RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,11:43   

Uncommon Pissant is so ridiculous and moronic that conversations about it break out on Panda's Thumb all the time. The PTers aren't providing a dedicated thread to discuss the Everlasting Trainwreck which is that blog, so this thread's for that. I initiate the thread with a DaveScot link:

Quote


January 16, 2006
ID on 2006 Utah Legislative Agenda

What’s up with the Utah legislature considering whether to teach intelligent design in schools? Haven’t they heard about Dover? :-)
Filed under: Intelligent Design, Legal, Laws — DaveScot @ 9:48 am

apparently he isn't familiar with 'Divine Design' Buttars, or he wouldn't be so jolly.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,11:50   

Jocularity!

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,11:53   

What I don't understand is the continuing concern with that place. So OK, they delete anything that doesn't support their position, they ban anyone who posts that stuff, and they gaze into their navel. They are the poster child for how they would teach the controversy, illustrate critical thinking, and exercise critical analysis of varying viewpoints, if they were in charge.

But in any of these respects, how are they different from any other creationist site? We surely all understand that the mentality they practice on that blog is a transparent window into how they defend creationism in their own minds. We get it. Now what?

  
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,12:17   

It's not about getting anything. It's just fun to make fun of them.

   
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,12:21   

Like for instance, DaveScot's been banning people who mention christianity and god too much, because he's trying to maintain the fiction that ID is separate from religion, but then he's such a dumbass he mentions Chris "Divine Design" Butters approvingly.

That's funny.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,13:01   

I love that site.  And Dembscott is a loon to be sure.  It's so funny to see how their ideas natually attract all these open creationist who are scolded for admitting the intelligent designer is God.  

It has been said before but when it comes to denying the Lord, uncommon dissent (and the Disco) makes Peter look like a light weight.

And if you inquire if the intelligent designer is god, you get warned.  If you suggest it is a space man you get warned/banned.  if you suggest it is a time traveler you get warned/banned.  Yet Dembski, Behe and the rest of the lunatic fringe anti-science creationist cultists have all said that the intelligent designer may be a space alien/man.  Ask them to discuss that proposition and you get banned.

Clearly Dembscott, UD, and the Disco have shown that trying to be "clever as serpents" has its drawbacks.  I love watching them get cornered by their own theories.  The response is always the same, ridicule the one who asks questions or simply ban them.

Too funny.  They divide intelligent design creationists into two camps, those that think and those that preach.  The thinkers get banned or ridiculed, the preachers tell the thinkers what to think and what not to think.  They let them know right up front what questions they should not ask and what topics they should not discuss.  

They are promoting the existance of an intelligent designer and insisting their theory of an intelligent designer is scientific.  BUT...if you make the mistake of actually contemplating or even discussing what constitutes the/a intelligent designer you'll get banned in a heart beat.  Brilliant!

And although Dembski has earned a pocket full of PhDs (which proves he can pass exams and write papers), personally he strikes me as just another fundamentalist  simpleton armed with a fancy vocabulary.  And academic version of Pat Robertson. Yawn.  I cannot wait to go hear him when he comes to Fort Worth later this year.  Actually I can't wait to raise my hand and ask him questions in front of an audience.

I love that site.

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

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,15:19   

Now that the execrable DaveScot is banning people left and right from UncalmIndecent, I take it he's left off whining (and misrepresenting) about his own banishment from PT. Yes?

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

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,00:44   

Can you provide a linky to the Uncommon descent blog.
I'm fascinated.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,01:11   

The Panda-monium game is good though and quite humourus.

There is a link on PT main page. Under psuedo science. You might have to press for "extra links" though.

  
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,01:50   

DaveScot explains some of his moderation behavior:

Quote


Why do you delete my comments, DaveScot?

They aren’t being deleted, Blipey. They’re being disapproved in the moderation queue. You are the only one aside from moderators who has seen the last 20 or so. The way WordPress works is it lets only the author of a moderated comment see it until it is either approved or disapproved. If it’s disapproved the author stops seeing it too. When and if you decide to stop trolling for negative attention and become a constructive contributor I’ll start approving them.

Comment by blipey — January 17, 2006 @ 1:52 am

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,18:13   

It gets even better... DaveScot just "accidentally" deleted all of my comments (I was posting as 'woctor').  Notice that he turns comments off so nobody can complain about the censorship:

Quote
January 17, 2006
(Off Topic) Server Glitch
Our server seems to have hiccuped and lost a whole bunch of woctor’s comments. The management apologizes for this unfortunate event.  

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:46 pm
Comments Off

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2006,18:45   

He's even invited John Davison back on the blog.  See this thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/667#comments

Check out John's first post:
Quote
Dave

Thanks for letting me return to Dr. Dembski’s blog. I apologise for making this comment on my own blog:

It seems things are really falling apart over at “Uncommon Descent” since Dembski turned over the reins to DaveScot. Dembski has had to return in a frantic attempt to restore order. I find it all very amusing. The very title of that blog raises my hackles. Like Groucho Marx -

“I wouldn’t belong to an organization that would have me for a member.”

Of course since I have been banned for life from that forum I am eternally grateful, just as I am for the actions by ARN, EvC, Fringe Sciences, Panda’s Thumb and the several other “groupthink” closed union shops with which the internet abounds.

All alone is the only place to be these days.

I love it so!

Comment by John Davison — January 17, 2006 @ 1:28 pm

I'm with Mr. Christopher -- that site is the best!

  
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,03:27   

Quote
our server hiccuped and lost a whole bunch of woctor’s comments.


LOL You're not fooling anyone.

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,07:19   

Those poor, poor souls. In the "Rationalizing Adultery" thread, Karen is lost. Seeing how evolution apparently rationalizes (read "justifies", not "explains") adultery, and since ID is not religious and doesn’t even address ethics or morals, then where do IDists turn for their moral code?

Commenters on that site are stuck on a sinking ship. There is no ID theory to discuss in detail because the emperor's naughty bits might be revealed, and discussing religion is right out. The only thing left is to bash Darwin.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,07:32   

Nope, it's pretty easy to see that DaveScot took woctor out to the courtyard for the firing squad.

One comforting thing is remembering how the real papa Stalin met his end. Even after he was found dying from a stroke, no one called for medical attention until over a day later. That's friendship for ya.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,11:12   

Dembscott just gave John Davison his own thread

A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis - John A. Davison via uncommon dissent

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

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,11:28   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 18 2006,00:45)
Quote
Dave

Thanks for letting me return to Dr. Dembski’s blog. I apologise for making this comment on my own blog:

It seems things are really falling apart over at “Uncommon Descent” since Dembski turned over the reins to DaveScot. Dembski has had to return in a frantic attempt to restore order. I find it all very amusing. The very title of that blog raises my hackles. Like Groucho Marx -

“I wouldn’t belong to an organization that would have me for a member.”

Of course since I have been banned for life from that forum I am eternally grateful, just as I am for the actions by ARN, EvC, Fringe Sciences, Panda’s Thumb and the several other “groupthink” closed union shops with which the internet abounds.

All alone is the only place to be these days.

I love it so!

Did he ever get Richard Dawkins and Dembski to post on his blog?  :D

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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,11:42   

Nope, go to his blog and read about it.  Basically he invited quite a few people to write an 500 word essay and they all either turned him down (lack of time was the common excuse) or just ignored him.  

He saw this as evidence they have nothing scientific to bring to the table in the first place, otherwise they would have accepted his offer.

I went to his web site at whatever school in VT he teaches.  The man is a loon but I bet he would probably be fun to smoke a fattie with at 3 in the morning and have a bull session.

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

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,12:02   

JAD hasn't taught since the late 80's.

he has emeritus status with the university of vermont.

i wrote the university and asked whether they endorsed his views, since he is using university resources to post them.

they essentially replied:

"John who?"

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,17:17   

uh oh, i feel kinda sorry for UD -

As noted earlier, they opened the flood gates for JAD and let him post his entire PEH for comment.

you know, the same PEH that was voted "crankiest" evolutionary theory EVER over on crank.net.

I figure that unless they ban him outright in the next week or so, his unending inanity will drive out the remaining few posters on UD.

perhaps a deliberate tactic on the part of WD40 and DaveSnot?

It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,20:59   

Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.

I think you may be right.

There would apear to be a deliberate effort to drive people away.

  
Tim Hague



Posts: 32
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2006,21:48   

I have to admit, I haven't read much of Davidson's stuff before.  

It seems bizarre to see his stuff on UD, because a lot of it contradicts the ID position, as well at itself.  Just a quick example:

JAD: "I also have never questioned Intelligent Design. Quite the contrary, I always regarded it as self-evident and a mandatory starting point from which to examine the two great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny which are simply two aspects of the same reproductive continuum."

OK, so 'self-evidently' something is involved in doing design.  

JAD: "Darwinism is a gigantic illusion based on the unwarranted assumption that evolution has and had an exogenous identifiable cause. Such a cause has never been identified and every attempt to simulate it has failed."

This is just bizarre.  JAD is stating that there is an external identifiable cause behind evolution (and thus 'Darwinism' ) , which is the exact opposite of what evolution states.

If he replaced the word Darwinism with ID I might understand and agree with his argument!  My version:  

ID is a gigantic illusion based on the unwarranted assumption that evolution has and had an exogenous identifiable cause. Such a cause has never been identified and as far as I know there have been no attempts to simulate it.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,02:18   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 19 2006,02:59)
Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.

I think you may be right.

There would apear to be a deliberate effort to drive people away.

intelligent design is a craetion theory in crisis.  It has been booted out of two school districts and newpapers all over the worl are carrying stories indicating intelligent design is about super naturalism and higher powers.  

What we may be seeing is an IDC melt down.  The desperate news releases from the Disco indicte this as well.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,05:16   

Q: Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?

A: No. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/684

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,05:23   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 19 2006,11:16)
Q: Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?

A: No. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/684

That's funny.  In a discussion with an IDer a couple days ago, the IDer went as far as saying that if we had ID around 30 years ago, we would now know what all the "junk DNA" is used for.  I had a hearty laugh at that one.  Turns out this person had been booted from UD even though he wholly supports ID and kisses Dembski's backside nightly.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,05:30   

Quote
Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?

Especially as people have known about functional non protein coding RNAs for about twenty years as far as I'm aware. Im not sure how this has anything to with ID.

  
stevestory



Posts: 9040
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,08:26   

LOL:

Quote
No one has ever said this blog is open to all critics. Wherever did you get that idea? Dembski said at the beginning it was moderated and he’d allow thoughtful criticism that he hadn’t heard before. He said if he found you boring you’d get the axe and he was making up the rules as he went along. I believe I’m carrying on in the same moderation style as best I can but devoting more time to it than he had available. So instead of swinging the axe ruthlessly in order to save time and maintain order I’m doing more micromanagement in an effort to not cull those who might turn out to be constructive contributors if given more chance and direction. This is resulting in some taking advantage of it - several commenters have been invited to leave only to return using a different name knowing they’ll get another chance that way. It also results in a higher profile for the moderation. In the past you didn’t see how many times Dembski swung the axe because many never got their first comment past him. I tend to let the first comment from a new user pass through unless it’s a gratuitous flame and then if they continue to comment with a chip on their shoulder do something about it then.

The bottom line is this is a moderated blog. If you can’t deal with that, don’t let the door hit you on the tail on your way out.

Comment by DaveScot — January 19, 2006 @ 8:26 am


As hyperactively as you thought Dembski and DaveScot were at banning criticism, they're apparently worse.

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,08:53   

Actually, DaveScot is right about one thing.  Dembski did axe some commentors before their first comment.  It happened to me.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,09:02   

This is, once again, how they "teach the controversy" and "critically evaluate both sides" when they control the forum. It also describes perfectly how they maintain their faith in the face of evidence. Does anyone have any doubts how evolution would be presented in science classes if the creationists could dictate the curriculum? Would we see any controversy at all?

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2006,11:18   

Salvador Cordova is now a 'contributor' at UD.  His first post?  "Intelligent Design in the National Football League."

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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