I almost felt honored.  Then DaveScot decided to try to insult me after I was banned?  That was honestly the lowest I have ever seen anyone sink.  Insulting someone without actually allowing them to reply.

Apparently at some point I was allowed to reregister my screen-name...so I did.  I was then banned for answering...with completely correct information...a question that DaveScot had asked.  I was promptly banned again.

Dave....no one cares that you ban people.  No one cares that you decide to moderate.  People are upset with you, and Bill because you guys seem to do it with only a vague set of guidelines....how boring is it when everyone in your little world agrees with you?

  
Inoculated Mind



Posts: 16
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2006,23:26   

DaveScot is hilarious, especially when he tries to be scary. He hunts around the internet trying to find dirt on people, with nothing else to do, and then bans them. Mr. Christopher and I both got banned for the same reason. (Mine still logs in, but I tried saying a couple things and they were deleted) Mine was this essay:
Proves my point
After trackbacks lead him to my post, he then proves my point by un-linking the trackbacks on UD to my blog. His reason given was so that I couldn't plug my blog on - read: HIS - , like I would want the 20 people in the world that DaveScot and Bill Dembski haven't banned from their blog commenting on mine anyway!

I think the point made earlier about Dembski wanting to make his whole blog a joke to cover up his mis-statements and "street theater" may fit the bill. No pun intended.

What I think is interesting is the TIME that DaveScot takes to go online with his modem and download these pages bit by bit to see what people are saying about him. And B.Dembski calls evolution proponents obsessive.

Hello Dave, glad to see you are spending so much time on everyone here. Won't you provide another link directing people to places that don't ban people for making truthful statements about you? The fact is, people on "YOUR" own blog notice how you are the embodiment of a flaming troll, and you can't hide it.

While I was still on the blog, I was trying to understand what some of their positions were on apes->humans. Although DaveScot emailed me to warn me that he could *smell* that I was a troll, the only reason why I wanted to try posting on the blog was to get answers to the question above. They kept repeating that ID was compatible with common descent with apes as well as uncommon descent, that was not what I was asking.

One person did attempt to answer me, he said that he believed that humans and apes did not descend from a common ancestor, I asked him what evidence, since ID is compatible with both scenarios, lead him to that conclusion. No biochemical evidence, just a hand wave at the complexities of humans. I made sure to be polite, and thanked him for responding. So the one response I got was an empty box with no evidence.

Which is precisely what I expected.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8862
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,02:25   

Some IDer, who himself keeps getting deleted at Uncommon Pissant, is begging DaveScot to stop being such a censor:

Quote
Hey Dave, I haven’t seen what they’re saying and don’t intend to, but as someone who’s pretty pro ID, I would appreciate a rethink of your moderation here. Perhaps just leaving it all to someone else would be best. The signal to noise ratio here has changed since you’ve been moderating, and I’m sorta tiring hearing about you all the time and seeing others complain about your moderation, or you telling us they are.


I love it.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,02:48   

Isn't it a bit odd that UD has banners that link to This Page.

Quote
The bottom line is that while the math and science in support of guided non-Darwinian evolution is extraordinary, compelling, and interesting to a fault

No comment, although I'm interested to see if the next edition of Pandas replaces intelligent design with 'guided non-Darwinian evolution'.

Quote
Someone needs to slap these clergy upside the head and tell them they don’t have to compromise their faith in God to accommodate some godless story of evolution foisted upon us by the likes of Richard Dawkins or the National Academy of Atheist Sciences.

I thought he was banning people for talking about religion?

  
Lord Monar



Posts: 2
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,02:54   

DaveScot is now complaining about being blocked on this site.

Quote
Not only have they banned me from commenting at “After The Bar Closes” but they banned my IP address from even READING the forum. Yes Virginia, you heard right. These paranoid censoring fascists don’t even want me to read what they’re saying no less reply to it. They make my moderation policy look like a paragon of tolerance in comparison.


Now...for a guy who is supposed to be a blog moderator (if that is what you call that particular site)...he should know that when you block an IP address, it prevents any connection between the server and the blocked IP.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8862
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,03:27   

He can say whatever he wants, the fact remains: he has censored more people this week, than Panda's Thumb has in almost 2 years.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8862
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,03:41   

Since DaveScot's linking here at the moment, here's a brief statement to the ID folk who'll be wandering over:

You're welcome to discuss things here. Panda's Thumb, and After the Bar Closes, are run by scientists who believe in open discussion. As long as you aren't a raging jerk for months on end (which DaveScot was) you won't be warned or banned. Very few people have been banned here--fewer than DaveScot censored last week. I understand it's so bad over there that he's even banning ID supporters who don't agree exactly with him, like Josh Bozeman. We can all agree that since he's been moderating, DaveScot has made the blog about himself and how rigorous he is at purging the site of any alternative ideas. This trainwreck isn't going to last forever, and until it changes, you can discuss things here, just keep it civil.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,04:14   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 23 2006,08:48)
The bottom line is that while the math and science in support of guided non-Darwinian evolution is extraordinary, compelling, and interesting to a fault

"Guided non-Darwinian evolution"?? That is priceless.

So these guys have been forced by evidence to accept evolution, but they'll be damned if they'll concede an inch to that DARWIN bastard!

Maybe 'macro-evolution' is Darwinian, but 'micro-evolution' = 'guided non-Darwinian evolution'.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8862
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,04:21   

Boy, JAD's really got some reading comprehension problems, in evidence over at UncommonPissant:
Quote
#

stevestory is now welcoming all the ID people back to PT ….he says. I want a personal guaranteed invitation steve baby, complete with an apology for the hideous way you hypocrites have treated an Emeritus Professor of Biology and his sources, some of the finest minds of two centuries. Put your money where your mouth is. Fat chance.

War, God help me, I love it so!

Comment by John Davison — January 23, 2006 @ 9:07 am
What a loon. The informed observer will note that civil ID supporters, like Salvador Cordova and Carol Clouser, have been posting at Panda's Thumb and After the Bar Closes for almost 2 years now, almost without incident. I didn't welcome back those ID supporters, because they never left. A tiny handful of hysterical and rude ID supporters were banned, but only after months of warnings.

Enjoy the reign of DaveScot, JAD, because it's not long for this earth.

Quote
I don’t care who does the moderating. I’m just grateful not to be banned for a change. So if Dave decides to step down and I hope he won’t, I also hope Bill Dembski is very careful about who replaces him. I am getting sick and tired of being treated like garbage every where I go.

-JAD

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,04:29   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,10:21)
I don’t care who does the moderating. I’m just grateful not to be banned for a change. So if Dave decides to step down and I hope he won’t, I also hope Bill Dembski is very careful about who replaces him. I am getting sick and tired of being treated like garbage every where I go.

I have to admit, as distateful as Davison is, that was sort of a poignant statement, not least because he shows absolutlely no comprehension whatsoever of why he engenders this reaction everywhere he goes.

Let this be a cautionary lesson: don't let yourself spend your retirement years like this, an angry charmless crank posting to blogs and alienating everyone.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8862
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:17   

AHAHAHAHA somebody on UncommonPissant, referring to us:

Quote
#

They’d all do well to follow Flew and finally follow the evidence whereever it leads.

Comment by Ben Z — January 23, 2006 @ 12:07 pm

Is somebody going to tell him that Flew is a deist, not a christian, and that he said he'd been misled by a christian?

If they do, DaveScot will nix the comment.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:35   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,13:17)
Is somebody going to tell him that Flew is a deist, not a christian, and that he said he'd been misled by a christian?

If they do, DaveScot will nix the comment.

Do we have any volunteers?  :p

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

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:38   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,09:41)
Since DaveScot's linking here at the moment, here's a brief statement to the ID folk who'll be wandering over:

You're welcome to discuss things here.

But will Davescot then ban them from posting at UD?  :D

Anyone want to bet how long it'll be before that place consists of DaveScot talking to himself, with even the IDers having been banned?

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
stevestory



Posts: 8862
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,07:58   

several IDers have been banned over there. He was banning anyone who called ID religious at one point, which means repeating William Dembski's statement that
Quote
Intelligent Design is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
Would have gotten someone banned from Dembski's blog.

I don't think DaveScot will be in charge for long.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:35   

We should make it perfectly clear -

Anyone from Dembski's uncommodescent creationist blog should note that Dave Scott will ban you from there if you post anything here or on PT that he doesn't like.

And whatever you do stay away from calling Dembski a theologian or pointing out there is no science whatsoever being taught or researched at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Don't discuss the idiotic religious propaganda Dembski teacher there.

And I suggest you avoid mentioning Behe hasn't come up with any new ideas in over 10 years.  Nor has he provided any new evidence for "his" irreducible complexity notion.  And I wouldn't say a word about the fact that Behe published his book on irreducible complexity back in 1996 but there is still not a single peer reviewed scientific paper that supports it.   Yep, 10 years laters and it still lacks any scientific meat.

And I'd avoid talking about Dembski's lack of published peer reviewed scientific articles.  Dave won't like that.  Your best bet it to avoid any suggestion that Behe is a quack and Dembksi is a garden variety Christian Opportunist.  Mr Scott fancies Dembski as a legitimate "theorist/scientist" so let's not shatter his fantasy.

ps.  Dave Scott seems to be whining about his inability to read posts here.  If Mr Scott is jonesing that bad for a ATBC shot in the arm, will someone tell the technically challenged Mr Scott to Google "anonymous proxy"?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:39   

DaveScot must lead a paranoid life.  Why does he care if people at another forum are making fun of him?  I certainly don't care what he thinks of this forum.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,08:54   

Here's my new theory...

They are trying to be like those exclusive night clubs that keep everyone outside with a velvet rope.  That way, everyone wants to get in because if you do manage to get in and appease the "bouncer" (DS in this case) then you get to say that you are part of the select few.

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

Pages: (1000) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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