RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 477 478 479 480 481 [482] 483 484 485 486 487 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,11:41   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2007,11:15)
Phonon, DaveTard didn't get the memo.

Since DT seems even more clueless than usual, and the banninator was operated by WAD hisself, it seems reasonable to conclude that WAD reads this site, discovered phonon's clever ruse, and took action immediately.
After all, he really doesn't have much else to do these days.

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

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,11:56   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2007,19:15)
Phonon, DaveTard didn't get the memo.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-116837

 
Quote
10

DaveScot

04/16/2007

4:00 am
phonon

Directed panspermia implies intelligent design at least for the life on this planet.

WHAT MESSAGE HOMOS? THERE'S A SPAMHERNIA MEMO? ( off stage whispering) ..OH THE MYSTERIOUS HAND OF BAAL THE BOOM LOWERER. WELL THE INTELLIGENT WEASELER GAVE HIM GUIDANCE. I'LL BET IT WAS PASCAL'S WEASEL. ROFL I HERNIA ME SOMETIMES.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,12:03   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 16 2007,19:41)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2007,11:15)
Phonon, DaveTard didn't get the memo.

Since DT seems even more clueless than usual, and the banninator was operated by WAD hisself, it seems reasonable to conclude that WAD reads this site, discovered phonon's clever ruse, and took action immediately.
After all, he really doesn't have much else to do these days.

Hmmmmm.

To be charitable ......maybe he's secretly basking in Kristines Shimmer....then maybe not.

Oh the pain.....the pain. (in the best camp Dr Smith impersonation)

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Fross



Posts: 71
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,12:04   

Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,18:36)
Quote (argystokes @ April 15 2007,19:30)
Well there's something we have in common. For me, there's something in some chocolate that tastes like peanuts too... that "you shouldn't be eating this" taste. But I definitely don't actually have the physical reaction to it. Ever had that happen?

No, not to chocolate, which never fails to be yummy. The only other thing that provokes that itchy taste are certain kinds of hard cheese. I don't know what kinds off hand, but a small percentage of them have a real annoying itchiness to the tongue.

growing up, i could never eat hot dogs or sausage without getting a dull head-ache.  Unfortunately my son inherited this as well.

--------------
"For everything else, there's Mastertard"

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,12:06   

For the fuller story...
Everyone's favourite sociologist has a book out.  I'll wait to see if there's any comment on this line from the Amazon.co.uk site:
Quote
IDT’s proponents take literally the Biblical idea that humans have been created in God’s image.

I'm sure Lenny will appreciate it.

Bob

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,12:11   

Quote (k.e @ April 16 2007,12:03)
Hmmmmm.

To be charitable ......maybe he's secretly basking in Kristines Shimmer....then maybe not.

That must be it. He probably is more worried about the shimmy than the "hip" avatar of Newton/Dembski that phonon uses on this site...

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,16:12   

O'Leary  
Quote
I am afraid that I have never heard of an orthodox theology of the cross (an interest of Murphy’s) that denies humans a supernatural component. That is, however, a pillar of orthodox Darwinism. I think that what Murphy, his quotee, and many on the ASA list from which this sample was taken clearly demonstrate is the slow rot of non-materialist understanding of life that any long and close embrace of Darwinism brings about. Mind you, I expect them to want to discuss just about anything else.

George Murphy  
Quote
Whether or not it is valid to infer from such a theology that it is not necessary to postulate a “supernatural” component of the human can, of course, be debated. But the claim that that I have made this suggestion as a result of “the slow rot of non-materialist understanding of life that any long and close embrace of Darwinism brings about” is, if I may be blunt, a lie.

Ouch.

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,16:33   

An oldie:

Quote
I’ve decided to put Uncommon Descent into mothballs indefinitely


How do the moths feel about this? how will you do it, Bill?

I NEED A PATHETICAL LEVEL OF MECHANISTIC DETAIL!

If he succeed though, that moth gism will be propelled by intelligently designed flagella. Another coup for UD/ID. I feel a Waterloo coming on!

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,16:53   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2007,11:15)
Phonon, DaveTard didn't get the memo.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-116837

Quote
10

DaveScot

04/16/2007

4:00 am
phonon

Directed panspermia implies intelligent design at least for the life on this planet.

Would *my* favorite theory for the origin of life on earth, i.e., 'Alien Septic Tank Dump', imply intelligent design?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,20:05   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-116908

Quote
38

George Murphy

04/16/2007

7:34 pm
According to jerry, “As a group the theological evolutionist really seem to only discuss one thing and that is theology. They don’t care about evidence or scientific truth.” This is manifestly false. I suggest that he read some books by Christians who accept evolution -e.g.,

Ted Peters & Martinez Hewlett, _Evolution from Creation to New Creation_.

David Wilcox, _God and Evolution_.

Francis Collins, _The Language of God_.

Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God_.

Keith B. Miller (ed.), _Perspectives on an Evolving Creation_. (I wrote Chapter 16 here.)

Others could be cited.

He will see that scientific data and theories are taken into account in all of these. In addition, the degree to which the various authors are committed to “Darwinism” in any strict sense varies considerably. Whether or not one agrees with the various authors’ assessments of the science is not the point now. It is simply not true that they are not concerned about science. Could we please stop this kind of misrepresentation?


Denyse will have a mouth like a cats arse.

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,21:32   

Wha-? Steve Fuller's Dissy over Descy
Quote
The theme of descent and dissent, which has been a theme on this blog and in my book UNCOMMON DISSENT: INTELLECTUALS WHO FIND DARWINISM UNCONVINCING, has been picked up by Steve Fuller in his new book DISSENT OVER DESCENT: EVOLUTION’S 500-YEAR WAR ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Evolution's 500-year war on intelligent design?

Darwin's 500th coming up? WAD, I thought you said that evolution started with those ancient Greek gawds killing each other and transforming and crap.

Boy am I confused. How does it go again: there's PI in the sky (celestial spheres) when I die. Okay-doke. *Help me, I need a study break* :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,21:39   

Quote (Kristine @ April 16 2007,21:32)
Wha-? Steve Fuller's Dissy over Descy  
Quote
The theme of descent and dissent, which has been a theme on this blog and in my book UNCOMMON DISSENT: INTELLECTUALS WHO FIND DARWINISM UNCONVINCING, has been picked up by Steve Fuller in his new book DISSENT OVER DESCENT: EVOLUTION’S 500-YEAR WAR ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Evolution's 500-year war on intelligent design?

Darwin's 500th coming up? WAD, I thought you said that evolution started with those ancient Greek gawds killing each other and transforming and crap.

Boy am I confused. How does it go again: there's PI in the sky (celestial spheres) when I die. Okay-doke. *Help me, I need a study break* :p

By golly, I thought that ID was, ya know, SCIENCE and all, and that the reason why it, uh, doesn't have any peer-reviewed results is, um, because it's, er, so NEW, and all . . . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)

I wish these morons would at least TRY to keep their #### story straight . . . . .

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2007,21:58   

jerry        
Quote
Namely, you could make the argument for Darwinism. Why do you accept it as valid science? What evidence convinces you? We have yet to see anyone here who can defend it.

Could it be because they're all banned, Jerry?

And what of the spirit of George Murphy who was summoned against his will?
Quote
So - you haven’t read any of these books but still knew what theistic evolutionists said? What Christians who accept evolution had you read before making your claim?

You discount Collins because of the criticisms of a journalist with no discernible scientific qualifications & Ken Miller because he’s dismantled the claims of some IDers. It’s easy to see how open you are to scientific arguments. I got onto this blog only to correct some misrepresentations & have no interest in fruitless debate with someone who so casually dismisses scientists who actually know what they’re talking about.

I responded to your post to correct your false statement about “Theological Evolutionists” & your reply just shows again that you didn’t know what you were talking about. That will be sufficient.

Ouch, again.

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,00:13   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 16 2007,20:39)
     
Quote (Kristine @ April 16 2007,21:32)
Wha-? Steve Fuller's Dissy over Descy
Quote
The theme of descent and dissent, which has been a theme on this blog and in my book UNCOMMON DISSENT: INTELLECTUALS WHO FIND DARWINISM UNCONVINCING, has been picked up by Steve Fuller in his new book DISSENT OVER DESCENT: EVOLUTION’S 500-YEAR WAR ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Evolution's 500-year war on intelligent design?

Darwin's 500th coming up? WAD, I thought you said that evolution started with those ancient Greek gawds killing each other and transforming and crap.

Boy am I confused. How does it go again: there's PI in the sky (celestial spheres) when I die. Okay-doke. *Help me, I need a study break* :p

By golly, I thought that ID was, ya know, SCIENCE and all, and that the reason why it, uh, doesn't have any peer-reviewed results is, um, because it's, er, so NEW, and all . . . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)
I wish these morons would at least TRY to keep their #### story straight . . . . .

Oops! I should get my story straight myself. I owe WmAd an apology, I was wrong. I misquoted wMAD. ;) It wasn't the Greek gods making war that he mentioned, it was the Babylonian gods making, um, er...
Quote
If you look at the Babylonian account, it's called the Enuma Elish, and what you have [enema elish??] are waters, sweet waters and salt waters, Tiamat and Apsu - they mingle, okay, and the mingle connotes some sort of sexual union, and out of that emerged one set of gods, and then there's another set of gods, and another, and then finally you get Marduk. And it's in this process of generations, the gods are begetting gods...

His point being that evolution is somehow like creation myths like this. Oooh, this kind of stuff can rile a girl up.

My point being, if I am salt water, what is wMAD? :) 'Cause he says that the naturalist view is "thin on the consumation part." Heh, I have news for him.

*Waits for shocked Marpuke from Arden* :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,01:27   

Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,18:12)
 
Actually I've got a little extra understanding of this. When I was a little kid I nearly died from being fed peanuts they didn't know I was allergic to. Throat closed up, the whole deal. And my brain did some kind of rewiring trick, and whatever you guys taste in peanut butter, I don't taste it. I have no idea what peanuts and peanut butter taste like to those of you who like it, because my brain reprogrammed the taste. Peanuts taste like nothing except pain and itchyness to me. I can't detect anything else. People tell me they taste great, I know people who love them, but I can't taste it whatsoever. The circuits associated with those flavors have been reconfigured. Once a year or so I accidently bite into something with peanuts and the taste is something like acid and itchiness.

Many years ago, I read an article in the first incarnation of "Psychology Today" called "The Sauce Bernaise Effect".  The author had eaten something with sauce bernaise on it for the first time and got deathly ill a short time later.  Ever since, the taste or even thought of sauce bernaise made him nauseous.

I had a similar experience, which I would label "The Strawberry Soda Effect".

Apparently, developing a revulsion to a new food that makes us ill shortly afterwards is built into our genes as a method of keeping us from eating a poisonous food a second time if we survive the first experience.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,06:15   

Quote (djmullen @ April 17 2007,01:27)
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,18:12)
 
Actually I've got a little extra understanding of this. When I was a little kid I nearly died from being fed peanuts they didn't know I was allergic to. Throat closed up, the whole deal. And my brain did some kind of rewiring trick, and whatever you guys taste in peanut butter, I don't taste it. I have no idea what peanuts and peanut butter taste like to those of you who like it, because my brain reprogrammed the taste. Peanuts taste like nothing except pain and itchyness to me. I can't detect anything else. People tell me they taste great, I know people who love them, but I can't taste it whatsoever. The circuits associated with those flavors have been reconfigured. Once a year or so I accidently bite into something with peanuts and the taste is something like acid and itchiness.

Many years ago, I read an article in the first incarnation of "Psychology Today" called "The Sauce Bernaise Effect".  The author had eaten something with sauce bernaise on it for the first time and got deathly ill a short time later.  Ever since, the taste or even thought of sauce bernaise made him nauseous.

I had a similar experience, which I would label "The Strawberry Soda Effect".

Apparently, developing a revulsion to a new food that makes us ill shortly afterwards is built into our genes as a method of keeping us from eating a poisonous food a second time if we survive the first experience.

Becoming abdominally ill tags the food consumed prior to the illness as undesireable.  

What is interesting about the effect is that one doesn't have to be conscious during the illness for the effect to occur.  IIRC, rats were fed a particular chow, then anesthetized.  During the period of anesthesia they were irradiated with sufficient intensity to cause nausea had they been conscious.  They were aroused after such nausea would have passed.  Nevertheless, they avoided the food eaten just prior to the episode.  Interesting stuff.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,06:59   

Quote
51  jerry
04/17/2007
5:57 am

...The people at UD believe in their position and are willing to discuss it. That is the challenge. An open discussion.

Whaaa...?  (rubs eyes)  Did he really say that?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,07:03   

Quote (Zachriel @ April 16 2007,21:58)
jerry              
Quote
Namely, you could make the argument for Darwinism. Why do you accept it as valid science? What evidence convinces you? We have yet to see anyone here who can defend it.

Could it be because they're all banned, Jerry?


More jerry    
Quote
I have yet to see a coherent defense of Darwinism. No one has presented one here and you certainly haven’t tried nor has anyone else who has a theistic evolution view point which is why I made my comments.

And yet God has not said a word!
--  Porphyria's Lover by Browning

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,07:52   

Kristine
   
Quote
His point being that evolution is somehow like creation myths like this. Oooh, this kind of stuff can rile a girl up.


I'm riled too, but we blokes only take 5 minutes.

Kristine again

     
Quote

My point being, if I am salt water, what is wMAD?  'Cause he says that the naturalist view is "thin on the consumation part." Heh, I have news for him.


Oh ......post moses...of course, genesis makes no mention of the creation of water, the mythologists were all men. They edited out the feminine water, misogynists. In ancient Egypt the sky was feminine and the earth masculine (women on top). Its a topsy turvy world we live in.




Kristine again  ....again.
     
Quote


*Waits for shocked Marpuke from Arden*  


Socked Morepork? , well he is a bird lover.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,07:54   

The phrase for further study is taste aversion, IIRC, and there is some literature on the topic. It's an interesting case of single-trial learning that is very resistant to extinction or habituation.

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

    
Bebbo



Posts: 161
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,08:02   

Quote (djmullen @ April 17 2007,01:27)
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,18:12)
 
Actually I've got a little extra understanding of this. When I was a little kid I nearly died from being fed peanuts they didn't know I was allergic to. Throat closed up, the whole deal. And my brain did some kind of rewiring trick, and whatever you guys taste in peanut butter, I don't taste it. I have no idea what peanuts and peanut butter taste like to those of you who like it, because my brain reprogrammed the taste. Peanuts taste like nothing except pain and itchyness to me. I can't detect anything else. People tell me they taste great, I know people who love them, but I can't taste it whatsoever. The circuits associated with those flavors have been reconfigured. Once a year or so I accidently bite into something with peanuts and the taste is something like acid and itchiness.

Many years ago, I read an article in the first incarnation of "Psychology Today" called "The Sauce Bernaise Effect".  The author had eaten something with sauce bernaise on it for the first time and got deathly ill a short time later.  Ever since, the taste or even thought of sauce bernaise made him nauseous.

I had a similar experience, which I would label "The Strawberry Soda Effect".

Apparently, developing a revulsion to a new food that makes us ill shortly afterwards is built into our genes as a method of keeping us from eating a poisonous food a second time if we survive the first experience.

I had a similar effect from getting pissed and subsequently sick from drinking too much Southern Comfort. For a long time afterwards just the smell of it made me nauseous.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,08:08   

Quote (Bebbo @ April 17 2007,16:02)
Quote (djmullen @ April 17 2007,01:27)
 
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,18:12)
 
Actually I've got a little extra understanding of this. When I was a little kid I nearly died from being fed peanuts they didn't know I was allergic to. Throat closed up, the whole deal. And my brain did some kind of rewiring trick, and whatever you guys taste in peanut butter, I don't taste it. I have no idea what peanuts and peanut butter taste like to those of you who like it, because my brain reprogrammed the taste. Peanuts taste like nothing except pain and itchyness to me. I can't detect anything else. People tell me they taste great, I know people who love them, but I can't taste it whatsoever. The circuits associated with those flavors have been reconfigured. Once a year or so I accidently bite into something with peanuts and the taste is something like acid and itchiness.

Many years ago, I read an article in the first incarnation of "Psychology Today" called "The Sauce Bernaise Effect".  The author had eaten something with sauce bernaise on it for the first time and got deathly ill a short time later.  Ever since, the taste or even thought of sauce bernaise made him nauseous.

I had a similar experience, which I would label "The Strawberry Soda Effect".

Apparently, developing a revulsion to a new food that makes us ill shortly afterwards is built into our genes as a method of keeping us from eating a poisonous food a second time if we survive the first experience.

I had a similar effect from getting pissed and subsequently sick from drinking too much Southern Comfort. For a long time afterwards just the smell of it made me nauseous.

Don't worry .....the people who drink that stuff aren't normal. Your aversion indicates you are normal and those who drink it have an aversion to normalcy...it's in my book 'How to be Normal' -an guide for the odd.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,08:48   

Over at FtK's blog, DaveScot almost accepts an evolutionary explanation:
 
Quote
Taking it off has never been my problem. Keeping it off is the problem. I read it's genetic in many cases (particularly those of northern european descent) and only gets worse as you get older. Your body is "programmed" to store an increasing amount of body fat as you age. For longevity in hunter/gatherer times this was a good strategy for as your ability to hunt/gather decreased with age and injuries that keep you out of the hunt become more frequent and recovery times longer you had more stored fat to get you through those rough spots.

but then remembers who he is talking to
 
Quote
You need to eat a well balanced diet and count calories. That works every time as long as you make your calorie goals and for many people is neither unnatural or unhealthy. It's just the way we are designed.

Clearly we were designed for different times. Since that design doesn't seem so intelligent in these times, it must be a sign of the impending Apocalypse!

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

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,09:00   

Quote (Kristine @ April 17 2007,00:13)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 16 2007,20:39)
       
Quote (Kristine @ April 16 2007,21:32)
Wha-? Steve Fuller's Dissy over Descy  
Quote
The theme of descent and dissent, which has been a theme on this blog and in my book UNCOMMON DISSENT: INTELLECTUALS WHO FIND DARWINISM UNCONVINCING, has been picked up by Steve Fuller in his new book DISSENT OVER DESCENT: EVOLUTION’S 500-YEAR WAR ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Evolution's 500-year war on intelligent design?

Darwin's 500th coming up? WAD, I thought you said that evolution started with those ancient Greek gawds killing each other and transforming and crap.

Boy am I confused. How does it go again: there's PI in the sky (celestial spheres) when I die. Okay-doke. *Help me, I need a study break* :p

By golly, I thought that ID was, ya know, SCIENCE and all, and that the reason why it, uh, doesn't have any peer-reviewed results is, um, because it's, er, so NEW, and all . . . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)
I wish these morons would at least TRY to keep their #### story straight . . . . .

Oops! I should get my story straight myself. I owe WmAd an apology, I was wrong. I misquoted wMAD. ;) It wasn't the Greek gods making war that he mentioned, it was the Babylonian gods making, um, er...
 
Quote
If you look at the Babylonian account, it's called the Enuma Elish, and what you have [enema elish??] are waters, sweet waters and salt waters, Tiamat and Apsu - they mingle, okay, and the mingle connotes some sort of sexual union, and out of that emerged one set of gods, and then there's another set of gods, and another, and then finally you get Marduk. And it's in this process of generations, the gods are begetting gods...

His point being that evolution is somehow like creation myths like this. Oooh, this kind of stuff can rile a girl up.

My point being, if I am salt water, what is wMAD? :) 'Cause he says that the naturalist view is "thin on the consumation part." Heh, I have news for him.

*Waits for shocked Marpuke from Arden* :p

'Marpuke'? ? ?

Quote
Namely, you could make the argument for Darwinism. Why do you accept it as valid science? What evidence convinces you? We have yet to see anyone here who can defend it.


Jerry is the perfect ID consumer. Bill and Dave ban all dissent or contradictory statements from UD to create the illusion that there is complete unanimity on ID, and that scientists are afraid to challenge them. Jerry seems to believe this completely. Bill could tell him to roll over and beg and he'd oblige.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,09:21   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 17 2007,07:54)
The phrase for further study is taste aversion, IIRC, and there is some literature on the topic. It's an interesting case of single-trial learning that is very resistant to extinction or habituation.

There is an interesting variant in which the aversion attaches not to a taste, but rather to a new idea being learned at the time of the illness, e.g.:

A young DaveTard, learning Darwinian evolution for the first time, engulfs a bad batch of Cheesy Poofs and falls ill.  The result:  A permanent, irrational aversion to the idea of Darwinian evolution.  Cheesy Poofs, having been established by prior experience as the summum bonum, escape blame altogether.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,10:50   

OE: No posts this week so far.



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,10:59   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 17 2007,10:50)
OE: No posts this week so far.


You seem to have forgotten that OE is the zany site for the young hipster crowd.  They wouldn't have any interest in some dusty old battle.  The correct graphic is:



Much more better.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,11:50   

ID Predicts this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007....=slogin

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,12:04   

Via the most excellent Red State Rabble:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faVIpVg_FLc

Watch the creobot dance around the issue!

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2007,12:36   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-116972

Quote
George Murphy said

Quote

“…debate here with someone whose mind appears to be closed on the subject of evolution (aka “Darwinism.”).”



Foul #1. Many here (perhaps all) are of the view that “evolution” and “Darwinism” are not equivalent terms. “Evolution” being change over time, and even common descent. “Darwinism” being the blind-watchmaker thesis that claims that random mutation + natural selection is ultimately responsible for all the CSI present in bio-forms.

That you would conflate the two here indicates to me that either you don’t understand the ID view, or ID proponents, as much as you think you do, or you do understand it and deliberately misrepresent it.

Maybe YOU should stick around here and open YOUR mind for while, eh?



Wow. It's like the neo-Darwinian synthesis never happened. That's because for mike1962, it never did. And by sticking around UD with his open mind, it never will.

I'LL GET YOU, STRAWMAN!

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

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 477 478 479 480 481 [482] 483 484 485 486 487 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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