RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:49   

Lenny,

I really have no idea how posting that supports your case.  You have to use a lot of spin to suggest that from that deposition Behe believes that astrology is currently (meaning *in our modern scientific world*) a valid scientific theory.

Clearly he's talking about history.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:50   

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,18:38)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 02 2007,20:34)
 
Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,14:33)
(I know that rule has been absent lately on that thread where GoP, Skeptic, Lenny etc intersect, but I'll deal with that shortly.)

Me?  What the #### have *I* done lately . . . . . ?

Actually, I haven't seen anything of yours lately that was a problem. I should have said "GoP, Skeptic, Louis". They're the three who are annoying me at the moment. Mibad.

Geez, once ya get that Scarlet Letter tattoo'ed on your forehead, it NEVER goes away . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 8895
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:55   

So what are you here to do, FtK? What's your goal?

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:58   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,16:49)
Lenny,

I really have no idea how posting that supports your case.  You have to use a lot of spin to suggest that from that deposition Behe believes that astrology is currently (meaning *in our modern scientific world*) a valid scientific theory.

Clearly he's talking about history.

Frankly, I don't see why that matters. I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me the degree that something is science can't ever decrease. Since science is all about finding testable explanations for the natural world, the scientific content of any field of study is the number of experiments and the explanatory power of the possible results of those experiments. Astrology to my knowledge has never had any experiments to test ideas, and there certainly aren't fewer experiments that one could perform today than in 1369. So it's just as scientific today as it ever was. Likewise with ID.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:58   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:49)
Lenny,

I really have no idea how posting that supports your case.  You have to use a lot of spin to suggest that from that deposition Behe believes that astrology is currently (meaning *in our modern scientific world*) a valid scientific theory.

Clearly he's talking about history.

FTK, since you're not here for a serious discussion, and have already refused in advance to answer anyone's questions, please don't waste my time by talking to me.

Thanks.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:59   

Stevestory wrote:
"FtK--so you don't want to discuss science, just insult us, and your insult is that we don't want to discuss science, just insult you. Wow."

Is what I'm writing insulting to you?  I was merely stating facts.  But, if you do consider them insults, wouldn't I fit right in with the rest of you.  That's what you do, correct?  And, many of you have said that your demeanor is appropriate, so why the big "Wow" at the end of your sentence?

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8895
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,19:02   

So what are you here to do, FtK? What's your goal?

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,19:03   

Not a problem, Lenny.  Consider it done.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,19:16   

Stevestory wrote:

“So what are you here to do, FtK? What's your goal?”

Goal?  Need there be a goal when entering this forum?  It seems to me that the conversations here are merely sporadic posts on nothing of particular interest.

I entered the forum to counter Dave’s assumptions as to why his comments were not showing up on my blog.  He apparently thought it was due to an enlightening revelation which led me to the “conclusion that [I] really do[n't] know squat about science“.

So, there you have it.  I provided Dave with the real reason why his posts aren’t making it past moderation, and at that point was flooded with further comments from the gang.

So, I’ll take my leave now and go enjoy a nice evening with my family.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,19:27   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 02 2007,18:24)
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,11:58)
I decided long ago that I'm not going to deal with those who are insincere.   There is no point in it.

Then, uh, why are you here . . . . . ?

Perhaps she thinks if she can pass herself off to the rubes as some kind of 'martyr' then Intelligent Design will win and all those little children in Kansas will be rescued. She's certainly not here to, like, discuss science or 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: 8895
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,19:29   

FtK was disappointing. Hopefully at some point in the future she'll want to argue the science and come back.

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,19:35   

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,17:29)
FtK was disappointing. Hopefully at some point in the future she'll want to argue the science and come back.

Not likely. I've just taken a look at her blog, and there isn't any science there either. A complete lack of understanding of science is apparent, however:
Quote
But, let’s say for the sake of argument that ID generates no new scientific research whatsoever. Hypothesis don’t particularly have to generate new scientific research. They merely have to be a true description of what happens in nature. For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this.
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/03/evolutionary-yearnings.html

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8895
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,19:42   

Yeah, we found that mind-boggling comment a few pages back.

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,19:54   

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,17:42)
Yeah, we found that mind-boggling comment a few pages back.

Bah. I knew it looked familiar. OK then, here's another
Quote
But, in regard to evolution and the origin of life, we are talking about a historical inference and I believe any literate person can research these issues for themselves and understand them quite well as it’s certainly not rocket science. It’s pretty obvious that those leading darwinists pushing their views on evolution are not involved in the debate merely due to the scientific evidence.

Clearly, laypeople can understand abiogenesis research just as well as the scientists themselves. Also, I wonder what she thinks of rocket scientists, of whom I suspect there are very few YECs. Perhaps rocket science is no design detectology.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8895
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,20:00   

Quote (argystokes @ April 02 2007,20:54)
Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,17:42)
Yeah, we found that mind-boggling comment a few pages back.

Bah. I knew it looked familiar.

No, there's no harm in repeating it. I could read "For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research," every day for a year, and I still wouldn't understand how anyone could say it.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,20:19   

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,19:29)
FtK was disappointing. Hopefully at some point in the future she'll want to argue the science and come back.

Because, ya know, ID is all about the science.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10112
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,20:20   

Hello, I have a near neurotic obsession with the truth. I don't want to talk science with you though, because you're all "one of them".

Right, I'm off to repost some DI press releases.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,20:23   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,19:36)
I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.  You're clearly into attack, ridicule and spin.

Actually, the folks here are more than willing to discuss science on whatever subject you choose and in whatever level of detail you would like.  But, I would respectfully suggest that coming in here and going on about how we are all bad and you would certainly never engage such nasty people in an adult conversation isn't likely to lead to anyone engaging with you in a meaningful way. Reap, sow, yadda, yadda.

There are real working scientists here who now more about the various subjects than you and I can ever imagine.  If you want to learn more about what they do and how it is relevant to the whole debate, you should give them the benefit of the doubt and start a conversation like the adults that we all are. I am willing to bet that if you come into a conversation in that manner, it will be reciprocated in kind.  However, if your goal here is to stir up a hornets nest, act like scientists have nothing to teach you about science, and then go back to your own blog and talk about how nasty all those foulmouthed scientists were to you (bless their hearts!), then your sweet-sounding obstinance is the right way to go.

Look at it this way. You have nothing to lose by trying to start an adult conversation. Perhaps, you could learn alot about who these people are and the cool things they do as scientists. Or perhaps, they will give you good reason to go back and talk about what asses they are.  Either way, it looks like a win-win for you.

-3, -24

--------------
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!)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,20:43   

Quote (argystokes @ April 02 2007,19:54)
Also, I wonder what she thinks of rocket scientists, of whom I suspect there are very few YECs. Perhaps rocket science is no design detectology.

Well, let's ask Werner Von Braun:

Quote
In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature with a Divine Intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?

Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet, it is so perfectly known through its effects that we us it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.

I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowledging the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific alternative to the current "Case for CHANCE" lies in the inconceivability, in some scientists' minds, of a Designer. The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.

We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.

With kindest regards.

Sincerely,

(signed) Wernher von Braun



Of course, Von Braun's vaunted religious faith in design didn't seem to prevent him from building ballistic missiles for the  ***Nazis***  . . . . . . Remember that, the next time some foaming fundie yammers to you that "Darwin was a racist !!!".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 8895
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,21:43   

Best I can tell, FtK was never banned at Panda's Thumb, by the way.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,22:08   

P.Z. Myers rejects the claim that FtK was banned at Pharyngula as well. He does say that FtK was put on notice there, but that is not banning.

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

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,22:18   

I think FTK was a little over-eager to assume her mantle of martyrdom.

I'm sure she had splendid reasons for banning Dave the ornithologist, tho. [eye rolling icon needed here]

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10112
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,22:40   

Latest poll on faith, evolution, etc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,23:01   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 02 2007,22:08)
P.Z. Myers rejects the claim that FtK was banned at Pharyngula as well. He does say that FtK was put on notice there, but that is not banning.

Wesley, you might work harder on your reading comprehension.  I'll repeat what I said:

"I was banned from KCFS and PT, and PZ Myers doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through either."

I was banned from KCFS and I assume I was banned at PT because I was not able to post for months, and when I emailed admin., I received no response as to why I could not post.  I have just recently been able to get comments through again.  

I *never* claimed that PZ "banned" me.  I said he "doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through".  He has, on occasion, made my posts unreadable.  So they make it past moderation, but they have been messed with so that the words look like gibberish.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,23:58   

P.Z. responded with a denial to a quote of FtK's earlier statement. "Banning" was my phrasing here; I stand corrected so far as what FtK was stating about her experience at Pharyngula, but that does not affect P.Z.'s denial that FtK's original quoted description is accurate.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 03 2007,00:00

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,00:25   

I've checked my logs. I've never received any email from the address registered with FtK's account here. Would that have been a different account, perhaps?

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

    
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,03:52   

I remarked earlier:

Quote
I have no great expectations of a meeting of minds. Let's see.


Sorry to see those expectations fully confirmed. The good thing is that she has such a small sphere of influence that it hardly matters.

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,06:35   

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,20:29)
FtK was disappointing. Hopefully at some point in the future she'll want to argue the science and come back.

Nope.  She's a die-hard Walt Brown adherent.  Those types never dare discuss the science.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,06:44   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers

FTK,
What were those peer reviewed papers about? They were not supporting ID, as unless i'm very much mistaken there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID
So what were they and why were you reading them? And did you believe them? If not, what problem did you have with them and will you be submitting a peer-reviewed paper to the journal in question rebutting their claims?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,06:47   

Oh no am I for the naughty corner again? But I'm really trying to be a good boy.

Louis

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

  
  10200 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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