RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The "I Believe In God" Thread, You may know him from "Panda's Thumb"...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
didymos



Posts: 1775
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,16:04   

At the request of OgreMkV, I do hereby create this thread for IBIG. So....yeah.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,16:39   

Well, let's see where we are now.

My current discussion with IBIG is in regards to the quote-mine featured on PT here: Dembski vs. Evo-Devo

IBIG maintains that this is a correct representation of the discovery article author's conclusion.

I maintain that it is (and remains since 2005) a quote-mine because it does not accurately represent the author of the original article.  If effect, it lies about what Elizabeth Pennisi said in her Science article.

Furthermore, I quote Psalms where it says, "There is no God." as an example of a quote-mine that is exactly the same as the discovery article.

Both quotes are taken out of context and result in a misrepresentation of the intent of the original author.

IBIG maintains that the discovery quote is legitimate, but my quote is a lie and that I'm a liar.  

So, IBIG, please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.

Over to you.

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

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

   
didymos



Posts: 1775
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,16:51   

A little IBIG background:

OK, I knew this guy was....prolific, but...WOW.  He got permanently exiled to PT's Bathroom Wall on February 8, 2010, at which time it had filled 24 pages. The exile announcement started off page 25.  It's now on page 425!  Four-Hundred and Twenty Five!  All 400 pages largely to his "credit" as Prime Instigator, and that still doesn't include the posts that got BWed before the perma-exile, which go back to page  23. I have no clue how many comments he actually managed to slip onto normal threads.  Damn.  I said "Damn."

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

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,16:56   

Yes, he has...stamina...

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,18:45   

The word "absolute" is an adjective, not a noun. As such, to have meaning the type of object being modified by it has to be specified, and consistent.

Henry

  
didymos



Posts: 1775
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,18:54   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2010,16:45)
The word "absolute" is an adjective, not a noun. As such, to have meaning the type of object being modified by it has to be specified, and consistent.

Henry

Well, actually, it is a noun.  It can also be an adverb (fairly rare, that).  It's simply used most commonly as an adjective.

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

  
mplavcan



Posts: 6
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,20:15   

He has stamina, and yet he STILL hasn't answered a single question. But I know enough people who think like he does to make the whole thread an illustration of why creationism persists.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,20:34   

Quote
It is extremely contradictory to make any claims that I, or anyone else is wrong about anything, because most if not all of you don’t accept that absolutes exist. You would also have to accept that there is no right or wrong answer or position about anything. I’m sorry but your worldview is irrational.

I think it was Isaac Asimov who wrote that primitive people thought the earth was flat. They were wrong. Later, people thought the earth was spherical. They were also wrong, but MUCH closer. There are degrees of wrong. A worldview that holds that every claim must be absolutely right or absolutely wrong is inherently unable to distinguish the difference between a flat earth (wrong) and a spherical earth (wrong).

The scientific enterprise, considered altogether, is a method of approximating an understanding of reality, more and more accurately all the time. BUT one of the presumptions of science is that "perfectly, completely right" simply cannot exist. ALL scientific theories can be improved in some way, in principle.

So while there may be "no right or wrong answer or position about anything", there IS a vast gulf between unbelieveably stupidly wrong despite all available evidence, and "as close as we can get considering all currently available evidence." Claiming these are the same is one of those positions that is stupidly wrong, not even close.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,20:36   

Quote (mplavcan @ Oct. 31 2010,20:15)
He has stamina, and yet he STILL hasn't answered a single question. But I know enough people who think like he does to make the whole thread an illustration of why creationism persists.

I agree.  It's a fascinating subject.

They twist things so much and learn just enough to make uninformed statements.

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

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

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,20:59   

You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,21:20   

Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59)
You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.

You mean recently?

That was his favorite tactic.  He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"

At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic.

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

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

   
mplavcan



Posts: 6
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,21:46   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,21:20)
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59)
You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.

You mean recently?

That was his favorite tactic.  He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"

At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic.

I doubt he will join this discussion. Assuming that he isn't a troll, and is sincere, then this forum is not public enough for him. He acts like a street preacher, and if he is real, probably thinks that he is witnessing and will turn souls to Christ. He is not interested in debate or truth -- only casting doubt and spreading the Gospel. Notice how every 20 pages or so he would revert to quoting scriptures?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,21:55   

Quote (mplavcan @ Oct. 31 2010,21:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,21:20)
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59)
You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.

You mean recently?

That was his favorite tactic.  He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"

At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic.

I doubt he will join this discussion. Assuming that he isn't a troll, and is sincere, then this forum is not public enough for him. He acts like a street preacher, and if he is real, probably thinks that he is witnessing and will turn souls to Christ. He is not interested in debate or truth -- only casting doubt and spreading the Gospel. Notice how every 20 pages or so he would revert to quoting scriptures?

If so, then he is the WORST witness for any religion I've ever heard of in my life.

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

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

   
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,22:30   

IBIG said on Panda's Thumb, Sept. 4 2010:
"Many here state that logic is a convention or a construct of man, so now let me ask these two questions:"
"Is big bang a convention or construct of man?"
"Is evolution a convention or construct of man? "

"I knew when I asked the questions about logic, that those here would state that logic was a convention or construct of man, which is what I really wanted to hear. I gave you all many opportunities to state otherwise, but to no avail. Now that you have stated that logic is a convention and construct of man, you must admit that big bang and evolution are a convention of man."

"Logic is absolute and not a construct of man, because before man gave a name to the law of non-contradiction it still existed. "

"It did not need a system to define it for it to have existed, the law of non-contradiction is absolute."

"'I am a man, and I am not a man' is this logical? would there be a lie somewhere in that statement, yet if we used fuzzy logic it would be valid, because it would not be completely wrong, at least 50% of the statement is correct."

"God’s logic will always lead to the truth!"

And on Sept. 7:
"I’ve not finished with logic yet, just wait and see!!! Be prepared!!!"

Are you ready for some fun?

IBIG will teach you his "God's logic".

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,23:48   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,21:20)
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59)
You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.

You mean recently?

That was his favorite tactic.  He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"

At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic.

Ok - I didn't want to try to read 240-odd pages.  I was thinking of bornagain7...something (damn memory, stuck on Fallout:New Vegas now and can't remember his number 777?) - you know who I mean, I am sure.  Coincidence, or just commonalities surfacing, do you think?

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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,23:56   

Quote (prong_hunter @ Oct. 31 2010,22:30)
IBIG said on Panda's Thumb, Sept. 4 2010:
"Many here state that logic is a convention or a construct of man, so now let me ask these two questions:"
"Is big bang a convention or construct of man?"
"Is evolution a convention or construct of man? "

"I knew when I asked the questions about logic, that those here would state that logic was a convention or construct of man, which is what I really wanted to hear. I gave you all many opportunities to state otherwise, but to no avail. Now that you have stated that logic is a convention and construct of man, you must admit that big bang and evolution are a convention of man."

"Logic is absolute and not a construct of man, because before man gave a name to the law of non-contradiction it still existed. "

"It did not need a system to define it for it to have existed, the law of non-contradiction is absolute."

"'I am a man, and I am not a man' is this logical? would there be a lie somewhere in that statement, yet if we used fuzzy logic it would be valid, because it would not be completely wrong, at least 50% of the statement is correct."

"God’s logic will always lead to the truth!"

And on Sept. 7:
"I’ve not finished with logic yet, just wait and see!!! Be prepared!!!"

Are you ready for some fun?

IBIG will teach you his "God's logic".

Not the "logic" argument!  There has to be an apologetics bingo somewhere (nothing on the first two pages of a google search, maybe further in?).  I can never understand how people can mix the descriptions we make about something (such as codifying the "laws of logic", so to speak, with the reality of such a thing.  There are logical absolutes that are a property of reality (as we have come to understand it).  These seem to be part of what is - there isn't any need to explain them, as far as I can tell.  But some people want explanations.

I can't figure out why some people, who want absolutes, believe that the things they want as unchanging are at the whim of their god.  "Logic comes from God" - who, by the way, can change it any time he feels like, which is ok, since he has all the power and gets to say what is what, what is just, and what the heck we have to do to stay on his good side or be tortured forever...

Whackadoodles

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

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,06:06   

Well, he really showed them on Panda's Thumb. Here's what IBIG said Oct. 31st 2010:
"No you are wrong, All along I have not just questioned whether there are moral absolutes, but I have also questions whether there are absolutes of any kind. It was said that there were no absolutes, which I clearly demonstrated was absurd, because if that were true then you could not state that there are no absolutes. If one is to state that there are no absolutes, then one would be making an absolute statement that there are no absolutes. So, evidently here you all only think there is one form of absolute, and that is that there is no absolutes:)"

"Go back and read my previous posts, because I clearly demonstrated that there are mathematic absolutes, and there clearly are moral absolutes also, I answered that. You again like to twist the truth to agree with you naturalistic view that there are no absolutes, but that is irrational. You are irrational!"

How can any one argue against 'logic' like that?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,07:01   

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 01 2010,06:06)
Well, he really showed them on Panda's Thumb. Here's what IBIG said Oct. 31st 2010:
"No you are wrong, All along I have not just questioned whether there are moral absolutes, but I have also questions whether there are absolutes of any kind. It was said that there were no absolutes, which I clearly demonstrated was absurd, because if that were true then you could not state that there are no absolutes. If one is to state that there are no absolutes, then one would be making an absolute statement that there are no absolutes. So, evidently here you all only think there is one form of absolute, and that is that there is no absolutes:)"

"Go back and read my previous posts, because I clearly demonstrated that there are mathematic absolutes, and there clearly are moral absolutes also, I answered that. You again like to twist the truth to agree with you naturalistic view that there are no absolutes, but that is irrational. You are irrational!"

How can any one argue against 'logic' like that?

I once tried to argue with logic like that... then I gave up and married her.  She keeps the logic to a minimum though.

Arguing with IBIG is like arguing with a two-day old tuna sandwich.  You can scream all you want, it's still gonna stink.

I'll post my list of unanswered (mostly) questions in a bit.



Edited by Lou FCD on Nov. 01 2010,18:59

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

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

   
fusilier



Posts: 207
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,07:59   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,08:01)
[quote=prong_hunter,Nov. 01 2010,06:06]{snip}

Arguing with IBIG is like arguing with a two-day old tuna sandwich.  You can scream all you want, it's still gonna stink.

I'll post my list of unanswered (mostly) questions in a bit.

May I nominate that for a Quip of the Week, if not POTW?

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,08:34   

OK, my questions for IBIG... which I'm sure he'll get to as soon as he registers.

Do organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive?
What is life? (define, not examples)
Are those books previously mentioned true historical fact?
Why did you not discuss the echidna?
Why do you refuse an honest offer to learn about all the things you don’t understand?
Why did you steal works from other authors and not give them credit?
How long is the shortest RNA strand that acts as a functional catalyst for biochemical
reactions?
What is an opsin and why does it demolish your claim of no common descent?
Do you own and have you read the MIT book you linked to?
Do you own and have you read the Reese, Campbell Biology 5th Edition?
Why won’t you answer these questions?
Even if you disprove evolution, how does that help whatever your hypothesis?
Why do pro-science sites allow you to babble on, while pro-creationist sites do not allow
any scientists to comment?
Do you really think your comments here are original in anyway?
can you explain why I might think sympatric speciation is an example of evolution without mutation
Who wrote the Gospel According to John?
Why won’t you show that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of the messiah?
What evidence would convince you that common ancestry is correct.
Which group, AiG or the DI, is lying and why aren’t you taking them to task for “lying for Jesus”?”
What mechanism activates front-loaded genetics?
What, exactly, is the problem with mutation rates (include sources for your information)?
Do you believe in the flood of the Bible?
Do you take all the anti-biotics like the doctor tells you to?
(From DS)Why do dolphins have five digits early in development if they do not have five digits as adults?
(From DS) Why do dolphin embryos start out with the nostril on the front of the head if it is positioned on the top of the head in the adult?
(From DS) Why do dolphin embryos have pharyngeal gill pouches if they lack gills as adults?
(From DS) Why do dolphin embryos start to develop hind limbs if they do not have hind limbs as adults?
(From DS) Why do horse embryos have five digits if they have only one as adults?
(From DS) Why are there fossils intermediate between apes and humans?
(From DS) How old is the earth? How do you know?
(From DS) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla? (Hint: common design is not the answer).
(From DS) Why is there a nested hierarch of SINE insertions with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla, the exact same relationship revealed by the developmental and other genetic data? (Hint: common design is not the answer).
(From DS) Why are human and chimp chromosomes nearly identical gene for gene and band for band, including the extra centromeric and telomeric sequences found in human chromosome two? (Hint: common design is not the answer).
(From DS) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity for primates with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent in both nuclear and mitochondrial genes and also consistent with the fossil evidence and the chromosome banding data?

IBIG’s Answers*
I freely admit that IBIG has (kinda) answered some of these, but I think it's best we start over (it was only 2 questions) and then we can move forward.  




Selected Quotes from IBIG that he should be held to

 
Quote

The evidence is not the prophecy of the old testament, but the precise fulfillment of that prophecy, these were not little vague prophecies. This is evidence that God did what He said that he would do. Evidence  that He does exist!
my emphasis


 
Quote

I’ll answer one now, but you are trying to change the subject.
It isn’t okay to lie for Jesus! It is never okay to lie!


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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,09:47   

[quote=fusilier,Nov. 01 2010,06:59]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,08:01)
Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 01 2010,06:06)
{snip}

Arguing with IBIG is like arguing with a two-day old tuna sandwich.  You can scream all you want, it's still gonna stink.

I'll post my list of unanswered (mostly) questions in a bit.

May I nominate that for a Quip of the Week, if not POTW?

Absolutely!  :p

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,17:55   

Prediction verified.  He declared victory (more or less) and obviously feels that he has hit nerve with us.  One wonders what that nerve actually is, since he's the one that kept changing topics.

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

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

   
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,17:58   

The record on Panda's Thumb is very interesting.

IBIG claims he is well-versed in God's logic.

He said this, "Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect?", June 25th in the PT thread ICR Hits A Snag.

When confronted with the fact that there is no "Law of Cause and Effect" in science, he simply ignores it and goes on in his unwavering, unshakable certainty.

When shown the error in his use of the response "there are no Absolutes" to prove there are absolutes, and thus God exits (they have to come from somewhere, right?), he simply ignores all appeals to formal logic - he knows better, don't confuse him with the facts.

The fact is that he cannot comprehend genuine scientific or logical arguments.  He's like a Taliban.

I can't imagine arguing with a Taliban, except that it must be like arguing with IBIG.

I will close with a few more choice quotes from Sept. 6th:
"The point of my little exercise on logic, is to demonstrate that logic will not work unless all facts are absolutely true," 9-6-10 BW282

"Logic is correct thinking, and the purpose of using logic is to find the truth, ..." 9-6-10 BW282

”… it is illogical to attempt to apply logic to see if God exists …” 9-6-10 BW282     (Holy Cow! Is this good, or what?)

  
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,19:00   

Quote (prong_hunter @ Oct. 31 2010,22:30)
IBIG said on Panda's Thumb, Sept. 4 2010:
<snip>

And on Sept. 7:
"I’ve not finished with logic yet, just wait and see!!! Be prepared!!!"

<snip>



--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. -forastero

  
mplavcan



Posts: 6
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,19:06   

Looks like IBIG has declared victory. Now, if we all stay veeeeerrrrryyyy still, maybe it will go away.

  
mplavcan



Posts: 6
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,19:25   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,17:55)
Prediction verified.  He declared victory (more or less) and obviously feels that he has hit nerve with us.  One wonders what that nerve actually is, since he's the one that kept changing topics.

Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2010,21:24   

Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 01 2010,19:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,17:55)
Prediction verified.  He declared victory (more or less) and obviously feels that he has hit nerve with us.  One wonders what that nerve actually is, since he's the one that kept changing topics.

Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong.

You aren't kidding.

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2010,11:40   

hmm... IBIG is declaring victory and ignoring any requests to come here.

Who was it that said, he's looking for an audience?  

Of course, he doesn't want an audience of his fellow Christians since they will see what a lying hypocrite that he is.

To sum up: IBIG doesn't believe in the bible, nor he doesn't believe in science... yet he uses the trappings and tools of both to feed his own needy ego.

It's kind of sad really.  Ah well, I tried.

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

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

   
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2010,11:43   

Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 01 2010,19:25)
Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong.

He stands for everything that was overcome by the Enlightenment.  

He stands for everything that is wrong with religion.  

He stands for everything that our Founding Fathers stopped cold when they mandated our Government favor no Religion.  (Isn't it funny, our Democracy isn't founded on Christian Principles of religion as the far-right revisionists insist, but upon the clear mandate of separation of Church and State.  The Fathers knew exactly what happens when theocrats take over government.)

He has never accepted one argument on Panda's Thumb. He has never been 'wrong'. He says he has never lied, even when shown documentation of such.

In short, IBIG stands for intolerance, intransigence, inflexibility and his brand of theocracy ("to Hell with all the rest").

That's why it's important to stand up to him.

Thanks for your efforts.

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,06:12   

I think IBIG may have resurfaced, with an alternate personality, named 'faith4flippers' on PT under the thread with the photo of the pelican.

He's goading Stanton, and making references to DS's dolphin arguments.  Anyone know how to contact them?

IBIG's not one to declare victory as he has, and fade quietly into the night.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,08:29   

Quote
Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong.


And, thus, you describe FL, FTK, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Meyer and so on.

Behe had to be taken to the mat publicly by grad student (never mess with her!) Abbie Smith before he would admit he "overlooked" data on Vpu in his book Edge of Whatever.

At least Kevin XI admitted he lied about Sternberg getting fired by the Smithsonian when he didn't even work for the Smithsonian.

Rather than engage in discussion, creationists run away, The Flounce, when backed into a corner.  How many times have we seen that around here, a thousand?  That's why it's so maddening.  These are not reasonable people.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,13:28   

Quote
Rather than engage in discussion, creationists run away, The Flounce, when backed into a corner.  How many times have we seen that around here, a thousand?  That's why it's so maddening.  These are not reasonable people.


Alas, yes.  When we defeat them in detail, they move the goalposts.  When we defeat them on the merits, they dodge the issue.  And when we finally throw up our hands in exasperation, they claim that we cannot answer their poorly formed and incoherent objections...

Our special friend, the topic of this thread, has often brought to mind a painting I saw in Beijing.  It showed Confucius and a goose looking at each other--the philosopher had a weary expression of disdain on his face, and the bird looked as puzzled as any other goose.  Our guide explained that this was an illustration for a maxim that may be freely translated as 'not every student can be taught'.

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,13:57   

Is he still babbling on at PT... even in his 'new guise'?

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,14:07   

He's not posting at the moment.  Confirmation or refutation may have to wait a few hours.

Although I can think of another reason why he might not be coming here!  The rules of this board do rule out some of his favorite tricks.

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,14:18   

Like he's interested in following 'rules'...

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,14:21   

Almost certainly the truth.   :p

One wonders what he'll attempt next.


The MadPanda, FCD

  
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,16:02   

Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to move the goalposts we go...

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,18:34   

Matt Young answered on PT, when asked, "Do you have the ability to see if Flipper is another incarnation of IBelieveInGod?"

"Different e-mail address, different IP address, for whatever that is worth."

Thanks Matt.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,18:44   

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 03 2010,18:34)
Matt Young answered on PT, when asked, "Do you have the ability to see if Flipper is another incarnation of IBelieveInGod?"

"Different e-mail address, different IP address, for whatever that is worth."

Thanks Matt.


Be that as it may, the tone and general attitude appear to be quite similar, so we could expect a similar pleasant experience trying to deal with this individual.

We'll need to run more tests.  Igor!  Fetch me my lightning-proof suit and warm up The Machine!

:p


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,18:49   

Keep trying to redirect here.

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,19:06   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2010,18:49)
Keep trying to redirect here.

Done!  Although I see you beat me to it.  ???

I would like to think I was sufficiently polite about it...


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,19:09   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2010,18:49)
Keep trying to redirect here.

Done!  Although I see you beat me to it.  ???

I would like to think I was sufficiently polite about it...


The MadPanda, FCD

It's a question of "will s/he be polite enough to come here" or will they continue to flood the PT Wall even after multiple requests to move the discussion elsewhere.

Time will tell.

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,19:25   

Alas, yes.

And now I have an old childhood memory stuck in my mind's eye: Les Lye, from You Can't Do That On Television, clutching his head and asking "where does the school board find them, and why do they send them here" in response to the kids' antics.

At the time, I thought that was pretty funny.  But then, at that time, all the jokes in Zorro the Gay Blade went whirring cheerfully way over my head.

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
mplavcan



Posts: 6
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,19:34   

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 03 2010,06:12)
I think IBIG may have resurfaced, with an alternate personality, named 'faith4flippers' on PT under the thread with the photo of the pelican.

He's goading Stanton, and making references to DS's dolphin arguments.  Anyone know how to contact them?

IBIG's not one to declare victory as he has, and fade quietly into the night.

This one does not sound like IBIG. But who knows?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,19:43   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:25)
Alas, yes.

And now I have an old childhood memory stuck in my mind's eye: Les Lye, from You Can't Do That On Television, clutching his head and asking "where does the school board find them, and why do they send them here" in response to the kids' antics.

At the time, I thought that was pretty funny.  But then, at that time, all the jokes in Zorro the Gay Blade went whirring cheerfully way over my head.

The MadPanda, FCD

I had the biggest crush on Moose.

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,19:58   

You, too?   :D

The ep where poor Moose got stuck behind nothing but a cue card at the very end because they'd bottomed out the wardrobe budget was particularly interesting.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,20:32   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:58)
You, too?   :D

The ep where poor Moose got stuck behind nothing but a cue card at the very end because they'd bottomed out the wardrobe budget was particularly interesting.


The MadPanda, FCD

Sorry for the derail... heh

You Can't Do That on TeleVision

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

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

   
mplavcan



Posts: 6
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2010,21:05   

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 03 2010,13:28)
Our special friend, the topic of this thread, has often brought to mind a painting I saw in Beijing.  It showed Confucius and a goose looking at each other--the philosopher had a weary expression of disdain on his face, and the bird looked as puzzled as any other goose.  Our guide explained that this was an illustration for a maxim that may be freely translated as 'not every student can be taught'.

The MadPanda, FCD

I have a colleague who worked in China and once showed a slide in a talk. It was a picture of a young woman kneeling and holding up a large silver platter behind a bull. Manure (BS) was streaming from the bull onto the platter. Pretty much sums up the average creationist.

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,17:16   

Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,17:18   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,17:37   

Biggy finally found us.  Ogre, I owe you twenty spacebucks for lunch, gas, and tolls.

Quoting scripture apropos of nothing does not a valid point make, nor does it render an argument solid on the merits.  Quite the opposite.


Get back to us after you've read and understood at least two of the Gnostic Gospels and either the Analects of Confucius or the Tao Te Ching.  Then we'll talk.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,17:42   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.

Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?

I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,17:45   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.

Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?

I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:)

The morality or lack thereof doesn't matter.

Either discovery is lying or they are not.  Which is it?

I have shown, upwards of 5 times, that the discovery article leads the reader to a false conclusion.  That is lying.

Why is that different from my bible quote, "There is no God" Psalms (something or other)?

Right now, I don't care about morality (except yours), what we need to know is why is one quote-mine OK and one it not OK?

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,17:47   

Their culpability in this matter has already been established, if you were honestly paying attention.  Why do you continue making bald excuses for dishonest scholarship?

Your question about absolutes has also been answered, repeatedly and at length, by people who understand the entire matter far better than you do.  There is a fundamental (hah!;) error in your reasoning, which has also been pointed out to you.  (There is an even deeper problem with your question, but you are left to puzzle that out for yourself, if you are capable of doing so.)

Are you incapable of paying attention, or does your paycheck depend on your not acknowledging the facts in these matters?

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,17:49   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:45)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.

Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?

I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:)

The morality or lack thereof doesn't matter.

Either discovery is lying or they are not.  Which is it?

I have shown, upwards of 5 times, that the discovery article leads the reader to a false conclusion.  That is lying.

Why is that different from my bible quote, "There is no God" Psalms (something or other)?

Right now, I don't care about morality (except yours), what we need to know is why is one quote-mine OK and one it not OK?

It does not lead to a false conclusion. It is your claim that it leads to a false conclusion. Why do you think it leads to a false conclusion, give specifics?

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,17:55   

Quote
It does not lead to a false conclusion. It is your claim that it leads to a false conclusion. Why do you think it leads to a false conclusion, give specifics?


Already been done.  Repeatedly.  But you weren't paying attention the first five times.

Why do you ask such silly questions if you aren't going to hold still for the answers?

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,17:58   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 04 2010,17:47)
Their culpability in this matter has already been established, if you were honestly paying attention.  Why do you continue making bald excuses for dishonest scholarship?

Your question about absolutes has also been answered, repeatedly and at length, by people who understand the entire matter far better than you do.  There is a fundamental (hah!) error in your reasoning, which has also been pointed out to you.  (There is an even deeper problem with your question, but you are left to puzzle that out for yourself, if you are capable of doing so.)

Are you incapable of paying attention, or does your paycheck depend on your not acknowledging the facts in these matters?

The MadPanda, FCD

Blah Blah Blah....everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT:)

You are the ones that are arguing as though there are absolutes, yet you don't even accept that such absolutes even exist:) Sorry, but it is irrational for you to argue anything, because if absolutes don't exist, then nothing could be said to be right, and nothing could be said to be wrong.

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:02   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:45)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.

Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?

I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:)

The morality or lack thereof doesn't matter.

Either discovery is lying or they are not.  Which is it?

I have shown, upwards of 5 times, that the discovery article leads the reader to a false conclusion.  That is lying.

Why is that different from my bible quote, "There is no God" Psalms (something or other)?

Right now, I don't care about morality (except yours), what we need to know is why is one quote-mine OK and one it not OK?

How could someone lie if there is no absolute right or wrong, or true or false? Lying is to knowingly state something that is wrong or false. If there are no absolute right or wrong, or true or false, then how would lying even be possible?

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:05   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:58)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 04 2010,17:47)
Their culpability in this matter has already been established, if you were honestly paying attention.  Why do you continue making bald excuses for dishonest scholarship?

Your question about absolutes has also been answered, repeatedly and at length, by people who understand the entire matter far better than you do.  There is a fundamental (hah!) error in your reasoning, which has also been pointed out to you.  (There is an even deeper problem with your question, but you are left to puzzle that out for yourself, if you are capable of doing so.)

Are you incapable of paying attention, or does your paycheck depend on your not acknowledging the facts in these matters?

The MadPanda, FCD

Blah Blah Blah....everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT:)

You are the ones that are arguing as though there are absolutes, yet you don't even accept that such absolutes even exist:) Sorry, but it is irrational for you to argue anything, because if absolutes don't exist, then nothing could be said to be right, and nothing could be said to be wrong.

Quote
everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT


And you'd better be prepared to hear it many, many times here as well, unless you present plenty of evidence that you actually do pay attention to and understand the answers you get.

Have you put your brain to work on the flaw in your question about absolutes, yet?  Or gotten ahold of anything by Kant?  You have some remedial reading ahead of you if you want to be taken seriously.

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:06   

Accursed quote failure!  This system shall take some time to become second nature...

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:07   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 04 2010,18:05)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:58)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 04 2010,17:47)
Their culpability in this matter has already been established, if you were honestly paying attention.  Why do you continue making bald excuses for dishonest scholarship?

Your question about absolutes has also been answered, repeatedly and at length, by people who understand the entire matter far better than you do.  There is a fundamental (hah!) error in your reasoning, which has also been pointed out to you.  (There is an even deeper problem with your question, but you are left to puzzle that out for yourself, if you are capable of doing so.)

Are you incapable of paying attention, or does your paycheck depend on your not acknowledging the facts in these matters?

The MadPanda, FCD

Blah Blah Blah....everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT:)

You are the ones that are arguing as though there are absolutes, yet you don't even accept that such absolutes even exist:) Sorry, but it is irrational for you to argue anything, because if absolutes don't exist, then nothing could be said to be right, and nothing could be said to be wrong.

Quote
everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT


And you'd better be prepared to hear it many, many times here as well, unless you present plenty of evidence that you actually do pay attention to and understand the answers you get.

Have you put your brain to work on the flaw in your question about absolutes, yet?  Or gotten ahold of anything by Kant?  You have some remedial reading ahead of you if you want to be taken seriously.

The MadPanda, FCD

Are there any square circles?:)

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:12   

Quote
Are there any square circles?:)


Do you know why the answer to this question is what it is?  

Do you understand why this is not an intelligent question to ask?

Are you going to engage in any conversation here with the intellectual honesty your entire discourse from the Bathroom Wall lacked?


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:21   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 04 2010,18:12)
Quote
Are there any square circles?:)


Do you know why the answer to this question is what it is?  

Do you understand why this is not an intelligent question to ask?

Are you going to engage in any conversation here with the intellectual honesty your entire discourse from the Bathroom Wall lacked?


The MadPanda, FCD

I'm asking to see if you believe in absolutes or not. If there were no such thing as a square circle, then that would be an example of one absolute now wouldn't it.

Now let me ask you this, is the earth really a cube?

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:25   

Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 03 2010,21:05)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 03 2010,13:28)
Our special friend, the topic of this thread, has often brought to mind a painting I saw in Beijing.  It showed Confucius and a goose looking at each other--the philosopher had a weary expression of disdain on his face, and the bird looked as puzzled as any other goose.  Our guide explained that this was an illustration for a maxim that may be freely translated as 'not every student can be taught'.

The MadPanda, FCD

I have a colleague who worked in China and once showed a slide in a talk. It was a picture of a young woman kneeling and holding up a large silver platter behind a bull. Manure (BS) was streaming from the bull onto the platter. Pretty much sums up the average creationist.

Once, while working in India, I watched a bejeweled and coiffured local woman in a beautiful sari hurriedly place both her hands under the raised tail of a hunched water buffalo to catch the hot steaming manure issuing forth before it hit the ground!

She immediately slung her prize onto the low tin roof of her home where it would dry in the sun and be fuel for cooking tomorrow's meal.

It happened too fast for a photograph. Sorry I didn't get one. Still, it burned an indelible image in my mind that will last forever.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:27   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:02)
If there are no absolute right or wrong, or true or false, then how would lying even be possible?

What's the difference between "wrong" and "absolute wrong"?

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

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:34   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

More importantly, are You a square circle?

(You said you were absolutely certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate. How does absolute certainty of some arbitrary fact prove God? Don't you see the difference? Don't you see how foolish equating absolute certainty with Absolutes is?)

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:45   

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 04 2010,18:34)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

More importantly, are You a square circle?

(You said you were absolutely certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate. How does absolute certainty of some arbitrary fact prove God? Don't you see the difference? Don't you see how foolish equating absolute certainty with Absolutes is?)

No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty?

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:49   

The more I read on Panda's Bathroom Wall the more amazed I become. Look at this post from someone named Dave Luckett:

 
Quote
Alas, no special vocabulary - nothing Shakespearian - is required to describe Biggy. He’s far too ordinary.

Byers, the McGonagall of creationism, is frequently amusing. One can place bets about how often and with what violence he will shoot himself in the foot. FL’s towering hubris is awesome in a way, like finding Everest in the Ozarks, except that Everest is actually based on something. JAD, that walking bubble of ego, preens and prattles like a Little Miss World contestant. Even the rectal rhapodies of that bloke whose name I forget - you know the one, the poor lost soul who’s so deeply in the closet that he’s dropping off the far edge of the map of Narnia - can at least be said to be honestly, truly, howling-at-the-moon, pissing-on-the-floor, rolling-eyed, frothing-mouthed, barking insane.

Biggy, by contrast, is merely a pain. Not a grand, heroic, life-threatening pain. Not even a twinge, which has a certain acuity to it. No, he’s a dull, low-grade ache. His only unusual quality is his persistence.

Screwtape, that experienced devil, was right to tell his junior tempter nephew that there was no necessity to go for the great sins. The best road to Hell, said he, is the ordinary, the routine, the banal. And Biggy is certainly that. His logic-deafness, his invincible ignorance, his rampant Dunning-Kruger - they’re all so ordinary as to be dull as ditchwater.

But the joke is this: there is no Hell. There is only Biggy and those like him. Or is that a contradiction in terms?

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,19:02   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:45)
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty?

You're loosing me.

When you say you are certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate, I can accept that 'fact' just as our Government accepts it for the purpose of a Social Security number or a driver's license.

But when you say you are Absolutely Certain of your birthdate because of your birth certificate I say, 'okay', but I know that mistakes in recording can and have been made.  Your birth certificate may have a mistake.  You may be Absolutely Certain of your birthdate but I am not.

So, are you saying, that because you are Absolutely Certain that means God must exist? But because I have doubts about the absolute correctness of your birth certificate your certainty has no meaning for me.  Your Certainty doesn't prove God exists to me.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,19:39   

Quote
I'm asking to see if you believe in absolutes or not. If there were no such thing as a square circle, then that would be an example of one absolute now wouldn't it.

Now let me ask you this, is the earth really a cube?


Obviously, your answers to my three questions are 'no', 'no', and 'no'.

Go look up the word 'absolute' in a dictionary.  I'll wait.  There you will note, if you are paying attention to the details, that there are several different meanings of the adjective in question, all of which you are conflating.  (There is an application of the word as a noun, but it's a touch tautological.)

You are also conflating two different meanings of 'believe' in the process.

You're playing sophomoric semantic games while pretending to be clever.  Unfortunately for you, Alcibiades, we know this particular shtick.

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,20:21   

IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.

The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
Quote
But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."


Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.

However, the Pennisi article continues with:
Quote

   The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).

   The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.


It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.

Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.

Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.  

That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.

NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.

Let me give an example:

If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby.  'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'  However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."

Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"

I made a quote-mine.  I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.

Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?

If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?

If no, then you are supporting lying.

Enough with the philosophical BS.  Just answer the question yes or no.

You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.

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

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

   
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,20:51   

What's especially precious is his constant use of a smiley emoticon after what he feels is a real hum-dinger of an atheist-stumping point.  Kinda' like the kid in school who ate paste, shoved crayons up his nose, and giggled at his own knock-knock jokes before he even got to the answer to the "who's there" query.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,21:09   

IBIG, if you (or anyone else for that matter) is interested in the pre-biotic world then, ** you might like to attend this FREE workshop put on by NASA.

NASA Workshop Without Walls




** Provided you are willing to learn.

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

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

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,21:34   

It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,21:41   

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:34)
It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.

Very true.  What's interesting is that there has been no discussion of the ten commandments in his 'absolute morality' crap.

What's even funnier, is that if the Bible is 1100% correct and literal, then Jesus cannot be the messiah, which means the Jews were right all along... funnier and funnier.

He's also missed two avenues of attack on the discovery article quote-mine.  He just doesn't have the knowledge or critical thinking ability to see them.

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

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

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,21:58   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,21:41)
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:34)
It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.

Very true.  What's interesting is that there has been no discussion of the ten commandments in his 'absolute morality' crap.

What's even funnier, is that if the Bible is 1100% correct and literal, then Jesus cannot be the messiah, which means the Jews were right all along... funnier and funnier.

He's also missed two avenues of attack on the discovery article quote-mine.  He just doesn't have the knowledge or critical thinking ability to see them.

I wonder if the reason why he isn't mentioning the 10 Commandments because even he realizes that his demanding that we forsake science and logic in order to worship his misinterpretation of the Bible, thereby massaging his ego, would entail the breaking of no less than 3 Commandments (i.e., bearing false witness, taking God in vain, and worshiping something other than God).

Plus, wasn't IBelieve's argument concerning the parts of the Bible saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah was that a) those were some of the parts of the Bible that were up for interpretation, and that b) we weren't given permission to interpret the Bible?

Or am I confusing that with when IBelieve said that the Bible magically stated that a "prophetic year" was magically 360 days instead of 365(.257) because he said so?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,22:03   

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:58)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 04 2010,21:41]
I wonder if the reason why he isn't mentioning the 10 Commandments because even he realizes that his demanding that we forsake science and logic in order to worship his misinterpretation of the Bible, thereby massaging his ego, would entail the breaking of no less than 3 Commandments (i.e., bearing false witness, taking God in vain, and worshiping something other than God).

Plus, wasn't IBelieve's argument concerning the parts of the Bible saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah was that a) those were some of the parts of the Bible that were up for interpretation, and that b) we weren't given permission to interpret the Bible?

Or am I confusing that with when IBelieve said that the Bible magically stated that a "prophetic year" was magically 360 days instead of 365(.257) because he said so?

Exactly.

He's (ahem) not being very forthright.  He chastises me for saying that the Bible is not inerrant.  Then he turns around and says it's open to interpretation.

Arguably, "open to interpretation" does not equal "errors", but you'd think that The Word Of God would at least not be vague.

Just think, thousands of CHRISTIANS have been killing each other over interpretations of The Bible.

And he says we're nuts...

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,22:15   

[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 04 2010,22:03][/quote]
Quote
Arguably, "open to interpretation" does not equal "errors", but you'd think that The Word Of God would at least not be vague.

Just think, thousands of CHRISTIANS have been killing each other over interpretations of The Bible.

And he says we're nuts...


That's it exactly, Blackadder!  Why, it's not only plainly obvious that there is no questioning scripture, it's equally plain and obvious that only some bits are truly infallible and without error...while others are equally and plainly meant to be taken as merely colorful stories.

All the spilled blood over the centuries is merely misguided squabbling about which bits are which and whose interpretation is the right one.  Merely an unfortunate set of details.  When in fact, the truth is so plain and obvious!  Plainly.  And Obviously.  No True Believer would ever do anything so misguided as to kill anyone over a simple misinterpretation unless of course it were to be divinely ordered...

Plain and obvious.  Can't argue with that, now, can we?

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
didymos



Posts: 1775
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,23:36   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

Do you even know what that refers to?

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

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,03:45   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,20:21)
IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.

The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
 
Quote
But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."


Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.

However, the Pennisi article continues with:
 
Quote

   The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).

   The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.


It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.

Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.

Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.  

That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.

NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.

Let me give an example:

If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby.  'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'  However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."

Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"

I made a quote-mine.  I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.

Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?

If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?

If no, then you are supporting lying.

Enough with the philosophical BS.  Just answer the question yes or no.

You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.


Here is the problem with you claim, first if it were true that Elizabeth Pennisi were quote-mined, she could have spoken out and stated the she was quoted inappropriately, which to my knowledge hasn't happened, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, the quote was not used out of context, Discovery is arguing against the grand claims of evo-devo, read the article again, they clearly stated that there were successes, but you seem to be implying that evo-devo has somehow proven evolution from common descent, and Discovery is purposefully quote-mining E. Pennisi to argue that it couldn't happen.

The quote was not to disprove that evo-devo doesn't have answers to changes that are observed, it was used to show the absurdity of the grander claims of evo-devo in regards to evolution by common descent. You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo, with the actual small successes, i.e. spots on butterfly wings, legs in place of antennae, etc... Nothing new with evolutionists I might add, just par for the course. You are so blind that you couldn't see the truth, if it hit you in the face with a sledgehammer.

Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,03:49   

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,23:36)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

Do you even know what that refers to?

Is it over your head?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,04:00   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo

What's your explanation then?

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

  
didymos



Posts: 1775
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,04:04   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,01:49)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,23:36)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

Do you even know what that refers to?

Is it over your head?

Just answer the question, jackass.

--------------
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: Nov. 05 2010,04:45   

Deary me. Did one of these invitees actually turn up?

You know what that means? I WAS WRONG! Bugger. That means I really need to have that accumulator on the 3:30 at Kempton Park come good or it's back to the docks.

Crikey, they could strike a chap from the club books if this continues.

Louis

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

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,06:24   

When you said, "No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty? "

You've lost me.  Please help me understand what you are trying to say.

When you say you are certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate, I can accept that 'fact' just as our Government accepts it for the purpose of a Social Security number or a driver's license.

But when you say you are Absolutely Certain of your birthdate because of your birth certificate I say, 'okay', but I know that mistakes in recording can and have been made.  Your birth certificate may have a mistake.  You may be Absolutely Certain of your birthdate but I am not.

So, are you saying, that because you are Absolutely Certain that means God must exist? But I have doubts about the absolute correctness of your birth certificate so your certainty has no meaning for me.  Your Certainty may prove God exists to you but it does nothing for me.

I'm not Absolutely, absolutely certain of anything - not to that degree.  I can only say that something seems very certain, or highly probably.  I may use the word 'absolute' from time to time, but it is just hyperbole.

Is Newton's Law of Gravity an Absolute?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,07:11   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,20:21)
IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.

The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
 
Quote
But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."


Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.

However, the Pennisi article continues with:
 
Quote

   The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).

   The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.


It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.

Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.

Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.  

That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.

NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.

Let me give an example:

If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby.  'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'  However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."

Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"

I made a quote-mine.  I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.

Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?

If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?

If no, then you are supporting lying.

Enough with the philosophical BS.  Just answer the question yes or no.

You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.


Here is the problem with you claim, first if it were true that Elizabeth Pennisi were quote-mined, she could have spoken out and stated the she was quoted inappropriately, which to my knowledge hasn't happened, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, the quote was not used out of context, Discovery is arguing against the grand claims of evo-devo, read the article again, they clearly stated that there were successes, but you seem to be implying that evo-devo has somehow proven evolution from common descent, and Discovery is purposefully quote-mining E. Pennisi to argue that it couldn't happen.

The quote was not to disprove that evo-devo doesn't have answers to changes that are observed, it was used to show the absurdity of the grander claims of evo-devo in regards to evolution by common descent. You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo, with the actual small successes, i.e. spots on butterfly wings, legs in place of antennae, etc... Nothing new with evolutionists I might add, just par for the course. You are so blind that you couldn't see the truth, if it hit you in the face with a sledgehammer.

Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!

Sorry dude, they are taking the claim out of context and using it to argue a point that is not made by the original article = quote-mine.

Let me ask you this: What part of "The correctness or uncorrectness of EITHER article's conclusion" don't you get"?

You STILL haven't answer the only question that matters about this point.

Why is my quote-mine of the Bible wrong and discovery's quote-mine of Science OK?

The absolutes argument is just a Red Herring and has nothing to do with you supporting the lies of the discovery institute.

Why is it OK for them to quote-mine and it's not OK for me to say, "The Bible says "There is no God" Psalms 14:1?

If you say one is OK and one is not, then you don't believe in absolutes either.  If both are OK or both not OK, then you are supporting something that is lying.

Which is it IBIG?  I was really hoping you would answer questions.  I guess that's too much to ask of a Christian.

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible OK?

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible structurally the same as the quote from discovery?

Yes or No IBIG, then explain why...

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

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

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,07:37   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!

If the Discovery Institute is not guilty of quote-mining, then why is it that they were arguing that evolutionary development disproves evolution, even though this conclusion contradicts both the original statement, AND reality?

That, and tell us how this is supposed to prove that God and the Bible are the absolute source of absolute morality.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,07:41   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:49)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,23:36)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

Do you even know what that refers to?

Is it over your head?

Please explain to us why asking us about the existence or non-existence of square circles is supposed to demonstrate that the Discovery Institute has magically never lied, that your own literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible is supposed to be the absolute source of God's absolute morality, and please explain to us how this is supposed to disprove Evolution, while proving that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago using magic.

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,08:10   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:02)

Quote
How could someone lie if there is no absolute right or wrong, or true or false? Lying is to knowingly state something that is wrong or false. If there are no absolute right or wrong, or true or false, then how would lying even be possible?


Is your IQ like...1?

Whether there are absolutes of morality (e.g., "Right" and "Wrong") has ZERO to do with whether there are other opposites, such as "left" or "right", "hot" or "cold", "up" or "down", and "true" or "false".

That you either don't understand this or are intentionally equivocating demonstrates that your "Christian" position is worthless.

Lying (as you so easily demonstrate) is quite independent of one's views on morality. Clearly you don't think lying is "bad", but that doesn't stop you from stating falsehoods intentionally.

So, once again the proof is presented that you don't know what you are babbling about. Thanks for once again demonstrating what your particular brand of "Christianity" is really all about  - nonsense and dishonesty. Nice...

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,08:16   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07)

Quote
Are there any square circles?:)


Not if one wishes to actually use language to communicate there aren't. But of course I suppose in your world, there's no difference between a man-made, culturally agreed upon definition to facilitate accurate understanding and an absolute. Such a shame...but then it explains why your posts tend to be rather incoherent.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,08:21   

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Nov. 04 2010,18:45][/quote]
Quote
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty?


No, it is perfectly reasonable to state there are no absolutes when one is not trying to be disingenuous by equivocating words. There is an enormous difference between an absolute - i.e., something that will never change or vary - and an agreed upon definition for convenience and convention, something that actually does in fact CHANGE OVER TIME. Indeed there are thousands of terms that we use today that do not mean the same thing they did even 100 years ago, so clearly language and words are NOT absolutes.

So once again you point is shown to be absurd.

Edit - "no" is important in first the sentence above. Changes the meaning completely...

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,08:42   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,07:11)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,20:21)
IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.

The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
   
Quote
But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."


Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.

However, the Pennisi article continues with:
   
Quote

   The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).

   The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.


It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.

Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.

Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.  

That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.

NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.

Let me give an example:

If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby.  'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'  However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."

Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"

I made a quote-mine.  I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.

Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?

If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?

If no, then you are supporting lying.

Enough with the philosophical BS.  Just answer the question yes or no.

You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.


Here is the problem with you claim, first if it were true that Elizabeth Pennisi were quote-mined, she could have spoken out and stated the she was quoted inappropriately, which to my knowledge hasn't happened, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, the quote was not used out of context, Discovery is arguing against the grand claims of evo-devo, read the article again, they clearly stated that there were successes, but you seem to be implying that evo-devo has somehow proven evolution from common descent, and Discovery is purposefully quote-mining E. Pennisi to argue that it couldn't happen.

The quote was not to disprove that evo-devo doesn't have answers to changes that are observed, it was used to show the absurdity of the grander claims of evo-devo in regards to evolution by common descent. You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo, with the actual small successes, i.e. spots on butterfly wings, legs in place of antennae, etc... Nothing new with evolutionists I might add, just par for the course. You are so blind that you couldn't see the truth, if it hit you in the face with a sledgehammer.

Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!

Sorry dude, they are taking the claim out of context and using it to argue a point that is not made by the original article = quote-mine.

Let me ask you this: What part of "The correctness or uncorrectness of EITHER article's conclusion" don't you get"?

You STILL haven't answer the only question that matters about this point.

Why is my quote-mine of the Bible wrong and discovery's quote-mine of Science OK?

The absolutes argument is just a Red Herring and has nothing to do with you supporting the lies of the discovery institute.

Why is it OK for them to quote-mine and it's not OK for me to say, "The Bible says "There is no God" Psalms 14:1?

If you say one is OK and one is not, then you don't believe in absolutes either.  If both are OK or both not OK, then you are supporting something that is lying.

Which is it IBIG?  I was really hoping you would answer questions.  I guess that's too much to ask of a Christian.

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible OK?

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible structurally the same as the quote from discovery?

Yes or No IBIG, then explain why...

Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,08:52   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,08:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?

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

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

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:07   

Quote
If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Maybe Elizabeth Pennisi, like virtually everyone else on the planet, cares not one whit what the Dishonesty Institute is lying about at any given moment?

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

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:12   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,08:52)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,08:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?

It doesn't matter what her conclusion was because that would only be her opinion now wouldn't it? Here is the quote again, “The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different.”

I think you would agree that this quote is a factual quote, now read the part in bold, because that is the important part of the quote as related to the Discovery article. This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:15   

Quote
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.


And your explanation of what happened millions of years ago is what, exactly?

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10059
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:18   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 05 2010,09:07)
Quote
If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Maybe Elizabeth Pennisi, like virtually everyone else on the planet, cares not one whit what the Dishonesty Institute is lying about at any given moment?

I've just quoted IBIG out of context somwhere else. Good luck finding it, IBIG.

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

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:43   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2010,09:15)
Quote
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.


And your explanation of what happened millions of years ago is what, exactly?

I don't know what happen millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10059
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:46   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2010,09:15)
Quote
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.


And your explanation of what happened millions of years ago is what, exactly?

I don't know what happen millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know believe there is someone something who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

Fixed that for you

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,10:43   

Quote
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

Disregarding for the moment what others may say about evolution, I say that the evolution from wolf to dog took place in China around something like 14.000 years ago.

Have a nice day.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,10:51   

It just struck me that a believer like you might enjoy pondering the issue raised here:

An interesting observation wrt our almighty G-O-D:

Steve Zara observes:

The words used to describe the deity seem at first sight to make sense. He (for it's almost always “he”) is all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing. He is the source of morality, and will punish the wicked and reward the deserving for all eternity.
However, when unpacked, these phrases have no more meaning than Lewis Caroll's Jabberwocky. An all-knowing deity has no freedom, and therefore can't be all-powerful. Like Paul Atreides in Frank Herbert's novel Dune, God would be trapped within his own prophecy. A God that is all-knowing (especially one supposedly outside of time) can't help but know his own future actions. God can do no more than gyre and gimble in the wabe, and he has no freedom to do otherwise.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,11:02   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

"You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes."

Newton was a Creationist, was he not?  He invented Calculus, did he not?  He taught us that the Whole is the Sum of the Infinitesimally Small Parts, did he not?

Why don't you accept Creationist Newton's calculus?

"I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years."

No, no, NO!  

I say evolution is happening NOW - everyday, all the time.  It's observable.  It's a fact.

It doesn't take millions of years as you state.

But it's been happening for millions of years (according to all the evidence of the Earth).


So, even though you are Absolutely Certain you were born on such and such a date, and thus convinced Absolutes therefore exit (proving God), why should I accept your Absolute Certainty when I am not certain about your 'facts'?

Is Newton's Law of Gravity an Absolute?

Please answer to help me understand.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,11:06   

Quote
You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes.


I guess in that world if you add up 100 cents you don't get a dollar...

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

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,12:06   

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Nov. 05 2010,09:43]
Quote
I don't know what happen millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.


You may wish to go doublecheck the definition of the word 'knowledge' when you look up 'absolute'.  What you have is not knowledge in any meaningful sense: what you have is opinion, learned by rote and unsupported by any actual evidence.  (It is, in fact, naught but supposition for you to speak of the En-Sof in any terms whatsoever, but I'll let you go do your homework to discover the reasons why...if you are capable of doing so.)

This has been pointed out to you before, and you've ignored it completely.

Now, about those rural spinsters murdered by your co-believers...

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Amadan



Posts: 1239
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,12:11   

The only absolute is Heat Death (Unless someone has evidence to the contrary?)

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,12:30   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,08:52)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,08:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?

It doesn't matter what her conclusion was because that would only be her opinion now wouldn't it? Here is the quote again, “The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different.”

I think you would agree that this quote is a factual quote, now read the part in bold, because that is the important part of the quote as related to the Discovery article. This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

hmmm... since the entire charge of quote-mining IS BASED on the conclusion of the original article, then how can it not be relevent?

Also, how can you say what Pennisi's article even said if you haven't read it?

Absolutes or not YOU CAN'T DRAW A CONCLUSION IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE PAPER.

So, we'll just chalk this up to something else you don't know enough about to have a non-biased opinion.

ALong this same vein, you previously quoted an MIT monograph and a Campbell Reese textbook as supporting your position... have you read either?  or do you unquestioningly accept discovery?

If I could prove to you that they lied would you continue to support them?

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

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

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,17:15   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
...This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

So explain to us how we're supposed to believe you when you claim that God magically poofing the world into existence 10,000 years ago, using magic, with no physical evidence, is supposed to be more scientific than actual science.

Why do you constantly imply and insist that interpreting the English translation of the Bible literally is logical, sound and scientific, while simultaneously denouncing actual science and scientific investigation is useless speculation, devil worship conspiracy for genocide?

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,17:19   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,12:30)
...

If I could prove to you that they lied would you continue to support them?

Of course IBelieve would continue supporting and mindlessly repeating the Discovery Institute's anti-science soundbites and quotemines: that is what his handlers programmed him to do, under pain of eternal damnation.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4230
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,05:49   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Exactly.

Most instances of quote mining work by removing the quoted material from the context in which it originally appeared, with the result that speaker intent is lost.
   
Quote
Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo….

The context that matters with respect to the correct inference of speaker intent is the context in which the original statement occurred, not the context into which the passage was later inserted by the DI.
   
Quote
It doesn't matter what her conclusion was because that would only be her opinion now wouldn't it?

"Her opinion" is that which she intended to convey - her intent as a speaker - and is therefore the only standard by which we can judge whether speaker intent has been lost or distorted by means of later quote-mine.

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

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,07:29   

I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.

  
DSDS



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,07:37   

If anyone is interested in seeing a list of questions that "I believe in god"  (AKA IBIBS, AKA Ibigot) refuses to answer, or a list of things that he/she has been wrong about recently, I would be more than happy to post them.  Until then, perhaps IBIBS (AKA Ibigot) can tell us, in his own words, what is wrong with the following statements:

If lying is not always wrong, it is never wrong.

If murder is not always wrong, it is never wrong.

If Newton's laws are not always right, they are never right.

If, as I strongly suspect, he is also unable to answer this question, he can be safely ignored.

Man, that would really be low.   Being dumped to the bathroom wall.  Then being segregated from decent society at After the Bar Closes.  Then being completely ignored because you couldn't even follow a train of logic, even after you had been told many times what was wrong with your reasoning.

Well, now you can see what we have been dealing with for the last six months.  A character completely incapable of looking at evidence and yet fixated on "absolutes".  The only absolute I can discern is that he absolutely refuses to read a scientific article, or to admit when he is wrong, or to answer questions like an honest human being.  That is all.

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,08:08   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:45)
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty?

You must be too busy to answer my questions to help me understand.  Oh well.

I had to go to Wikipedia for insight. I looked up "Absolute (philosophy)" and the second sentence said some people equate "Absolute" with "God".

So I guess that's what you're doing.

Except your attempt at logical proof is fatally flawed.

Your example of being Absolutely Certain of your birthdate may be all the evidence you need for God, but it convinces no one else. (If there's a typographical error on your birth certificate then which God does that prove?)

Your 'logic' trick - getting at least one Panda to say there are NO absolutes, and then turning that around to prove there ARE absolutes - is decidedly not a proof that absolutes exist.  I could go into great detail explaining it to you but you won't understand. You would ignore it just as you have ignored, apparently, every response to your 'non-sense' on Panda's Thumb.

In short, your 'logic' trick is simply asserting what you are trying to prove - that Absolutes exist apart from Man and therefore God must exist.

Did you learn it from Answers-in-Genesis? Have you read their "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use"? Better go back and read it again.

You said all the Pandas are irrational. Instead you have demonstrated You are the one who is irrational. (P.S. - That means "without Reason". All you have is your faith.)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,08:26   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 06 2010,07:29)
I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.

yeah, yeah.  You lose and refuse to even fight the battle.  I accept that.

I know you don't think it's quote-mining.  But since you can't explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is different from discovery's quote-mine of Pennisi's article, then I'll feel free to use quote-mines against you from now on.

Alternately, we can both agree that quotes have no business in this discussion what-so-ever and not use them at all.  (Mainly because every quote you have presented is a quote-mine and you know it, because I have destroyed everyone... including the ones you stole that 'support' your view of the Bible.)

Anyway,

So tell me do you own and have you read the MIT monograph you quoted and the Reese/Campbell Biology book you quoted?

Do you trust discovery.org implicitly?

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

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

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,09:56   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 06 2010,07:29)
I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.

So how is this supposed to prove that the Discovery Institute has never lied?

The Discovery Institute claims to be at the forefront of developing and nurturing Intelligent Design and Scientific Creationism, and yet, why have they not produced a single peer-reviewed paper?

Why did the Discovery Institute lose at the Dover trial?

  
DSDS



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,11:05   

Well I told you he couldn't answer even the simplest question.  Here are some other questions that he has been avoiding for two months now:

1) Why do dolphins have five digits early in development if they do not have five digits as adults?

2) Why do dolphin embryos start out with the nostril on the front of the head if it is positioned on the top of the head in the adult?

3) Why do dolphin embryos have pharyngeal gill pouches if they lack gills as adults?

4) Why do dolphin embryos start to develop hind limbs if they do not have hind limbs as adults?

5) Why do horse embryos have five digits if they have only one as adults?

6) Why are there fossils intermediate between apes and humans?

7) How old is the earth? How do you know?

8) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

9) Why is there a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla, the exact same relationship revealed by the developmental and other genetic data? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

10) Why are human and chimp chromosomes nearly identical gene for gene and band for band, including the extra centromeric and telomeric sequences found in human chromosome two? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

11) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity for primates with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent in both nuclear and mitochondrial genes and also consistent with the fossil evidence and the chromosome banding data?

12) Why is there a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions in primates, with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent with all of the other fossil, morphological, developmental and genetic data sets? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

13) Why are there intermediates between terrestrial mammals and Cetaceans in the fossil record? Why are they in exactly the order predicted by descent with modification? Why are they precisely consistent with the developmental and genetic data?

14) Was there a world wide flood less than 10,000 years ago? How do you know? Why do no real geologists, paleontologists or archaeologists agree with you?

15) Why are there intermediates in the fossil record between horse ancestors with five digits and modern horses with only one? (Hint: you can’t get out of this one by redefining “digit” or “intermediate”).

16) Why is the human eye wired backwards?

17) Why must mutations for novel features be selectively advantageous from the time of their appearance? Why can’t they be selectively neutral or selected for other functions?

18) Exactly how many “kinds” of birds did god “create”? How do you know?

19) Why are there intermediates between birds and reptiles in the fossil record?

20) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with birds nested deeply within reptiles?

21) Why do birds have scales?

22) Why does nothing that is not a bird have feathers?

Now in all honesty he did at least try to answer a couple of these.  Like the time he tried to explain why dolphin embryos have hindlimb buds by denying that they exist, while looking at a picture of them!

Just a few more questions for IBIBS (AKA Ibigot):

If you have lied before, what hope is there that you will not lie again?

If you were wrong about everything so far, can you ever be right about anything?

If you cannot answer any of these questions, will you ever be able to answer any question?

If you have refused to read a single scientific reference so far, will you ever read one?

If you will not read the scientific literature, if you will not answer questions, if you will not admit to being wrong, do you think that anyone will care what you believe?

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,15:27   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)

I don't know what happen[ed] millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

You don't know what happened two thousand years ago, that's certain.

--------------
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
-- Pierre Simon Laplace, explaining the absence of any mention of God in his work

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,15:53   

Quote (phhht @ Nov. 06 2010,16:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)

I don't know what happen[ed] millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

You don't know what happened two thousand years ago, that's certain.

Absolutely!

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,16:09   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 06 2010,15:53)
Quote (phhht @ Nov. 06 2010,16:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)

I don't know what happen[ed] millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

You don't know what happened two thousand years ago, that's certain.

Absolutely!

hmmm...

If science cannot be used to describe what happened in the past, then how can we know anything that has happened when we cannot see it?

Here's two questions for you...

IBIG, who actually wrote down the stories of Genesis (and any of the others for that matter)?  

How do you know your computer works?

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

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

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,21:47   

Useless.  IBIG may even be denser than FTK.  He will never grasp anything anyone says to him.  He did put forth the argument that quote mines cannot exist if the author being quote mined doesn't acknowledge it.  His argument is this is so Because and Only Because the author didn't acknowledge it.

So, IBIG, riddle me this if you can:

Someone--let's say Louis's mom--steals a jacket of mine.  I never acknowledge this fact (perhaps because I didn't notice that it was missing).  Does this mean that Louis's mom did not, in fact, steal my jacket?

Or, that she only stole the jacket at the moment I discovered it was missing?

Or, that she only stole the jacket at the moment I discovered it was she who took it?

Continuing posting here, though; it provided amusement.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
DSDS



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2010,12:20   

Just in case anyone is interested, here is a short list of things that IBIBS (AKA Ibigot) has been wrong about recently:

1) Dolphin embryos (nostirls, digits, hind limbs)

2) Horses

3) Mutations

4) Selection

5) Novel morphological features

6) Biblical prophecies

7) The antichrist

8) God killing innocent babies

9) God committing genocide

10) Primate nasal bones

11) Primate footprints

12) Polyploidy in animals

13) Menton being a liar, fraud and charlatan

14) And all that crap about information (didn’t actually make any point, but still somehow managed to be wrong)

15) Neanderthals were not modern humans

16) The human eye is not irreducibly complex (and neither is anything else not man made)

17) There is no information front loaded into dogs, or anything else. (But then again, since IBIBS refuses to define the term “information” he never really had a chance with this one).

18) Earthworms already have photoreceptors, birds already have scales and dolphins sometimes have hind limbs (I’ll be generous and combine this all into one big thing)

19) Mutations for novel features need not be selectively advantageous from the time of their appearance

20)  There are absolutes!  (Wrong again master of wrongness)

Of course IBIBS (AKA Ibigot) was also completely wrong about the quote mine he tried to get away with.  He never did admit to being wrong about that.  Funny thing, he never did admit to being wrong about any of the above things either.  Now I wonder why that is?

I can make a list of things he lied about.  I can also make a list of papers he has refused to read, including a list of the ones he claims to have read.  Of course those lists would be pretty long, so I'll wait for now.  No wonder he is reluctant to continue the "conversation".

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2010,07:44   

I wonder why IBelieve is so reluctant to answer our questions?  I mean, he refuses to explain why it is folly for us to assume that the Discovery Institute lied when they were quoting that scientist, even though the Discovery Institute deliberately rephrased the author's words to imply that she was saying that evolutionary development magically disproves evolution, and that her original words claimed something completely opposite?

On the other hand, the moment IBelieve gets back, he's going to make some condescending excuse about how he interrupted his precious internet trolling time because he needed to do some errand for his alleged real life where he makes gobs upon gobs of more money that stupid evil scientists.

And then he's going to change the subject, and then mock us because he is physically incapable of answering any of our questions truthfully.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2010,08:25   

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 08 2010,07:44)
I wonder why IBelieve is so reluctant to answer our questions?  I mean, he refuses to explain why it is folly for us to assume that the Discovery Institute lied when they were quoting that scientist, even though the Discovery Institute deliberately rephrased the author's words to imply that she was saying that evolutionary development magically disproves evolution, and that her original words claimed something completely opposite?

On the other hand, the moment IBelieve gets back, he's going to make some condescending excuse about how he interrupted his precious internet trolling time because he needed to do some errand for his alleged real life where he makes gobs upon gobs of more money that stupid evil scientists.

And then he's going to change the subject, and then mock us because he is physically incapable of answering any of our questions truthfully.

I bet the new response will be a link to a youtube video and a "how about that"

It's almost a shame.  I really want to have a conversation, but when someone is as unpenetrably thick as IBIG, it's very difficult.

I'm thinking that I'll start laying out the evidence for Common Descent and let IBIG have at it.

I'd also really like a conversation on Flood geology.

What's it to be IBIG?

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

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

   
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2010,17:20   

I too would like to discuss 'flood geology' with IBIG but I fear it is impossible. He seems incapable of original thought. He only parrots what he's been fed and what he chooses to believe, blindly. He sees neither the consequences of his statements nor the illogic of his arguments, yet he calls himself a master of logic. He cannot reason.

He declares victory on the Bathroom Wall after clogging it to a standstill with his 'effluent', justifying his existence, and proving he is 'right'.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5373
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2010,18:26   

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 08 2010,18:20)
I too would like to discuss 'flood geology' with IBIG but I fear it is impossible. He seems incapable of original thought. He only parrots what he's been fed and what he chooses to believe, blindly. He sees neither the consequences of his statements nor the illogic of his arguments, yet he calls himself a master of logic. He cannot reason.

He declares victory on the Bathroom Wall after clogging it to a standstill with his 'effluent', justifying his existence, and proving he is 'right'.

This guy sounds very much like an AFDave style TARD.

how utterly boring.

If you've seen one TARDbucket, you've seen them all.

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2010,07:46   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2010,18:26)
Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 08 2010,18:20)
I too would like to discuss 'flood geology' with IBIG but I fear it is impossible. He seems incapable of original thought. He only parrots what he's been fed and what he chooses to believe, blindly. He sees neither the consequences of his statements nor the illogic of his arguments, yet he calls himself a master of logic. He cannot reason.

He declares victory on the Bathroom Wall after clogging it to a standstill with his 'effluent', justifying his existence, and proving he is 'right'.

This guy sounds very much like an AFDave style TARD.

how utterly boring.

If you've seen one TARDbucket, you've seen them all.

Nah, he's not as good as AFDave was.  He doesn't have a hypothesis.  He pretends to know about science, but I think he knows enough to know that he has an untenable position.

Between that and discovery quotemines... blech.

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

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

   
DSDS



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2010,08:41   

Well it looks like we have finally rid ourselves of the blemish on the butt of humanity that was IBIBS (AKA Ibigot).  As he sinks slowly into the west and becomes nothing more than the fading memory of hopeless incompetence, we bid a not so fond farewell to the undisputed master of wrongness, the sultan of illogic, the pinnacle of ineptitude.  

Too bad, it would really be fun to play poker with a guy who believes that, if a pair of aces doesn't always win, then it never wins!

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2010,08:59   

I declare victory.  Since IBIG hasn't answered any of our questions, then his religion is incapable of doing so and he's a poopy-head.

I submit that IBIG is the best evidence that god does not exist.  Who would knowingly have someone like IBIG supporting them?

The biggest problem is how to reach the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power?

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

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

   
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2010,11:31   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2010,08:59)
I declare victory.  Since IBIG hasn't answered any of our questions, then his religion is incapable of doing so and he's a poopy-head.

I submit that IBIG is the best evidence that god does not exist.  Who would knowingly have someone like IBIG supporting them?

The biggest problem is how to reach the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power?

Congratulations.  I agree, you won.

Having read the last few pages of the Bathroom Wall I see that IBIG declared (and I paraphrase), "All you Pandas don't believe in Absolutes (like me), therefore you cannot say I am wrong.  Therefore you and your worldview are irrational, and I declare Victory."

Pathetic, mindless beetle.

What bothers me is the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power really are smart as foxes.  They know exactly what they are doing.

Heaven help us. (Dont worry, it's just a cultural saying.)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2010,11:50   

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 10 2010,11:31)
What bothers me is the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power really are smart as foxes.  They know exactly what they are doing.

Heaven help us. (Dont worry, it's just a cultural saying.)

You know, I honestly can't decide whether I agree with this or not.

Without knowing the actual person involved, it's very (impossible?) to tell if they have a world mastery plan and are just using religion as their opiate of the masses or if they really are true believers (that also believe they can do whatever they want and use a 'I'm a weak person' get-out-of-jail-free card).

I have a hard time believing that these people are that smart (in the first case) or that dumb (in the second case).

The only other option I can think of, is pure brain washing.  They have been conditioned and when combined with Morton's demon and Krueger-Dunning, we get characters like IBIG, AFDave, Floyd, and fundie Republicans.

I'm also at a loss, because I prefer to vote conservative because I am a Constitutionalist, but the theocratic world they invision scares the crap out of me.

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

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

   
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2010,18:41   

This will be of interest to those who followed Poofster's attempt to discuss eyes:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010....th-eyes

--------------
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
-- Pierre Simon Laplace, explaining the absence of any mention of God in his work

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3544
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2010,19:02   

Quote (phhht @ Nov. 10 2010,18:41)
This will be of interest to those who followed Poofster's attempt to discuss eyes:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010....th-eyes

Yes, but what good are they?

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2010,19:24   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 09 2010,00:26)
[SNIP]

TARDbucket

[SNIP]

Terry Pratchett introduced me to the idea of a "crab bucket". Fill a bucket with crabs, if one crab tries to leave, another crab is sure to grab him with a pincer and prevent him. As the crabs in the bucket are due for slaughter, this guarantees no crab survives because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other crabs.

I am wondering if an analogy can be made. Let me see...

Fill a bucket with humans, if one human tries to leave, another human is sure to infuritate him with meaningless TARD and prevent him doing something productive. As the humans in the bucket rely on each other to be able to do anything productive, this guarantees no human can progress because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other humans.

Nah, couldn't be right could it?

Louis

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2010,21:18   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,19:24)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 09 2010,00:26)
[SNIP]

TARDbucket

[SNIP]

Terry Pratchett introduced me to the idea of a "crab bucket". Fill a bucket with crabs, if one crab tries to leave, another crab is sure to grab him with a pincer and prevent him. As the crabs in the bucket are due for slaughter, this guarantees no crab survives because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other crabs.

I am wondering if an analogy can be made. Let me see...

Fill a bucket with humans, if one human tries to leave, another human is sure to infuritate him with meaningless TARD and prevent him doing something productive. As the humans in the bucket rely on each other to be able to do anything productive, this guarantees no human can progress because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other humans.

Nah, couldn't be right could it?

Louis

Well, if you examine crabs a little more closer (while still remaining out of reach), the "crab bucket" analogy fails, if only because a crab is capable of, and somewhat willing to shed a limb when the circumstance arises.  (In fact, ask my mother about any of the times I've tried to recapture escaping crabs from their bucket at the local supermarket)

On the other hand, what with humans being mostly incapable of, and largely unwilling to shed limbs (overly gory horror films notwithstanding), and given humans' often deliberately stupid behavior is often exacerbated in a crowd and or tight spaces, the "crab bucket" analogy fits humans to a tee.

  
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,13:23   

Ah, so humans are harder to disarm than crabs are?  :O

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,13:32   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2010,13:23)
Ah, so humans are harder to disarm than crabs are?  :O

By arthropod standards, that is our fatal flaw, even.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,13:38   

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,03:18)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,19:24)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 09 2010,00:26)
[SNIP]

TARDbucket

[SNIP]

Terry Pratchett introduced me to the idea of a "crab bucket". Fill a bucket with crabs, if one crab tries to leave, another crab is sure to grab him with a pincer and prevent him. As the crabs in the bucket are due for slaughter, this guarantees no crab survives because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other crabs.

I am wondering if an analogy can be made. Let me see...

Fill a bucket with humans, if one human tries to leave, another human is sure to infuritate him with meaningless TARD and prevent him doing something productive. As the humans in the bucket rely on each other to be able to do anything productive, this guarantees no human can progress because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other humans.

Nah, couldn't be right could it?

Louis

Well, if you examine crabs a little more closer (while still remaining out of reach), the "crab bucket" analogy fails, if only because a crab is capable of, and somewhat willing to shed a limb when the circumstance arises.  (In fact, ask my mother about any of the times I've tried to recapture escaping crabs from their bucket at the local supermarket)

On the other hand, what with humans being mostly incapable of, and largely unwilling to shed limbs (overly gory horror films notwithstanding), and given humans' often deliberately stupid behavior is often exacerbated in a crowd and or tight spaces, the "crab bucket" analogy fits humans to a tee.

Sorry but we are discussing the vagueries of TARD and thus creationists. You have brought an argument which involves FACTS. Are you quite stark, raving mad?

I can only refer the honourable gentleman to this counter argument:



I refute you THUS!

Hurrah!

Louis

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

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,16:49   

Awwwww, did he leave?  And we were going to crown him King of the Winter Carnival, too...(/Val Kilmer)

Eh bien.

Perhaps Biggy is simply taking a little time off, hoping that absence will make us fonder of him.   :p  Given the paucity of the arguments that seemed to impress our missing friend, it would not surprise me to find that such a thought had bubbled to the surface of his cranial cauldron.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,17:30   

Doubt it... he's a coward.  He also wants an audience.

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

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

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,17:33   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,13:38)

Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,17:34   

Here's Ken Ham recent blogging about some evil secularist:

"Now when it comes to the origins issue, there are many chat rooms and forums that are set up for people to debate this topic. However, some secularists aren’t content with that, as they just want to attack and disrupt Christian ministries.

When we first started the www.IamNotAshamed.org website, over a few nights some secularists left thousands of messages—thousands. They were spamming our site to try to totally disrupt it. We had to ban them."



Think he mentioned the likes of IBIG?  Noooooooooooooo.

Hyprocrite - evil, wicked hypocrite.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,17:45   

Quote
Hyprocrite - evil, wicked hypocrite.


What?  Ken Ham might not have the integrity and intellectual honesty to act in good faith on such a matter?  I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Why, next you'll tell me that Biggy blithely ignored a ton of meaningful, content-laden responses to his...oh, yeah.  But I bet he never lied!  Oh, wait.  Uhm.  Surely he didn't excuse all manner of horrible acts simply because someone...

Awww, maaaaan.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,17:54   

I know...

lightening finally hit him.  Or maybe his nose finally punched through the sheetrock and now he's stuck in his room.

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

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,18:44   

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,23:33)
[quote=Louis,Nov. 11 2010,13:38][/quote]
Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.

Crab trifle? Doesn't sound that good. Either way, I'm not intimi...imint...inimt...afraid. I have a picture of Robocop on a unicorn and I'm willing to use it.

Don't push me, man. I've had some lager.

Louis

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

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,20:11   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,18:44)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,23:33)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,13:38)

Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.

Crab trifle? Doesn't sound that good. Either way, I'm not intimi...imint...inimt...afraid. I have a picture of Robocop on a unicorn and I'm willing to use it.

Don't push me, man. I've had some lager.

Louis

Be cautious, Louis.  The crab recipe may have scorpions in it, or worse, pumpkinated vodka.

--------------
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
-- Pierre Simon Laplace, explaining the absence of any mention of God in his work

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2010,20:46   

Quote (phhht @ Nov. 11 2010,20:11)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,18:44)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,23:33)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,13:38)

Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.

Crab trifle? Doesn't sound that good. Either way, I'm not intimi...imint...inimt...afraid. I have a picture of Robocop on a unicorn and I'm willing to use it.

Don't push me, man. I've had some lager.

Louis

Be cautious, Louis.  The crab recipe may have scorpions in it, or worse, pumpkinated vodka.

Worse, far worse...
It has sherry and tapioca flour...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2010,04:22   

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 12 2010,02:46)
Quote (phhht @ Nov. 11 2010,20:11)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,18:44)
   
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,23:33)
   
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,13:38)

Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.

Crab trifle? Doesn't sound that good. Either way, I'm not intimi...imint...inimt...afraid. I have a picture of Robocop on a unicorn and I'm willing to use it.

Don't push me, man. I've had some lager.

Louis

Be cautious, Louis.  The crab recipe may have scorpions in it, or worse, pumpkinated vodka.

Worse, far worse...
It has sherry and tapioca flour...

Sherry? Don't talk to me about sherry. I had my sherry monocle* on last night....

Louis

*HT to Hughes who introduced me to this bloke. Most amusing.

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2010,07:52   

So, is this it?

IBelieveInGod declares defeat by slinking off and disappearing?

Louis is a roaring drunk?
(not that that has anything to do with the situation)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2010,08:34   

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 16 2010,07:52)
So, is this it?

IBelieveInGod declares defeat by slinking off and disappearing?

Louis is a roaring drunk?
(not that that has anything to do with the situation)

I guess so.  

What's with these creobots these days?  No stamina at all.  Heck AFDAve repeated his crap here for 6 months, probably longer, but I'm scared to delve that deep into ATBC.

Ah well, back to Amazon.

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

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2010,09:50   

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 16 2010,13:52)
[SNIP]

Louis is a roaring drunk?

[SNIP]

I do not roar! Vicious lies!

Anyway, rather boringly, I am back on the health kick until the New Year. There was a temporary aberration due to birthday and rugby and such like. As such, I have 5 or 6 weeks of no drinking booze and more eating lettuce to go.

So there. With knobs on. Woe betide any foolish creationist or woo peddler who crosses my path in this time. They will feel the full brunt of my tired and underfed wrath, which, since it is tired and underfed won't be volcanic, but it might reach weak sarcasm.

Louis

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

  
skeptic reborn



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2010,23:29   

Hate to let a potentially promising thread just whimper and die.  So, do you guys require an irrational YECist to kick around or would a semi-rational theist do?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2010,05:43   

Quote (skeptic reborn @ Nov. 17 2010,05:29)
Hate to let a potentially promising thread just whimper and die.  So, do you guys require an irrational YECist to kick around or would a semi-rational theist do?

[Captain Kirk Bad Acting Voice]

Must....Not....Make....Series....Of....Vicious....Jokes....Must....Attempt....Niceness....

Must....Not....Obliterate....Obliviot....As....Usual

[/Captain Kirk Bad Acting Voice]

Oh fuck it...

Dear Skeptic (Inappropriate moniker noted AGAIN),

Whilst I certainly cannot speak for everyone, and naturally welcome a diversity of views on the subject, here's my view.

1) If your suggestion for "semi-rational theist" is yourself, erm, how do I put this delicately? Self awareness isn't your strong point is it? The clue should lie in the fact that you were restricted to the Bathroom Wall after many trips round the same Mulberry Bush.* Despite everything anyone said, nice, nasty, evidence based, biased, unbiased etc you left with precisely the same erroneous views, making the same error strewn claims you entered with. The fact that you have had to morph identities (badly and blatantly, perhaps a point in your favour I suggest) to repost here suggests a certain unwillingness to learn. "RE"born? Hardly. Merely "STUB"born.

Why the powers that be at AtBC permit you to thumb your nose at their restrictions (lightly and justly applied in my view, after great tolerance of moderate to major ignorance on your part) is their own affair. I'll admit to being in two minds about it. I like freely allowing anyone to speak, but there comes a point where treating every person that walks through the doors as if they were a sane/rational/productive (delete as unapplicable) person is.....impractical. And that's me being diplomatic. There's a difference between being in favour of free speech as a principle and allowing every nutter free reign on limited platforms. The two are not necessarily in conflict.

2) If it is someone of your acquaintance who you think would be a fun/useful poster (as opposed to a chew toy**) then send 'em along. If they are a clone of you (or you in a slightly better disguise) then don't bother pretending they will emerge from any other box than the one marked "briefly interesting, blinkered chew toy".

3) Everyone, theist or atheist, agnostic or gnostic, any permutation of any viewpoint, worldview, politics, faith, lack thereof or anything else is semi-rational. It's the underlying fact of the human condition. This might have been pointed out to you before. Rationality is not something someone has or has not, it is something we can all only tend towards. Snide false dichotomies and divisions like this demonstrate quite clearly you have learned five eights of fuck all since you were restricted. Old Mulberry Bush circles will be made again.

YECs are not, per se, irrational. Partially so, like anyone else, but not necessarily globally so. They have (typically) been raised in a cultural environment where YEC is common, are unlikely to have been given any accurate information about the relevant science, and have generally been "told"/conditioned to fear questioning the very things their YECism is predicated upon. In those circumstances it is not irrational to be, or pretend to be, a YEC regardless of the rationality of the actual claims of specific YECisms. What these chaps and chappesses care about is manifestly not the science. That's no crime, billions of people across the world couldn't give a shit about the scientific data. However, when they advance their claims as science, or as being factual and in conflict with the current scientific consensus regarding consilient data, then it becomes problematic. That's when the line between holding a demonstrably (factually) irrational set of views for perfectly (personally) rational reasons blurs into  holding a demonstrably (factually) irrational set of views for potentially (personally) irrational reasons. Mulberry Bush circumnavigation number 3000.

4) Theism is not opposed to evolutionary biology (allegedly the topic of this board, although knob jokes and LOLcats are the main traffic, I take full responsibility for this and am justly ashamed). Some specific, narrow subsets of specific theistic religions define themselves out of sane consideration by opposing blatant, observable reality and attempting to hand wave away the inherent problems but this is far from a universal case. Amazingly, neither you, nor any "semi-rational theist", nor even pizza boys of Lenny's acquaintance speak for theists or theism. Deal with that. And that is a re-circle of yet another Mulberry Bush.

5) This is not a promising thread. Why the Fishers of TARD do what they do is their own affair, it's not for me to pass judgement, it's a question of personal taste. As far as it applies I think de gustibus non est disputandum is fine here. Sure a new participant is a good thing, a new chew toy is a fun thing for a while, but like a firework comprised of pure stupid, they burn out after a brief flare of glorious dumb. Call me an old pissy, cynical, curmudgeonly git (or worse if you like) but I predict these threads will miss vastly more than they hit. I also predict the sun will rise in the morning. Either way, the Fishers of TARD have the right idea and I don't. They are right that one has to heave a lot of bricks before one hits a duck though.

6) We don't require anything other than basic intellectual honesty. It'd be nice to have the occasional discussion with someone bordering on intellectually honest and capable. It's happened on this issue, but by fuck it's rare. Let me just assure you, you weren't a deliverer of such rare treasures, and unless something has radically changed you are unlikely to be so. Harsh? Yes. Fair? Probably not. Do I give a flying fuck? Difficult to say really. Yes and no.

Bloody interesting that you post with an obvious troll about our requirements/intentions and not, you know, any relevant bit of science/reasoning that would undermine this wicked rationalism and scientism we naughty atheists allegedly love isn't it though? Rather strongly suggests that, as I have said, you've learned nothing and are just being a stubborn prick, trying to be let back in where you are demonstrably unwanted.

Predicting your response (if you manage to vomit one forth), I'll use the words of Bill Hicks "Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you".

Hope this helps. Have a nice day.

Louis

* I am bored of Mulberry Bushes. I am bored of games. I am, in a word, bored. This makes me nasty. I dislike boredom. There are a few new people around who might enjoy/benefit from you/a clone of you/a suggested friend of yours, but I seriously doubt it. Weren't you setting up your own blog? How'd that turn out?

** Chew toys are fun and serve their purpose. What that purpose is is up to whoever wants to chew them. Personally, like most things I flatly refuse to take seriously, I find them best ignored or thoroughly taken the piss out of. I think this place needs yet another a chew toy like a hole in the head***. But then others think it needs another pun cascade or LOLcat like a hole in the head. We're both entitled to those views, let a thousand flowers bloom on this issue sayeth I. How judgementally or pissily those views might be expressed is perhaps a different matter.

*** Wouldn't it be nice for once, just once, to have someone actually capable and serious to play with? I've often thought of trying to take the creationist case for the simple reason that there is no way I could fuck it up as badly as most creationists do. I'd feel dirty doing the Gish Gallop and other rheotical gambits that creationists use to hide how shallow their claims really are though. Once you've seen the man behind the curtain it's really hard to pretend the show is real.

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

  
Seversky



Posts: 412
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2010,06:21   

Good try but you've still got a ways to go before you match outoffocus or lostitentirely for longwindedness.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2010,06:23   

Quote (Seversky @ Nov. 17 2010,12:21)
Good try but you've still got a ways to go before you match outoffocus or lostitentirely for longwindedness.

Haha! I wish. Longwindeness is a problem for me, I admit. Not one I'm working on, but...

Louis

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2010,07:49   

Quote (skeptic reborn @ Nov. 16 2010,23:29)
Hate to let a potentially promising thread just whimper and die.  So, do you guys require an irrational YECist to kick around or would a semi-rational theist do?

Nah, it's only fun if they're irrational.

On the other hand, adult discussions, with a real back-and-forth dialogue... I don't know if I've ever had one of those...

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

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

   
skeptic reborn



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2010,17:42   

Ahhh, Louis, some things never change.  I must admit, though, I was amazed at the volume of insight you were able to divine from two simple sentences.  Might I suggest that your next career be that of fortune teller?  Who knows, if you continue to hone your considerable talent you may end up on Oprah.

As to the name change, as I stated before, I reject the senseless restriction.  I simply did not and still don't have time for childish games.  My purpose here is to simply offer an alternative to the current doldrums.  Over the last few years I noticed increasing boredom and decreased actual discussion on this board so in sympathy I hoped to cheer some members up.  Take it as you will.  I have no interest in insulting generalizations but if any wish to discuss, that's just fine with me.

As a final note, I was intrigued by your professed tolerance of YECs.  Odd that we would disagree in this area, but I consider holders of those beliefs as competely irrational and ignorance is a poor defense.

As to actual content, I wonder currently as to the actual view of evo-devo within the scientific community and as an explanatory theory and whether it fulfills the promise of initial claims.  It's not my field so I'm interested in contemporary views.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2010,18:45   

As far as evo-devo, I'd suggest you get Dr. Carroll's book.  It's the best primer that I've seen for the lay person.  If you have something more specific than 'does it meet the promise', then I'll try to help.  But that's a little too generic.

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

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

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2010,18:56   

Yes, by all means, do float one of the promising "initial claims of evo-devo" so we have a bit of an exposed edge or something to get purchase on.  A good chew toy has to have a ripped seam or frayed edge before it can be diligently torn open, exposing the internal wadding, and then shaken violently until the stuffing is spread all over the living room floor, and all that remains is an unrecognizable, slobbered, empty shell of its former self.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2010,19:10   

Seems like we won't see SR again, or at least until he finds a new sock...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2010,19:24   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2010,19:10)
Seems like we won't see SR again, or at least until he finds a new sock...

Fair enough.  I can't imagine being so inane to get banned from this forum, so he must be really nuts.

Hmmm... is that an example of ID (Intelligent Decisions)?

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

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2010,06:33   

Quote (skeptic reborn @ Nov. 17 2010,23:42)
Ahhh, Louis, some things never change.  I must admit, though, I was amazed at the volume of insight you were able to divine from two simple sentences.  Might I suggest that your next career be that of fortune teller?  Who knows, if you continue to hone your considerable talent you may end up on Oprah.

As to the name change, as I stated before, I reject the senseless restriction.  I simply did not and still don't have time for childish games.  My purpose here is to simply offer an alternative to the current doldrums.  Over the last few years I noticed increasing boredom and decreased actual discussion on this board so in sympathy I hoped to cheer some members up.  Take it as you will.  I have no interest in insulting generalizations but if any wish to discuss, that's just fine with me.

As a final note, I was intrigued by your professed tolerance of YECs.  Odd that we would disagree in this area, but I consider holders of those beliefs as competely irrational and ignorance is a poor defense.

As to actual content, I wonder currently as to the actual view of evo-devo within the scientific community and as an explanatory theory and whether it fulfills the promise of initial claims.  It's not my field so I'm interested in contemporary views.

Prediction confirmed. (BTW I know that Obliviot will read this even if he can no longer respond)

I got nothing from "two simple sentences". I got a great deal from interacting with you over a far greater period of time and {cough} "correspondance" here. I learned during that time it's better to shut your avenues of bullshit down early. You aren't interested in exploration or discussion (unless, like I said, something has changed. Fairly drastically in my opinion), you're interested in rationalising your preconceived notions about a variety of topics, evolutionary biology amongst them. Again, this was demonstrated by YOUR own conduct, posts and conversations, not by any presumption on anyone else's part. Those interested can hunt out the relevant threads. It's all there in black and white.

Also, the utter arrogance of your conviction that you of all people are some kind of conversational panacea is astounding. Yet again, you came in with certain views, spent a long time and a lot of electrons "discussing" them and left with those exact same views. You spent an awfully large portion of that time attempting to rationalise those views. Evidence and reason (such as was presented) didn't move you, neither did mockery or abuse, neither did kindness or any attempt at actual debate by anyone. You're an intellectual lightweight on a mission to validate his prejudices and you got found out. Why the dribbling donkey fuck would anyone care about your self aggrandising nonsense?

The comment re: YECs is a great case in point. You utterly missed the distinction between personal irrationality and the epistemological irrationality of a specific claim or method. The methods you've used to defend your claims in the past are precisely as epistemologically irrational as those the YECs use to defend their claims. The fact that your claims are ostensibly less in conflict with observable reality (less "irrational") than theirs is of interest only to you. It's a nice little narrative you can use to tell yourself that you are less personally irrational than they are. Well done you. The distinction here is between method of defense and the nature of the claim. I hope that's not too complex for you.

Oh and, as usual, reading for even basic comprehension escapes you, my "defense" of YECs was not based only on their ignorance. Ignorance is a factor but hardly the only one. And as is usual for shallow thinkers, you equate "understanding/explaining" with "justification/excusing". I think what YECs believe is understandable and explicable, I think how they defend it is also understandable and explicable. That doesn't justify what they believe or how they defend it. It also doesn't justify my pointing the finger and claiming these folks are horribly irrational, it's independent of both positions. Is does not equate to ought.

What does act as justification for condeming them (if that's what you're interested in, and it isn't what *I'm* interested in, even if I do it on occasion) is asking them about their views on honesty and morality and demonstrating that their defense of their claims, their chosen methodology, is at odds with their own claimed morals. It's possible to show the incoherent and logically fallacious nature of their own positions AFTER they claim to have a coherent and logically sound position, and to use their own moral/ethical standards as the measure by which they are to be judged. This is a distinction you have habitually missed in the past and miss now.

Back to denialism, the method here is what matters. A fact you have yet to understand, and let's be blunt there was an enormous thread where many people wasted a great deal of their time trying to get you to understand this. Mulberry bushes AGAIN. The point here is that it isn't simply the content of the claims being defended that matters, the methods used to defend them matters. Why "denialism" is a topic of study worth its own effort is because the same methods are used whether the topic is a tobacco company trying to deny the adverse effects of smoking, a Holocaust denier trying to hand wave away the atrocities of the Third Reich, an anti-evolution creationist trying to insert their deity into a classroom, a climate change denialist lobbying for no restrictions on emissions, a psychic trying to justify their claimed abilities, or a homeopath appealing to excerable testimonials to shore up their claims of efficacy, and many more examples from all realms of human endeavour. Why you are a worthless person to engage with on any issue is not because your claims are more or less irrational than those of a flat earther, the content is pretty irrelevant. It's because your methods of defending your claims are those of a dyed in the wool denialist.

I mean seriously, even your "offer of discussing actual content" is basically a request for someone to do your homwork for you. Pick a fucking book up. You claim to be a chemist, you should know something about how to search the literature. FInd a popular book or review article and work from there. It's what we ALL have to do, there's basically no shortcut to learning no matter how much we might wish there were. Why the hell would anyone who has encountered you here view your "request for substance" as anything other than a throwaway lazy self justification?

Lastly, you "reject the senseless restriction". Hahahahahahaha. Really? No time for childish games? REALLY? All you have ever done here is perform a series of childish games. You were restricted from posting here (IIRC you can post to the BW as Skeptic) because after years of effort you'd learned sweet fuck all! If that's not a childish game, nothing is. You are, quite blatantly, claiming that the owner of this website (Wes, and perhaps some other PT folks AFAIK) do not have the right to police a place they own and operate as they see fit. Erm, really? Are you that fucking stupid, blinkered and arrogant? Oh wait...I know the answer to that: Yes. We are all here at their sufferance...perhaps some of us cause more suffering than others! There is a whole internet out there for you to post on, just like there is a whole world out there for you to take a shit in. The fact that someone objects to you shitting on their living room carpet is no more a senseless restriction than them objecting that you post on a forum they own and operate. Fuck me but your sense of arrogant entitlement is nauseating.

Take my advice and stay gone. Find some other place to annoy people.

Louis

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2080
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2010,09:29   

Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2010,10:26   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 18 2010,15:29)
Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)

I wouldn't poison SD's great music with my annoyance at Obliviot's bullshit. :-)

Louis

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2010,11:13   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,16:26)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 18 2010,15:29)
Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)

I wouldn't poison SD's great music with my annoyance at Obliviot's bullshit. :-)

Louis

I haven't mastered symphony-for-fart-sounds enough yet to do Louis any justice.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
JohnW



Posts: 2196
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2010,11:35   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 18 2010,09:13)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,16:26)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 18 2010,15:29)
Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)

I wouldn't poison SD's great music with my annoyance at Obliviot's bullshit. :-)

Louis

I haven't mastered symphony-for-fart-sounds enough yet to do Louis any justice.

There's this guy at a Texas bible school who can help you with that...

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2010,12:53   

Bravo, Louis!

Imma put this in a file next to Dr. Lenski's retort to a certain other knucklehead who was "just askin' questions, man" as an example of relative diplomacy in the face of unrelenting willful ignorance.

Alas, I would have used far more of Brother William's seven classic four letter words and thus fueled someone's Worm Bucket*.

The MadPanda, FCD



* in reference to a campground song that goes something like 'nobody likes me / everybody hates me / I'm going to the garden / to eat worms'

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2010,14:27   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 18 2010,18:53)
Bravo, Louis!

Imma put this in a file next to Dr. Lenski's retort to a certain other knucklehead who was "just askin' questions, man" as an example of relative diplomacy in the face of unrelenting willful ignorance.

Alas, I would have used far more of Brother William's seven classic four letter words and thus fueled someone's Worm Bucket*.

The MadPanda, FCD



* in reference to a campground song that goes something like 'nobody likes me / everybody hates me / I'm going to the garden / to eat worms'

Pfffffff hahahahaha.

I'm not laughing at you just at the idea that anything I have done thus far is in the same ball park as Lenski's efforts. Be it scientific or diplomatic! I fantasise about acheiving something on the order of what he and his group have done, or indeed being as diplomatic as he was to Schafly.

That was very kind of you, extremely generous, totally unnecessary and woefully inaccurate. Thanks very much! ;-)

Louis

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2010,14:48   

Modesty is supposed to be a virtue. There are situations in my life where I believe I should have been a little less virtuous, if that is the operative sense of virtue. I am no linguist.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2010,14:49   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,06:33)

Quote

Prediction confirmed.

(snipped- no repeat necessary)


I am SO getting this framed, Louis! Best read evah! Three pints on me and I'll pay for a lorry to take you home! Maybe even a taxi!

Ahh...must go wipe my eyes now... :D

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2080
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2010,22:24   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 18 2010,09:13)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,16:26)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 18 2010,15:29)
Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)

I wouldn't poison SD's great music with my annoyance at Obliviot's bullshit. :-)

Louis

I haven't mastered symphony-for-fart-sounds enough yet to do Louis any justice.



Well when you're done out-humbling one another... seriously: "reject the senseless restriction"... "No time for childish games"..."Pick a fucking book up"

Hawkwind would snap up this lyrical gold in a heartbeat.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2010,05:02   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 19 2010,04:24)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 18 2010,09:13)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,16:26)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 18 2010,15:29)
Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)

I wouldn't poison SD's great music with my annoyance at Obliviot's bullshit. :-)

Louis

I haven't mastered symphony-for-fart-sounds enough yet to do Louis any justice.



Well when you're done out-humbling one another... seriously: "reject the senseless restriction"... "No time for childish games"..."Pick a fucking book up"

Hawkwind would snap up this lyrical gold in a heartbeat.

Except that I am far more humble than, well, anyone. In fact I'm so humble that if you look in the dictionary next to "humility" you'll see my photo. A small, modest photo that doesn't draw attention to itself of course.

Louis

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2010,07:10   

And with the Prize Money that comes with yourWinning Teh Internets Nobel, you can finally open that Home For Wayward Nymphomaniacs!

(Hint:  But don't piss off The Hitch)

edited for sp

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2010,07:27   

Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 19 2010,13:10)
And with the Prize Money that comes with yourWinning Teh Internets Nobel, you can finally open that Home For Wayward Nymphomaniacs!

(Hint:  But don't piss off The Hitch)

edited for sp

Only commited nymphomaniacs will be admitted. Surely wayward nymphomaniacs have strayed from the true path and become celibate?

I have a location for the centre picked out in the beautiful, relaxing, English countryside, near the coast for beach access during the summer*. I need job applications from people interested in becoming testers. Only the highest quality nymphomaniacs are to be admitted, rigorous testing standards will be applied.

Interviews begin on Monday, the end of the queue for applicants is currently in Moscow and working its way east at alarming speed.

Louis

*Actual summer may differ from that shown on the box.

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

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,22:44   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 19 2010,07:27)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 19 2010,13:10)
And with the Prize Money that comes with yourWinning Teh Internets Nobel, you can finally open that Home For Wayward Nymphomaniacs!

(Hint:  But don't piss off The Hitch)

edited for sp

Only commited nymphomaniacs will be admitted. Surely wayward nymphomaniacs have strayed from the true path and become celibate?

I have a location for the centre picked out in the beautiful, relaxing, English countryside, near the coast for beach access during the summer*. I need job applications from people interested in becoming testers. Only the highest quality nymphomaniacs are to be admitted, rigorous testing standards will be applied.

Interviews begin on Monday, the end of the queue for applicants is currently in Moscow and working its way east at alarming speed.

Louis

*Actual summer may differ from that shown on the box.


I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.

                                       -- Jerry Lee Lewis

--------------
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
-- Pierre Simon Laplace, explaining the absence of any mention of God in his work

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2010,06:22   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:21)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 04 2010,18:12)
 
Quote
Are there any square circles?:)


Do you know why the answer to this question is what it is?  

Do you understand why this is not an intelligent question to ask?

Are you going to engage in any conversation here with the intellectual honesty your entire discourse from the Bathroom Wall lacked?


The MadPanda, FCD

I'm asking to see if you believe in absolutes or not. If there were no such thing as a square circle, then that would be an example of one absolute now wouldn't it.

Now let me ask you this, is the earth really a cube?

I believe in absolutes. In fact, I'm having a debate on another forum (with a forum member here I believe) where I am supporting the statement: There is a perfect truth beyonh humanity's ability to attain. And It looks like I might have the upper hand at the moment.

Here is the link if you want to read it. I think one day it will hold a featured position in creationists arguments.

Sorry to be a drive by creationist here. :)

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=33218

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2010,06:38   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 17 2010,03:43)
Quote (skeptic reborn @ Nov. 17 2010,05:29)
Hate to let a potentially promising thread just whimper and die.  So, do you guys require an irrational YECist to kick around or would a semi-rational theist do?


Hi Skeptic. Thanks for the best thread ever here for me anyway.
Quote (louis]
* I am bored of Mulberry Bushes. I am bored of games. I am @ in a word, bored. This makes me nasty. I dislike boredom. There are a few new people around who might enjoy/benefit from you/a clone of you/a suggested friend of yours, but I seriously doubt it. Weren't you setting up your own blog? How'd that turn out?
[/quote)
I got bored and upped the anti. How are you doing these days with the added weight?

[quote=loius]
*** Wouldn't it be nice for once, just once, to have someone actually capable and serious to play with? I've often thought of trying to take the creationist case for the simple reason that there is no way I could fuck it up as badly as most creationists do. I'd feel dirty doing the Gish Gallop and other rheotical gambits that creationists use to hide how shallow their claims really are though. Once you've seen the man behind the curtain it's really hard to pretend the show is real.

I moved on from creationists. (mostly). I went out and started searching the alternate physics theories and their proponents. I have a pretty good bag of woo now and I'm sorting out the fragile stuff by throwing it against scientists or otherwise bright people in debate-like formats. Quite a bit of it is serviceable enough. My rule is that I must concede lost points but I don't lose too many. Soon I will have a basket of indestructible woo.

I owe it to you, RBill and skeptic. Lenny really I guess. But I'd love to send you a copy of the manuscript to edit/read once work let's up on me for the holidays. Reciprocating bill too.

At any rate, it really biols down to the semi rational part you mentioned in this post but which i snipped. :)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4230
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2010,22:04   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2010,07:38)
I owe it to you, RBill and skeptic. Lenny really I guess. But I'd love to send you a copy of the manuscript to edit/read once work let's up on me for the holidays. Reciprocating bill too.

Which I gather harkens back to discussions a couple years back.

Linky?

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2010,02:05   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 04 2010,20:04)
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2010,07:38)
I owe it to you, RBill and skeptic. Lenny really I guess. But I'd love to send you a copy of the manuscript to edit/read once work let's up on me for the holidays. Reciprocating bill too.

Which I gather harkens back to discussions a couple years back.

Linky?

Well, it hearkens back a little further, but drastically changed directions after a thread started by louis called something close to "no reason for a rift between science and religion? Skeptic has a chance to prove his claim." I don't have it bookmarked on this machine but it's easy to search I think. It was the thread where Lenny quit.

I'm not sure if there was a specific post or even specific idea in it that changed the direction of my thinking. It was my approach to the Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisterial domains that changed and I don't recall the topic being explicitly discussed (although we were talking about many of the same elements.). I'd never considered some of the overlaps that turn out to be plenty evident when we look,

But after a few days of thinking about it, my internal  paradigm shifted as I began to blur a bunch of what used to be discrete ideas. Before that discussion, I'd never tried to imagine how many sacred cows were grazing covertly in each others' magesteria...  A few weeks after it ended, I tried. I found thwm all in the same pasture.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4230
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2010,06:37   

Here is that discussion, from 8/07 through 12/07.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2010,09:13   

I don't get it.  This clown fills up 400+ pages at PT and can't even get to eight here?

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

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

   
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2010,21:28   

I can't believe it either.

I think he's morphed into flipper, or Kris, or AMDG, or darwinism.dogbarf()

I don't know, but I think after 400 pages he just can't keep his mouth shut.

What do you think?

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2010,16:58   

Biggy just resurfaced over on Panda's Thumb, and of course he claims he took a little vacation from that site because the regulars were so mean to him (read: he ran away because he got his hide well tanned).

Lay you eight to five he won't bother to show up here.

Of course, I'm certainly not helping, since I greet him point blank with an honest assessment of his intellectual capacity... :p


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2010,17:14   

In my opinion, Mad, your assessment of IBelieve's intellect is severely sugarcoated.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2010,17:19   

Frankly?

Yes.  Yes, it is.  With sprinkles, even.

I admit it openly.  Just as I have been pulling my punches with another moron, not that they seems to appreciate the extra benefit of the doubt I've given them.

Biggy does not deserve the full eloquence of what wordsmithery I can summon when properly motivated.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2010,18:58   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 19 2010,17:19)
Frankly?

Yes.  Yes, it is.  With sprinkles, even.

I admit it openly.  Just as I have been pulling my punches with another moron, not that they seems to appreciate the extra benefit of the doubt I've given them.

Biggy does not deserve the full eloquence of what wordsmithery I can summon when properly motivated.


The MadPanda, FCD

You mean like the time you killed a guy in a barfight with nothing but a bawdy limerick?

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2010,19:08   

That was actually a misquote: it wasn't a dirty limerick.

I was quoting Cyrano de Bergerac at length, and the poor drunken fool thought to come after me with a blunt sonnet in the Italian vein.  So of course I had to resort to an unfortunate excess of e e cummings in self defense.  Nobody was killed, but the other fellow had to have fifteen stitches.

Since, at the time, I was dating someone who liked to improvise Gilbert and Sullivan patter-songs, it could have been far worse.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2010,21:30   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 19 2010,19:08)
That was actually a misquote: it wasn't a dirty limerick.

I was quoting Cyrano de Bergerac at length, and the poor drunken fool thought to come after me with a blunt sonnet in the Italian vein.  So of course I had to resort to an unfortunate excess of e e cummings in self defense.  Nobody was killed, but the other fellow had to have fifteen stitches.

Since, at the time, I was dating someone who liked to improvise Gilbert and Sullivan patter-songs, it could have been far worse.


The MadPanda, FCD

Sounds suspiciously similar to what Gilda Radner went through on the Muppets Show.

Especially the part where she was forced to join forces with a snotty, 7 foot carrot to tackle "Pirates of Penzance"

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2010,22:27   

If you want a rich field of semi-literate creationists, register for the "The Shreveport Times".

Delightful southern hospitality.

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2010,22:51   

Stanton, I must regrettably admit that I missed that episode, and also that my curiosity is piqued.  I shall have to go a-hunting for it, now.  Or just put Muppet Show DVDs on my wish list.

IRT our dear friend with the reading comprehension problem, Biggy, I have a feeling that he'll take my jesting proposal to start running practical experiments in maleficium seriously.  Unfortunately, even though it would be for posterity, I doubt he'd honestly report any little aches, pains, or mishaps that follow...   :D

Dumber than advertised, that boy.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Amadan



Posts: 1239
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2010,04:31   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 20 2010,01:08)
So of course I had to resort to an unfortunate excess of e e cummings in self defense.  

That is hardly a capital offence.

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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2010,07:49   

Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 20 2010,04:31)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Dec. 20 2010,01:08)
So of course I had to resort to an unfortunate excess of e e cummings in self defense.  

That is hardly a capital offence.

But it could lead to bigger things...

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2010,08:02   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 19 2010,22:51)
Stanton, I must regrettably admit that I missed that episode, and also that my curiosity is piqued.  I shall have to go a-hunting for it, now.  Or just put Muppet Show DVDs on my wish list.

IRT our dear friend with the reading comprehension problem, Biggy, I have a feeling that he'll take my jesting proposal to start running practical experiments in maleficium seriously.  Unfortunately, even though it would be for posterity, I doubt he'd honestly report any little aches, pains, or mishaps that follow...   :D

Dumber than advertised, that boy.


The MadPanda, FCD

Just remind Biggy that he has a thread here that he cowardly ran out on and then ignore him.

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2010,11:13   

Just so!  Not that he'll have the guts to come over here, the poltroon...it's too scary!  We've read, like, books and stuff!

:p


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2010,13:10   

Well, I reminded the nitwit of his cowardliness here, and, Mad, Gilda's Fiasco

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2010,13:39   

Oh yeah.  I forgot that it's the end of the semester (though this is very late... maybe quarter system?) and Dembski's clueless babies need to go preach to the heathens.

Don't they have any creativity?  "Stephen Meyer"?  Someone ought to e-mail Meyer and let him know he's being an idiot on PT.

Now that would be a laugh riot.

Meyer: Dude, at least tell your kids to use their own names or something when the attack a science forum.

Dembski: Are you kidding, I can't even get them to remember their own names.  These kids are dumb... must be the poor education here in the States.

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2010,15:18   

Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 20 2010,13:10)
Well, I reminded the nitwit of his cowardliness here, and, Mad, Gilda's Fiasco

Thanks, Stanton!  A little Muppetry always makes my day brighter.  Even better than listening to Biggy whimper like a flensed spleen.

Just call me MP, please  :)   And no, nobody ever calls me MISTER Panda.

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2010,20:18   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 20 2010,15:18)
Just call me MP, please  :)   And no, nobody ever calls me MISTER Panda.

We'll have to wait for that to get tacky, then.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,08:54   

From the Behe Paper thread on PT;

from Kris
Quote

It’s only absurd to people who think they know everything but can’t answer the questions.


Every question that you or Colin has asked has been asnwered.  Whether you like or approve of the answer or not, is not our problem.

Quote

And Colin didn’t bring up the comparison to speaking English. He also didn’t ask what sounds or language the first insects made or spoke.


You are not getting it, and neither did Colin.  You cannot, no linguist can, point to a specific person, or a specific place, or a specific time and say "That is the first instance of English."  

Heck, without significant post graduate training it's almost impossible to read English writing or 400 years ago (say Chaucher for example).  Is that, therefore not English?  

Do you see the problem, English as a language is not fixed.  It is a continuum of changes throughout time and space (American English vs. British English for example).  Truly, when we say "English" or "insect" normally, we mean what is right now, not the continuum of all versions since there was anything that might be considered English or insects.

The best method for discussing these types of things is cladistics.

Personally, I also find it intellectually offensive, when someone comes in with a non-sensical 'gotcha' question, when merely typing that question into google would result in an answer much more easily than what we provide.

In 15 years of doing this, I have yet to run across a true 'gotcha' question from a creationist.

I do have, however, plenty of gotcha questions for creationists... depending on the flavor of their personal beliefs.  And that's exactly because all creationism (including ID) is based entirely on belief, not reality.

Quote

You guys use every trick in the book to side-step answering legitimate questions, just like you accuse the creationists of doing. You think you’re really different from them but you’re not.


There were no sidesteps.  Again, the fact that you don't like the asnwer you get doesn't mean it wasn't answered or the answer given is wrong.

Quote

Even though science has some strong evidence or proof of some things, that doesn’t mean it (or you) have all the answers or even any evidence in many cases.


And the only people that say this are creationists.  The ultimate strawman.  

The only reason you think we have all the answers is because your 'gotcha' questions are so pathetic that a guy with a bachelor's degree in Earth Science can handily defeat them.

[QUOTE}
There are lots of things beyond what you or anyone else on Earth can figure out right now, and maybe forever. When you (or anyone else) come across as knowing everything about everything you just look like an arrogant, pompous fool. Yeah, you guys accuse the creationists of that too, and it certainly fits them in some cases, but it also fits most of you too.
[/QUOTE]

And no one disagrees with this point, except the pompus fool bit.

Do you honestly think that ANYTHING you have said or any questions you have asked (or Colin asked) are original in any way shape or form?  This website is full of people who have arguing with creationists for DECADES.

You are not unique.



IBIG

Quote

Abiogenesis isn’t being tested! Science is attempting to actually CREATE life, which would be an example of CREATION, because it would demonstrate that intelligence was needed to create life. I don’t believe that science will ever create life though.


It's truly hillarious how creationists think that anything done in a lab is 'designed'.  They truly don't understand simple concepts like chemistry.

Batteries are designed, it's true.  However, the chemical reactions that produce the electricty are not designed.  That chemical reaction will occur, even if the material is found lumped together in the wild with no intelligent agent EVER having been involved (note, I don't say this is likely to happen, I'm just saying that the chemical reaction WILL happen.)

In the same way, the chemical reactions that form the basis for the many hypotheses of abiogenesis happen.  If they are chemically possible, then they WILL happen under the proper conditions.  If we replicate the conditions of primitive Earth in the lab, then certain chemical reactions happen.  If they happen in the lab, then they happened, when (and if) the Earth had those conditions.

It's called Chemistry, and you better hope it always works that way.  Otherwise YOU won't work (or anything else in our world for that matter).

As far as creating life in the lab? Perhaps you are familier with the succesful attempts to use a hand made genome to run a bacterial cell?

Please note that the 'creating life' in the lab is a completely seperate practice from abiogensis.  Just because humans can do something doesn't mean that all instances of that event were designed by something.

I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.

I know you won't see the difference, because you have epically huge ideological blinders on, but, again, that's not my problem.  

Which reminds me, IBIG, I still don't really know why you have those ideological blinders.  You obviously (over the last 6 months of dealing with you) don't actually believe in the Bible and what it says, why are you a Christian anyway?

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

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

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,10:30   

OgreMkV - I like to refer to the natural nuclear reactors when they try that "designed" argument re:OOL.  

other refs: Gizmodo - "This is a natural nuclear reactor"

Comparison of Oklo w/modern reactors (pdf)

edited to add spaces around first link

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

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,11:13   

Well, now that Kris is being all Internet Tough Guy and answering comments aimed at Biggy (apparently on Biggy's behalf?) and squealing like a little brat who's been told that he can't have his dessert until after the liver and onions...

It's circumstantial, but Kris and Biggy seem to be each other's muppets*.  The wankery is getting deep, and in spite of Our Cybertank's firm invitation for them to come over here and face a more prepared audience, I have a deep suspicion that they'll both pull a Sir Robin while declaring victory.

(* Apologies to Kermit and associates for the unfortunate imagery, but I'm not feeling kind today.)

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,13:08   

Quote
I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.


Exactly right!

I can make bubbles in the bathtub and it doesn't prove that the early atmosphere was composed of hydrogen sulfide and methane.

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,15:36   

[quote=OgreMkV,Dec. 21 2010,08:54][/quote]
Quote
I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.


Feh...waves are just God rockin' back and forth in the Pacific. For whatever reason, he rocks harder when the moon is new and full...

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,18:38   

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 21 2010,15:36)
[quote=OgreMkV,Dec. 21 2010,08:54][/quote]
 
Quote
I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.


Feh...waves are just God rockin' back and forth in the Pacific. For whatever reason, he rocks harder when the moon is new and full...

If the ocean's rockin', don't come knockin'?

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

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

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5373
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,19:19   

Quote (Kris @ on the Behe Thread)
That love, compassion, and justice from the six sources are just pouring out of you, Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocrite. LMAO!!

Oh well, what can one expect from someone who modifies their morals and belief system to fit whatever they want to get away with?

Ya know, you sound a lot like a catholic pedophile or a politician.


Ring any bells?

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3258
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,20:00   

Wow, another Christian accusing people of being evil just cause they think his God is nuts.

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

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

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,21:07   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 21 2010,17:19)
 
Quote (Kris @ on the Behe Thread)
That love, compassion, and justice from the six sources are just pouring out of you, Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocrite. LMAO!!

Oh well, what can one expect from someone who modifies their morals and belief system to fit whatever they want to get away with?

Ya know, you sound a lot like a catholic pedophile or a politician.


Ring any bells?

The double spacing between sentences is another dead giveaway.

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

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,22:43   

Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 20 2010,13:10)
Well, I reminded the nitwit of his cowardliness here, and, Mad, Gilda's Fiasco

I have now seen the seven foot tall talking Carrot of Penzance and...it was, in a nutshell, more intellectually fulfilling and enjoyable than anything Biggy (or Steve P., or Kris, or FL, or...) has ever typed over at PT.


Thanks for the link, Stanton!  Quite enjoyable.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,00:41   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 21 2010,22:43)
Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 20 2010,13:10)
Well, I reminded the nitwit of his cowardliness here, and, Mad, Gilda's Fiasco

I have now seen the seven foot tall talking Carrot of Penzance and...it was, in a nutshell, more intellectually fulfilling and enjoyable than anything Biggy (or Steve P., or Kris, or FL, or...) has ever typed over at PT.


Thanks for the link, Stanton!  Quite enjoyable.


The MadPanda, FCD

Oh, you root for anything.  What about the time you started up that torrid affair with that parsnip?

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,11:00   

Some alternative reading for IBIG or Kris.  Fascinating to curious and investigative minds. Stuff by people that I dare say beats 'even' the Isaac Newton of Information theory, William Dembski. (Being a poor typist, I found I had actually typed Silliam but I did of course rectify that.)
Alan Turing:
Ilya Prigogine:
Boris Belousov:
And then some more food for thought:
Mobile slime:
Organizing chaos:

While creationism is static, science makes new, fascinating and intriguing discoveries every day. The end of science and the edge of evolution is nowhere in sight...

The world isn't quite the 'mindless' mechanistic collection of matter that creationists have set their mind on believing. Or believing in. No wonder they get it all wrong.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,11:35   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 21 2010,08:54)
From the Behe Paper thread on PT;

from Kris
 
Quote

It’s only absurd to people who think they know everything but can’t answer the questions.


Every question that you or Colin has asked has been asnwered.  Whether you like or approve of the answer or not, is not our problem.

 
Quote

And Colin didn’t bring up the comparison to speaking English. He also didn’t ask what sounds or language the first insects made or spoke.


You are not getting it, and neither did Colin.  You cannot, no linguist can, point to a specific person, or a specific place, or a specific time and say "That is the first instance of English."  

Heck, without significant post graduate training it's almost impossible to read English writing or 400 years ago (say Chaucher for example).  Is that, therefore not English?  

Do you see the problem, English as a language is not fixed.  It is a continuum of changes throughout time and space (American English vs. British English for example).  Truly, when we say "English" or "insect" normally, we mean what is right now, not the continuum of all versions since there was anything that might be considered English or insects.

The best method for discussing these types of things is cladistics.

Personally, I also find it intellectually offensive, when someone comes in with a non-sensical 'gotcha' question, when merely typing that question into google would result in an answer much more easily than what we provide.

In 15 years of doing this, I have yet to run across a true 'gotcha' question from a creationist.

I do have, however, plenty of gotcha questions for creationists... depending on the flavor of their personal beliefs.  And that's exactly because all creationism (including ID) is based entirely on belief, not reality.

 
Quote

You guys use every trick in the book to side-step answering legitimate questions, just like you accuse the creationists of doing. You think you’re really different from them but you’re not.


There were no sidesteps.  Again, the fact that you don't like the asnwer you get doesn't mean it wasn't answered or the answer given is wrong.

 
Quote

Even though science has some strong evidence or proof of some things, that doesn’t mean it (or you) have all the answers or even any evidence in many cases.


And the only people that say this are creationists.  The ultimate strawman.  

The only reason you think we have all the answers is because your 'gotcha' questions are so pathetic that a guy with a bachelor's degree in Earth Science can handily defeat them.

[QUOTE}
There are lots of things beyond what you or anyone else on Earth can figure out right now, and maybe forever. When you (or anyone else) come across as knowing everything about everything you just look like an arrogant, pompous fool. Yeah, you guys accuse the creationists of that too, and it certainly fits them in some cases, but it also fits most of you too.


And no one disagrees with this point, except the pompus fool bit.

Do you honestly think that ANYTHING you have said or any questions you have asked (or Colin asked) are original in any way shape or form?  This website is full of people who have arguing with creationists for DECADES.

You are not unique.



IBIG

 
Quote

Abiogenesis isn’t being tested! Science is attempting to actually CREATE life, which would be an example of CREATION, because it would demonstrate that intelligence was needed to create life. I don’t believe that science will ever create life though.


It's truly hillarious how creationists think that anything done in a lab is 'designed'.  They truly don't understand simple concepts like chemistry.

Batteries are designed, it's true.  However, the chemical reactions that produce the electricty are not designed.  That chemical reaction will occur, even if the material is found lumped together in the wild with no intelligent agent EVER having been involved (note, I don't say this is likely to happen, I'm just saying that the chemical reaction WILL happen.)

In the same way, the chemical reactions that form the basis for the many hypotheses of abiogenesis happen.  If they are chemically possible, then they WILL happen under the proper conditions.  If we replicate the conditions of primitive Earth in the lab, then certain chemical reactions happen.  If they happen in the lab, then they happened, when (and if) the Earth had those conditions.

It's called Chemistry, and you better hope it always works that way.  Otherwise YOU won't work (or anything else in our world for that matter).

As far as creating life in the lab? Perhaps you are familier with the succesful attempts to use a hand made genome to run a bacterial cell?

Please note that the 'creating life' in the lab is a completely seperate practice from abiogensis.  Just because humans can do something doesn't mean that all instances of that event were designed by something.

I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.

I know you won't see the difference, because you have epically huge ideological blinders on, but, again, that's not my problem.  

Which reminds me, IBIG, I still don't really know why you have those ideological blinders.  You obviously (over the last 6 months of dealing with you) don't actually believe in the Bible and what it says, why are you a Christian anyway?[/quote]
Don't tell me that scientists are attempting to replicate the conditions of ancient earth and are watching for Abiogenesis to occur, so they are going to wait a billion years for it to happen? If you think that what is done in a lab isn't designed then let me ask you this. Who decides what the chemical makeup and conditions ie. temperatures, if electricity is used, etc... of these Abiogenesis experiments? Intelligent Life does right? No one knows what the actual conditions, temperatures, etc... were on earth at the moment  Abigenesis supposedly occurred.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,12:12   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 22 2010,11:35)
No one knows what the actual conditions, temperatures, etc... were on earth at the moment  Abigenesis supposedly occurred.

Assumption 1: The temperature of the earth at the moment " Abigenesis supposedly occurred" < the temperature of molten rock. I.E Lava.

Would you agree or disagree with that assumption?

I.E. that the earth was not a lava wasteland at the time of "Abigenesis*"?

If so, we can take if from there I think. Very slowly, to be sure. But at least we'll agree on something?

BTW, preview your posts before posting, you forgot to include a quote box.

* Was that not a Star Trek film?

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

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,12:12   

Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 22 2010,00:41)
Oh, you root for anything.  What about the time you started up that torrid affair with that parsnip?

If you can't turnip any pics, it didn't happen.

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
JohnW



Posts: 2196
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,12:47   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 22 2010,10:12)
Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 22 2010,00:41)
Oh, you root for anything.  What about the time you started up that torrid affair with that parsnip?

If you can't turnip any pics, it didn't happen.

The MadPanda, FCD

It's on Youtuber.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Michael_Behe



Posts: 2
Joined: Dec. 2010

<