RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 989 990 991 992 993 [994] 995 996 997 998 999 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,22:07   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 11 2008,21:29)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,21:11)
Due time, big guy.  I addressed Bill's last post with a lengthy post of my own, and here you are again acting as though I never address a thing.  

I have posted several substantive comments directed at the topic of common descent versus common design since your last response, beginning with an article documenting the work of Johanne Haile-Selassie you claimed would make you think. That doesn't seem to have happened.

Rather, you've ignored them. That isn't addressing my questions. Nor was the post you describe above at all responsive to my original comment - rather, you simply restated much of what you had already posted on your blog.

Go here and here, both substantial, on-topic non-personal remarks.

Fine.  Why try again?  I believe my lengthy post at the onset of this mess *directly* addressed the issues you had previously posted about.

I've been ignoring your repetative pleading to start on the next one as I've been commenting on other things, and I said I'd get to it in time.  

At this point it's obvious that it's futile to so.  Even when I break down your posts paragraph by paragraph and respond you insist that I've not done so.

So, bug off.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,22:11   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 11 2008,22:06)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,21:55)
Mirecki blah blah. PZ blah blah. Were you there???? blah blah

Still here, still opinions without evidence, still ignoring questions from here and here.
   
Quote
Ftk   Viewing Board index   July 11 2008,21:57

Good to know that some things never change...

G'night

You obviously have your opinions as well.  Were you there?

Thought not.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,22:16   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,23:07)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 11 2008,21:29)
 
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,21:11)
Due time, big guy.  I addressed Bill's last post with a lengthy post of my own, and here you are again acting as though I never address a thing.  

I have posted several substantive comments directed at the topic of common descent versus common design since your last response, beginning with an article documenting the work of Johanne Haile-Selassie you claimed would make you think. That doesn't seem to have happened.

Rather, you've ignored them. That isn't addressing my questions. Nor was the post you describe above at all responsive to my original comment - rather, you simply restated much of what you had already posted on your blog.

Go here and here, both substantial, on-topic non-personal remarks.

Fine.  Why try again?  I believe my lengthy post at the onset of this mess *directly* addressed the issues you had previously posted about.

I've been ignoring your repetative pleading to start on the next one as I've been commenting on other things, and I said I'd get to it in time.  

At this point it's obvious that it's futile to so.  Even when I break down your posts paragraph by paragraph and respond you insist that I've not done so.

So, bug off.

I'll accept that as, "Common design is an utterly and completely inadequate framework in the context of real research. It's uselessness in contrast with common descent is underscored by the example you provided. I have no response to the points you have raised. My argument that these frameworks have no bearing on ongoing biological research is clearly mistaken. So, bug off."

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

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,22:21   

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 11 2008,20:51)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 11 2008,21:48)
On further reflection, I am equally disapproving that PZ has incited others to comitt crimainal acts.

This will not go well.

Dr. GH, I've been a little self-involved today with my total pwning of the entrance exam.

Could you elaborate on the criminal acts for me briefly?

ETA: Yeah, I'm arrogant today.  :)

Apparently committing the felony (or is it a misdemeanor) of removing a communion wafer from a Catholic church.

Oh wait, that's not illegal, is it? Especially since PZ never suggested breaking into a church and stealing one. Accepting one from a priest and then leaving the church with the cracker intact was the heinous "crime" that started all this brouhaha to begin with. But it's still not illegal.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,22:23   

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 11 2008,22:03)

Quote
I'm sorry.  Why is it that anyone should care about what you think again?


Well, of course they shouldn't because we're all well aware that I'm a Creationist and a Christian...two strikes against me right off the bat.  We're all liars, so I'm told.

Quote
Violence is, after all, the way of salvation.  There's a long history of that.


There's a long history of violence due to the hatred that fills man's heart.  It stems from many things.

Quote
So they didn't get caught.  That makes it OK?


Why do you do that?  Why do you so often phrase your sentences to completely twist what I actually said?  

There are times when I wonder just what exactly has happened in some of you folks past to warrant your extreme distrust and fury for those of us who believe in God.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,22:34   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 11 2008,22:16)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,23:07)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 11 2008,21:29)
   
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,21:11)
Due time, big guy.  I addressed Bill's last post with a lengthy post of my own, and here you are again acting as though I never address a thing.  

I have posted several substantive comments directed at the topic of common descent versus common design since your last response, beginning with an article documenting the work of Johanne Haile-Selassie you claimed would make you think. That doesn't seem to have happened.

Rather, you've ignored them. That isn't addressing my questions. Nor was the post you describe above at all responsive to my original comment - rather, you simply restated much of what you had already posted on your blog.

Go here and here, both substantial, on-topic non-personal remarks.

Fine.  Why try again?  I believe my lengthy post at the onset of this mess *directly* addressed the issues you had previously posted about.

I've been ignoring your repetative pleading to start on the next one as I've been commenting on other things, and I said I'd get to it in time.  

At this point it's obvious that it's futile to so.  Even when I break down your posts paragraph by paragraph and respond you insist that I've not done so.

So, bug off.

I'll accept that as, "Common design is an utterly and completely inadequate framework in the context of real research. It's uselessness in contrast with common descent is underscored by the example you provided. I have no response to the points you have raised. My argument that these frameworks have no bearing on ongoing biological research is clearly mistaken. So, bug off."

No, that's not how you'll take that.  You'll start acknowledging that I do address your points, or you'll not be getting any further responses from me.

Simple as that.

There is no reason why I should not be allowed to respond to others before you.  You can either wait patiently or you can keep repeating yourself endlessly.  I'll get to you when I feel like it.  But, if your going to be inconsiderate and accuse me of not adressing the issues in your post right after I've done so, then there is obviously no point in carrying on a conversation with you.  I'm surprised you even wish to continue the conversation if you find my responses void of content.

Just let it go if you feel that way.

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

  
1of63



Posts: 126
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,22:37   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,21:22)
Wow.oh.wow.  I just read some more of them.  He's posted endless emails from Catholics.  Honestly, the whole episode makes me feel like crying...for both sides really.

Really?  I think it's great,  all these humble, compassionate, caring Christians turning the other cheek to Myers' needling, showing how superior their God-given morals make them.

Like hell!

They fornicate, lie, cheat, steal, use violence and kill just like the rest of humanity.  The only difference is they think that bullshitting about a belief in God somehow makes it okay.

And all it takes is a cracker to flush them out of the woodwork.

--------------
I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them. - Tracy P. Hamilton

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,22:46   

Quote (1of63 @ July 11 2008,22:37)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,21:22)
Wow.oh.wow.  I just read some more of them.  He's posted endless emails from Catholics.  Honestly, the whole episode makes me feel like crying...for both sides really.

Really?  I think it's great,  all these humble, compassionate, caring Christians turning the other cheek to Myers' needling, showing how superior their God-given morals make them.

Like hell!

They fornicate, lie, cheat, steal, use violence and kill just like the rest of humanity.  The only difference is they think that bullshitting about a belief in God somehow makes it okay.

And all it takes is a cracker to flush them out of the woodwork.

Hmmm...well, I still think the whole affair is sad.  

Sad because obviously PZ was looking for a fight, and sad because there are always those who are ready and willing to take him up on it.

It's not the punch that starts a war...it's the words that are uttered from one's lips that instigates hatred and physical abuse.

"Words satisfy the mind as much as fruit does the stomach; good talk is as gratifying as a good harvest. Words kill, words give life; they're either poison or fruit - you choose"

Proverbs 18:20-21


What PZ said was wrong...no question.  Now, he's started an emotional war of words.  Both sides will pay the price if it continues.

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

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,22:47   

Quote (1of63 @ July 11 2008,22:37)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,21:22)
Wow.oh.wow.  I just read some more of them.  He's posted endless emails from Catholics.  Honestly, the whole episode makes me feel like crying...for both sides really.

Really?  I think it's great,  all these humble, compassionate, caring Christians turning the other cheek to Myers' needling, showing how superior their God-given morals make them.

Like hell!

They fornicate, lie, cheat, steal, use violence and kill just like the rest of humanity.  The only difference is they think that bullshitting about a belief in God somehow makes it okay.

And all it takes is a cracker to flush them out of the woodwork.

If an uneaten communion wafer gets them that bent out of shape, imagine how they'd react to a priest raping an altar boy.

Boggles the mind.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,23:06   

Quote (Chayanov @ July 11 2008,22:47)
Quote (1of63 @ July 11 2008,22:37)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,21:22)
Wow.oh.wow.  I just read some more of them.  He's posted endless emails from Catholics.  Honestly, the whole episode makes me feel like crying...for both sides really.

Really?  I think it's great,  all these humble, compassionate, caring Christians turning the other cheek to Myers' needling, showing how superior their God-given morals make them.

Like hell!

They fornicate, lie, cheat, steal, use violence and kill just like the rest of humanity.  The only difference is they think that bullshitting about a belief in God somehow makes it okay.

And all it takes is a cracker to flush them out of the woodwork.

If an uneaten communion wafer gets them that bent out of shape, imagine how they'd react to a priest raping an altar boy.

Boggles the mind.

Do two wrongs make a right?  This would have been the perfect opportunity for PZ to rise above those nasty 'ol Christians and set an example for them.  But, did he do that?  Nope.

Kinda goes to show you that religion isn't really any worse than atheism when it comes to bigotry and hatred.

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

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2008,23:09   

Not eating a communion wafer isn't wrong.

Being critical of the violent thugs who went after the guy for not eating it isn't wrong.

Being a violent thug who would threaten someone's life over something so inconsequential is very wrong.

That you would equate all three of these things says a lot about your lack of character.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,03:33   

Dr. GH:
Quote
Someone who does not have legal access to church property is requested to "score" some hosts. As I said earlier, If a priest wants to test divine wrath, I am fully willing to desecrate any host they have legal access to. But to generally broadcast that just "anyone" should try to "score ... some consecrated communion wafers" does incite people to break the law.

Last time I looked, anyone is welcome to attend a Catholic Mass.

Which law is broken by taking a host given freely by a priest, then departing church without having eaten it?  Catholic law, perhaps, but secular law?  Can you be a bit more precise?  Is it a state law that's being broken, or a federal one?

Also, I notice that your posts have no disclaimer regarding the views of your employer.  Should I then presume that your view that keeping an uneaten consecrated host freely given one by a priest at a mass open to the public breaks the law is the view of your employer, too?

Perhaps you should set a good example for PZM and add a disclaimer to your sig here ...

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,06:06   

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 11 2008,22:03)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,22:55)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 11 2008,21:44)
How about we start a betting pool on how long it takes PZ to learn the hard way that I was correct about Mirecki?

Who ever is closest wins.

I'll start with $5 on Aug 11th.

(It was about a month before Mirecki got slapped around.)

What do you mean by "I was correct about Mirecki"?  

Are you saying that you think Mirecki was actually beat up by some fundies, and that PZ is next in line?

You do realize that the cops never actually ran across those "fundies", who I think should have been pretty easy to track down.  Retarded fundies packing punches don't usually cover their tracks very well, and they tend to brag.  Doesn't seem like it would be a terribly hard case to crack.

I'm sorry.  Why is it that anyone should care about what you think again?

Violence is, after all, the way of salvation.  There's a long history of that.

So they didn't get caught.  That makes it OK?

I am a little late to this party, Lou, but I believe she is saying that it didn't happen, that Mirecki faked the whole incident.  Somewhere along the line someone (I recall not who) implied this and, being the good follower, FTK has apparently adopted it.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,06:29   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 12 2008,06:06)
I am a little late to this party, Lou, but I believe she is saying that it didn't happen, that Mirecki faked the whole incident.  Somewhere along the line someone (I recall not who) implied this and, being the good follower, FTK has apparently adopted it.

Ah, here we go:

Dec 6, 2005: In response to an earlier comment by Red Reader, Gil Dodgen advances the idea that Mirecki staged the beating.

Also Dec 6, Davescot takes a different tack by assuming Mirecki is a loud-mouth who wrote a check he couldn't cash.

Dec 7, 2005: Dembski approvingly links to a blog post implying Mirecki faked the incident.

March 7, 2007:  Davescot returns to the party line when he suggests PZ should stage a beating like Mirecki did.

So, Lou, know you know where FTK is coming from. Alpha Male said it.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,07:23   

PZ makes national news; or at least rates a boo-and-hiss from the Moonie-owned Washington Times.

I wonder if they asked his permission to use the photo from his blog...

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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,07:56   

GrannyTard wades again into the pink mist surrounding the argument that Darwinism led inexorably to the Holocaust. She quotes DI Fellow Richard Weikart, and establishes his bona fides by claiming that he "knows more than anyone alive about the  Nazis and Darwin"

Coincidentally I just finished Robert J. Richard's The Tragic Sense of Life, an historical treatment of the life of Ernst Haeckel, who is the link that Weikart proposes from Darwin to Hitler. Richards (who might even know more than Weikart about this topic) deals extensively with Weikart's thesis, and leaves it in rubble. Here's the money quote, from the last page of the book (my emphasis).  
Quote
It can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis. And while some of Haeckel's conceptions were recruited by a few Nazi biologists, he hardly differed in that respect from Christian writers, whose disdain for Jews gave considerably more support to those dark forces. One might thus recognize in Haeckel a causal source for a few lines deployed by National Socialists, but hardly any moral connection exists by which to indict him.

Richards notes that Weikart suffers from the "failing of monocausality", the search for a single, simple cause of historic events. He notes that Weikart ignores evidence, including the fact that an official Nazi document expunged from libraries the works of those scientists thought to be "traitors" (pp 446-7). The banned scientists included Einstein and Haeckel; the latter was banned because he was a scientist advocating "the superficial scientific enlightenment of a primitive Darwinism".

In other words, Weikart's work seems to be a typical DI product. Oversimplified, ignoring evidence, and driven by dogma. No wonder GrannyTard loves it.

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

   
olegt



Posts: 1386
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,08:16   

Dave asks at UD: What do Design Detection and Nazis Have in Common?
 
Quote

It’s a crying shame that people just can’t seem to drop this obsession with Darwin and Nazis. If we can stick to the science we can win this thing. Evolution solely by unintelligent causes doesn’t have a leg to stand on when put under the microscope of math & physics. The only legs it has are the ones we intelligent design proponents give it when we wander off the reservation of science and reason and start waving our hands in the air shouting that Darwinism is evil, Darwin led to the holocaust, and Darwin is killing God. Those are not scientific arguments, they never will be scientific arguments, and if we keep doing it we’re never going to get ID accepted as science. Period. End of story. Keep it up at your own peril and don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The problem, Dave, is that ID "scholars" just can't stick to science.  They weren't designed to.  Take a look around, they're a bunch of theologians, lawyers, philosophers, and a handful of engineers.  They don't do science.  When was the last ID conference where people presented some scientific-looking results?  Where are ID journals?  Even YECs are more prolific.  Walt Brown is publishing the 8th edition of his hydroplate model.  It's laughable, to be sure, but at least he has a model.  Your big tent can't even do that.  Linking Darwin to Hitler is the best they can do, Dave.  

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,08:28   

DaveScot
Quote
What do Design Detection and Nazis Have in Common?
DaveScot

Perhaps someone can explain to me what the science of design detection has to do with Nazis, the Holocaust, or Hitler.

I sure can’t think of anything. Help me out here.

It’s things like this that undermine ruin the effort to get ID accepted as good science. It gives our critics the ammunition they need to convince people that ID is nothing more than a tool being used to promote social reform.

Science has left the building once the Nazi card gets played. As far as science is concerned it doesn’t matter if Hitler and Darwin were the same person. The only thing that matters is whether his theories can stand up to scientific scrutiny.

As before, I admire this position. I dropped "DaveTard" owing to this position.

But Dave: There is one other bit of ammunition we use to convince people that ID is nothing more than a tool being used to promote social reform:

ID is nothing more than a tool being used to promote social reform.

Science was never IN the building.

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,08:45   

Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,23:23)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 11 2008,22:03)

 
Quote
I'm sorry.  Why is it that anyone should care about what you think again?


Well, of course they shouldn't because we're all well aware that I'm a Creationist and a Christian...two strikes against me right off the bat.  We're all liars, so I'm told.

No, Ftk.  It's not because you're a Christian, and actually it's not even because you're a creationist per se.

It's because you have repeatedly shown an enduring propensity to be dishonest.  

It's because you pontificate on biology after you've been shown, at length, that you have no idea what you're talking about - by biologists - by biologists who have spent their lives studying and practicing actual biology, in labs.

It's because you come here and mindlessly spout nonsense you skimmed in a book and have been told by the Discovery Institute, despite the fact you haven't even the barest understanding of whatever subject is at hand.

It's because you ignore all the aforementioned biologists, and other scientists, who try so very hard to correct your misunderstandings.

It's because you show an utter contempt for priceless education freely offered by people who actually do know what they're talking about.

It's because you do not converse, you talk.  Conversation requires listening as a vital component.  Your comments here are the equivalent of a billboard.  The communication is unidirectional.  And to make it worse, the billboard is covered with false propaganda, inaccurate information, ridiculous conspiracy theories, unwarranted attacks on the character and integrity of people who have tried to inform you that the crap you're plastering is bullshit.

It's because you are habitually misinformed via the loudspeaker at Uncommon Descent and plug your ears to all else, lest reality intrude.

That's why nobody should care about what you think, Ftk.

Because you don't.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,08:52   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 12 2008,07:29)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 12 2008,06:06)
I am a little late to this party, Lou, but I believe she is saying that it didn't happen, that Mirecki faked the whole incident.  Somewhere along the line someone (I recall not who) implied this and, being the good follower, FTK has apparently adopted it.

Ah, here we go:

Dec 6, 2005: In response to an earlier comment by Red Reader, Gil Dodgen advances the idea that Mirecki staged the beating.

Also Dec 6, Davescot takes a different tack by assuming Mirecki is a loud-mouth who wrote a check he couldn't cash.

Dec 7, 2005: Dembski approvingly links to a blog post implying Mirecki faked the incident.

March 7, 2007:  Davescot returns to the party line when he suggests PZ should stage a beating like Mirecki did.

So, Lou, know you know where FTK is coming from. Alpha Male said it.

Thanks for the clarification, Carlson.

I'll retract the implication that Ftk was condoning the action.

My apologies, Ftk.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,09:22   

Quote (dhogaza @ July 12 2008,01:33)
Dr. GH:
   
Quote
Someone who does not have legal access to church property is requested to "score" some hosts. As I said earlier, If a priest wants to test divine wrath, I am fully willing to desecrate any host they have legal access to. But to generally broadcast that just "anyone" should try to "score ... some consecrated communion wafers" does incite people to break the law.

Last time I looked, anyone is welcome to attend a Catholic Mass.

Which law is broken by taking a host given freely by a priest, then departing church without having eaten it?  Catholic law, perhaps, but secular law?  Can you be a bit more precise?  Is it a state law that's being broken, or a federal one?


Obviously you have not been to a Catholic Mass in a long time, if ever. A) A priest does not give a host to just anybody, or even to any Catholic. B) a Host is considered church property, C) to obtain another's property under false pretences is a crime. D) a church or temple is not public property. E) even in public property, there are legal limits as to what behaviors are allowed.

Quote (dhogaza @ July 12 2008,01:33)
Also, I notice that your posts have no disclaimer regarding the views of your employer.  Should I then presume that your view that keeping an uneaten consecrated host freely given one by a priest at a mass open to the public breaks the law is the view of your employer, too?


I am self-employed- my opinion is always the opinion of my employer.

A priest does not freely give hosts out, nor is Communion open to the public. That makes it a (minor) crime.

Quote (dhogaza @ July 12 2008,01:33)
Perhaps you should set a good example for PZM and add a disclaimer to your sig here ...

Obviously you need to grow up.

Let me ask you and anyone else- Is burning a cross on a black families lawn a "hate crime?" It has been successfuly prosecuted and people have gone to jail.

Is painting a Swastika, or writing Nazi slogans on a Temple a Hate Crime? It has been successfuly prosecuted and people have gone to jail.

The monetary value of the lawn damage, or the paint to cover the Nazi slogans, does not set the level of the crime. It is the painful emotional impact that the act caused that sets the level of the crime.

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

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

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,09:23   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 12 2008,06:29)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 12 2008,06:06)
I am a little late to this party, Lou, but I believe she is saying that it didn't happen, that Mirecki faked the whole incident.  Somewhere along the line someone (I recall not who) implied this and, being the good follower, FTK has apparently adopted it.

Ah, here we go:

Dec 6, 2005: In response to an earlier comment by Red Reader, Gil Dodgen advances the idea that Mirecki staged the beating.

Also Dec 6, Davescot takes a different tack by assuming Mirecki is a loud-mouth who wrote a check he couldn't cash.

Dec 7, 2005: Dembski approvingly links to a blog post implying Mirecki faked the incident.

March 7, 2007:  Davescot returns to the party line when he suggests PZ should stage a beating like Mirecki did.

So, Lou, know you know where FTK is coming from. Alpha Male said it.

Carlson,

I live in Kansas...25 minutes from the KU campus.  I've attended a lecture where I stood in line with Mirecki while waiting to get in.  He was actually being congratulated by some of the folks in line with him for the derogatory things he said about religion.  I've observed him in another lecture.  I read every line of what he wrote in the actual forum where he wrote it.  I know an atheist KU student who is quite familiar with the religion dept. at KU.  I read every single article in the papers about the incident as well as the follow up of the investigation.

People draw opinions.  You have yours, I have mine. I'll leave it at that.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,09:29   

Quote (Ftk @ July 12 2008,09:23)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 12 2008,06:29)

So, Lou, know you know where FTK is coming from. Alpha Male said it.

Carlson,

I live in Kansas...25 minutes from the KU campus.  I've attended a lecture where I stood in line with Mirecki while waiting to get in.  He was actually being congratulated by some of the folks in line with him for the derogatory things he said about religion.  I've observed him in another lecture.  I read every line of what he wrote in the actual forum where he wrote it.  I know an atheist KU student who is quite familiar with the religion dept. at KU.  I read every single article in the papers about the incident as well as the follow up of the investigation.

People draw opinions.  You have yours, I have mine. I'll leave it at that.

You mean you actually formed an opinion all by your onesies without deferring to some Alpha Male authority figure?  Well, I'll be damned.........   ;)

EDIT: By the way, it might be nice of you (Christian, even) to acknowledge Lou's apology.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,09:33   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 12 2008,15:29)
You mean you actually formed an opinion all by your onesies without deferring to some Alpha Male authority figure?  Well, I'll be damned.........   ;)

Incidentally, it just happens to coincide with the conclusions of the UD silverbacks.

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,09:34   

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,10:22)
A) A priest does not give a host to just anybody, or even to any Catholic. B) a Host is considered church property, C) to obtain another's property under false pretences is a crime. D) a church or temple is not public property. E) even in public property, there are legal limits as to what behaviors are allowed.

Thanks Dr. GH.

That's the part I was asking about earlier.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,09:40   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 12 2008,05:56)
GrannyTard wades again into the pink mist surrounding the argument that Darwinism led inexorably to the Holocaust. She quotes DI Fellow Richard Weikart, and establishes his bona fides by claiming that he "knows more than anyone alive about the  Nazis and Darwin"

Coincidentally I just finished Robert J. Richard's The Tragic Sense of Life, an historical treatment of the life of Ernst Haeckel, who is the link that Weikart proposes from Darwin to Hitler. Richards (who might even know more than Weikart about this topic) deals extensively with Weikart's thesis, and leaves it in rubble. Here's the money quote, from the last page of the book (my emphasis).    
Quote
It can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis. And while some of Haeckel's conceptions were recruited by a few Nazi biologists, he hardly differed in that respect from Christian writers, whose disdain for Jews gave considerably more support to those dark forces. One might thus recognize in Haeckel a causal source for a few lines deployed by National Socialists, but hardly any moral connection exists by which to indict him.

Richards notes that Weikart suffers from the "failing of monocausality", the search for a single, simple cause of historic events. He notes that Weikart ignores evidence, including the fact that an official Nazi document expunged from libraries the works of those scientists thought to be "traitors" (pp 446-7). The banned scientists included Einstein and Haeckel; the latter was banned because he was a scientist advocating "the superficial scientific enlightenment of a primitive Darwinism".

In other words, Weikart's work seems to be a typical DI product. Oversimplified, ignoring evidence, and driven by dogma. No wonder GrannyTard loves it.

There is another book I'll be reading.  Thanks!

I have been reading Steigmann-Gall, Richard
2003 “The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity 1919-1945” 2003 Cambridge University Press.

He also helps close the door on Weikart's argument, noting that Himmler was opposed to Haeckel's atheism. Nazi theorist Hans Schemm (Gauleiter of Beyreuth and leader of the National Socialist Teacher's League) rejected Darwin's ideas as a "political formulation of materialism."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Unfortunately, Karl W. Giberson gave Weikart full marks in "Saving Darwin" and fails to have read anything on the Nazis beyond Weikart.

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

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

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,09:50   

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,10:22)
Obviously you have not been to a Catholic Mass in a long time, if ever. A) A priest does not give a host to just anybody, or even to any Catholic. B) a Host is considered church property, C) to obtain another's property under false pretences is a crime. D) a church or temple is not public property. E) even in public property, there are legal limits as to what behaviors are allowed.

Funny, (now) slightly embarrassing story:

When I was about 21 a Catholic friend of mine was getting married, full Catholic mass, and asked me to be in the party as an usher.

I'm not Catholic. I had never attended a mass.

So there I am, sitting in the pew in my rented tux in the midst of a row of his cousins, all in tuxes, and all Catholic. I might have been stoned - I don't recall (I might have been stoned, so I don't recall). The ceremony went forward and reached the point where communion is offered. Everyone around me stood and began to file into line, including my row of cousins. I looked around. What am I supposed to do? Is it an offense to participate? Or to sit there alone?

So absolutely spur of the moment I figured I'd imitate the others. Where's the harm? No one would be the wiser, and I'm going to hell anyway. So I lined up, took note of the ritual, and prepared to imitate. There were 300 people in line behind me.  

But my friend's Italian mother, who is about 4' 8", knew I'm not Catholic. Just as I began to commit my crime she rushed over, grabbed my arm and shoved me sideways with surprising strength shouting "YOU CAN'T!!" The shove spun me around, and there I was, facing the entire congregation as her voice reverberated.  

Oddly, at the time, I wasn't at all embarrassed.  

Subsequently, no one said a word.

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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,10:14   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 12 2008,07:50)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,10:22)
Obviously you have not been to a Catholic Mass in a long time, if ever. A) A priest does not give a host to just anybody, or even to any Catholic. B) a Host is considered church property, C) to obtain another's property under false pretences is a crime. D) a church or temple is not public property. E) even in public property, there are legal limits as to what behaviors are allowed.

Funny, (now) slightly embarrassing story:

When I was about 21 a Catholic friend of mine was getting married, full Catholic mass, and asked me to be in the party as an usher.

I'm not Catholic. I had never attended a mass.

So there I am, sitting in the pew in my rented tux in the midst of a row of his cousins, all in tuxes, and all Catholic. I might have been stoned - I don't recall (I might have been stoned, so I don't recall). The ceremony went forward and reached the point where communion is offered. Everyone around me stood and began to file into line, including my row of cousins. I looked around. What am I supposed to do? Is it an offense to participate? Or to sit there alone?

So absolutely spur of the moment I figured I'd imitate the others. Where's the harm? No one would be the wiser, and I'm going to hell anyway. So I lined up, took note of the ritual, and prepared to imitate. There were 300 people in line behind me.  

But my friend's Italian mother, who is about 4' 8", knew I'm not Catholic. Just as I began to commit my crime she rushed over, grabbed my arm and shoved me sideways with surprising strength shouting "YOU CAN'T!!" The shove spun me around, and there I was, facing the entire congregation as her voice reverberated.  

Oddly, at the time, I wasn't at all embarrassed.  

Subsequently, no one said a word.

I was just as a funeral mass.  The priest went on and on about ecumenicalism, and every Christian being a member "of the body of Christ" and so on... They even sang some songs written by Martin Luther which cracked me up.

Then the mass is offered to "Catholics in an appropriate state of grace" (IIRC). Bwahahaha

There were very few takers.

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

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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,10:15   

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,09:40)
Unfortunately, Karl W. Giberson gave Weikart full marks in "Saving Darwin" and fails to have read anything on the Nazis beyond Weikart.

He's in good company, then. Stephen Jay Gould apparently was quite influenced by an earlier Weikart-esque book, Daniel Gasman's 1998 work Haeckel's Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology, as well as a 1971 Gasman book, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism. Gould took up the cudgel against Haeckel in 1977 in his first book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, and continued for years, culminating in a 2000 essay in Natural History.

Richards advances the thesis that Gould's antipathy was partially due to his conviction that a current nemesis, sociobiology, was a perversion of Darwin's theory, and Haeckel was part of the thread leading from Darwin to sociobiology. Gould certainly was no friend of sociobiology; he started hammering on it within a year of the publication of E.O. Wilson's seminal book on that topic, and continued right up until his death. So that explanation has some merit, IMHO.

It is interesting how even a scientist and science popularizer like Gould could parrot an explanation that had its roots in Christian fundamentalism's visceral reaction to Darwin via Haeckel. The Richards book thoroughly debunks Gasman's and Weikart's thesis, but it took a lot of digging with an historian's eye to unravel a fabric that anti-Darwinists started to weave in the 1860's! Gould did not have the benefit of that scholarship, and that's a pity.

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

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2008,10:57   

Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,09:22)
Obviously you have not been to a Catholic Mass in a long time, if ever. A) A priest does not give a host to just anybody, or even to any Catholic. B) a Host is considered church property, C) to obtain another's property under false pretences is a crime. D) a church or temple is not public property. E) even in public property, there are legal limits as to what behaviors are allowed.

So what's the protocol? One of the expectations is that the communicant has gone to confession since the last communion, so how does the priest verify that before offering the host? He doesn't.  And you're quite wrong about who can take communion--anyone who wants it gets it, whether he's "eligible" or not, so long as the priest doesn't have knowledge that he shouldn't. I'm a recovering Catholic, and attended mass on a regular basis for a long time, and I know that this is the case.

Insofar as the "cracker" being church property is concerned, the priest either hands the thing to the communicant or places it on the communicant's tongue.  How does this exchange affect the chain of legal possession? I'm sure that since you've apparently attended the Larry Fafarman School of Law, you can explain your contention that the host is still the property of the church after the priest gives it way.

Edited for clarity.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 989 990 991 992 993 [994] 995 996 997 998 999 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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