RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Moderator



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,08:50   

Quote

Just give them a chance.


They had plenty of "chances".

Please return to topical discussion. This matter is closed.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8944
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,08:56   

DaveScot, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, says the following over on Uncommon Pissant: (emphasis in original)

Quote
Judge Johnson’s ruling was 139 double spaced pages. Just for a lark, and since it was easy to do with Adobe Acrobat, I searched for the word Pandas and found it was used 74 times in the ruling. That’s more than once per single spaced page. Clearly what was on trial wasn’t the school board. Clearly what was on trial wasn’t the 60-second statement read to the biology class that students could opt out of hearing. Clearly what was  on trial was the book  Of Pandas and People.
Filed under: Intelligent Design, Legal, Courts, Laws — DaveScot @ 10:17 am
 

Poor Dave. If you get the PDF and search for Pandas you indeed find 74 mentions. But if you search for Bonsell, you get 75 mentions. Search for Behe and you get 84 mentions. A search for Board turns up 227 responses. Clearly what was on trial, was the school board.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,09:05   

"Judge Johnson's ruling"?  Could that be a Freudian slip?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,09:30   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 29 2006,15:05)
"Judge Johnson's ruling"?  Could that be a Freudian slip?

well, it depends; does he give 'Judge Johnson's' first name?  :p

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

  
Caledonian



Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,10:02   

It's not 'Orwell' by any chance, is it?

  
stevestory



Posts: 8944
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,10:11   

Quote
"Judge Johnson's ruling"?  Could that be a Freudian slip?
Good catch!

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,12:59   

Quote
You’re right, it was all about the book, it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Behe admitted under oath that in order for ID to be considered “science”, the definition of science had to be REDEFNIED to include supernatural explanations.

Comment by jon nickles — January 29, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
Quote
Jon
Behe admitted no such thing. He said astrology, 600 years ago when astrology and astronomy were the same art, would be science under his definition. If you care to argue he said something more than that feel free to provide a quote from the court transcript. Otherwise put a sock in it. ...[DaveScot]
Hey Jon, if you're reading this, at the bottom of page 30 of the Dover decision:
Quote
Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a
supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that
the designer is a natural entity.” (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second,
Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules
of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered.
(38:97 (Minnich)). Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID’s
project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr.
vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005). Turning from defense expert witnesses
to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to
include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing.
Perhaps Dave should be counseled to "put a sock in it".

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,13:27   

Sorry for feeding the trolls, but common descent vs. "common design" is a frequent source of confusion over at Uncommon Dementia and might be worth addressing here.

"Otto the Orthopedist" wrote:
Quote
If common descent cannot be logically distinguished from common design the only position one may take on it is to be agnostic.  One may have a preference for one or the other based on various factors but one cannot completely rule out either.

Otto,
If an omnipotent deity of unknown temperament is running amok, you have no way of being logically certain of ANY empirical observation of the outside world (cf. Descartes and the "evil demon").  Does the Sun truly exist, or is a deity fooling us?  Is the Earth 4.5 billion years old, or did the deity just make it look that way?  GW Bush "hisself" might be illusory, but DaveScot voted for him.  Why doesn't Dave claim to be agnostic regarding the President's existence, if logic "requires" it?

Quote
Feel free to describe a test which can distinguish between common descent in the past and one or more deities in the past creating various organisms ex nihilo working from a common template.

Construct phylogenetic trees based on multiple morphological and molecular characters.  Common design does not require similarity between the trees.  Common descent demands a high degree of similarity.

The only way to get similar trees with common design is if the designer is mimicking common descent. As Dave and John like to say, write that down.  And pass it on to all of the other Ottos.

Quote
I'm all ears, honey.

Otto, dear, talk to your colleagues in plastic surgery.  They can fix that, you know.

Keith S.

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

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,14:09   

More of the legal wisdom of DaveScot:
Quote
The first prong of the Lemon Test is to ask whether there is a secular motivation. All it takes is one good secular reason. It’s easy to show one good secular reason - the president of the United States recommends that evolution and ID both be taught so that the public understands what the debate is about. That is a secular reason.
I bet the  Dover defendants' legal team is just kicking itself for not having sought the legal advice of DaveScot.

On a side note, though, if this president can make warrantless wiretaps legal, in direct contradiction of the explicit language of the Constitution and the FISA legislation, perhaps he can make religion secular, and maybe turn water into wine.

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,15:30   

Quote
I bet the  Dover defendants' legal team is just kicking itself for not having sought the legal advice of DaveScot.

Indeed.  And shame on Judge Jones for upholding the Constitution when Dave could have explained his proper role as a puppet of the executive branch.

Dave's response when the Dover ruling was announced:
Quote
Judge Jone’s [sic] career just ended. He was appointed by President Bush and just now ruled against the president’s wishes. It’s a good thing he’s got a lifetime appointment because that’s the last appointment he’ll ever get.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/587#comments

More of Dave's fascistic, chain-of-command thinking.

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

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,16:57   

Wow....I was allowed back on UD....for one comment

Immediately DaveScot threatened me.....as you can all see...but then he banned me again for the following comment.

Quote
DaveScot

Im sorry….but what exactly would make you regret giving me a “third chance”?

I am going to continue to call things as I see them. If making non-offensive editorial statements is going to get me “banned” then is there really a point to letting me back onto the site?

I think that this incident illustrates a very valid point…that ID can lead people to a belief about a designer. The problem is that it doesnt illustrate how ID can lead people to a scientific belief in a designer.

I have, and will always continue to be a deist….but i acknowledge that the line between front-loaded Deism and Theism is so vague that it more a matter of opinion rather than a truly debatable position. The difference between Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design is comparable.


Now....from my understanding...DaveScot allowed me back onto the site because i stroked his ego and called him the posterboy for ID....apparently he didnt understand that I meant he was the posterboy because everyone else involved in the movement has to hide from sunlight.

He bans me though as soon as he realizes that Im not going to stroke his ego...???

I could understand being banned for a lot of things....but he banned me for commenting on the non-scientific quality of converting a philosopher to ID?

  
Caledonian



Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,17:21   

ID must be scientific, or their program to have it taught in schools alongside evolution would fail.  Since the program cannot be allowed to fail, ID must be scientific.

ID isn't good science.  It's not even good philosophy.  If you point that out, they're going to ban you.

Sorry, PuckSR.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,18:01   

Actually...i would say the entire argument for a superior entity by design is a fairly sound philosophical argument.

It isnt scientific....and it is very, very, very old....but maybe they will get so bogged down in philosophy that they will discover Humean skepticism...at this point...they will begin to cast as much doubt on their own beliefs as they cast on the beliefs of others.....

Maybe allowing creationists to shoehorn philosophy into the argument will be a good thing in the end.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1979
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2006,19:11   

Yeah!  There was I thinking that Dave Scot might have run out of people to ban.  But, joy of joys, he then did this:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/744#comments

I can't see russ being at UD for much longer.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2006,20:45   

ID's "Big Tent" is shrinking rapidly over at UD, and it looks like the "common designists" are being left out in the rain.

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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2006,21:46   

Over at

Uncommon thread

DaveScot : "That is the perfect scientific description of intelligent evolution."

*snicker* Let's face it, they are backing down. The whole thread above is about how true common descent is. Ironic now, that the site self is a contradiction, since the name is "uncommon descent".

So, all you have to do to get banned over there is disagree with common descent... oh wait, that's the usual ID standpoint. What a bunch of confused clowns.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2006,22:20   

Quote (Renier @ Jan. 31 2006,03:46)
....
So, all you have to do to get banned over there is disagree with common descent... oh wait, that's the usual ID standpoint. What a bunch of confused clowns.

LOL. Well, at least they are good for something. They've certainly provided a bit of amusement.

I imagine Dave Scot as the big angry clown, chasing after and trying to rein-in the smaller more affable ones.  All the while tripping over their own clumsy feet amidst much water and custard flinging. :D

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2006,23:06   

Stephen, that was cruel. How the #### am I going to get that image out of my mind? Nightmares tonight! :D

  
stevestory



Posts: 8944
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,02:51   

You HAVE to check out the thread Bob O'H links to above. Man, DaveScot is wailing and gnashing his teeth. He's demanding that people stop talking about religion, he's disputing quotes people are posting from his ID 'betters' such as Jonathan Wells, banning people, etc.

He wants a totally secular ID theory and everyone on board.

Why do we always want, what we can't have?

Oh, it is so delicious to watch an exasperated DaveScot try to argue against the common-descent-denying dolts.

Quote
Creation science already lost. Didn’t you get the memo?


and I love this quote from DaveScot about common descent, on the John Lynch thread:
Quote
It’s claims denying the virtually undeniable that gives ID a bad name.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,04:06   

I guess DaveScot is going to have to ban Paul Nelson.

So now the only difference between Dave's position and regular science is that regular science accepts that the input of information needed for evolution, (the "intelligence", if you will) is natural selection.

I predict DaveScot's reign of terror at UD will be over in a matter of days or weeks.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8944
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,04:50   

yeah, he would have to ban Nelson. (For those who haven't seen it, Nelson just smacked DaveScot:

Quote
The point here, Dave, is intellectual freedom. Many scientists with no obvious religious motivations doubt universal common descent (Darwin’s single Tree of Life, which you consider beyond question). By your lights, they would not be welcome here. Is that really the forum you wish to encourage — one where the monophyly of life on Earth is taken as a given?

If so, Uncommon Descent is badly misnamed, for lots of reasons.

Comment by Paul Nelson — January 31, 2006 @ 8:24 am
)

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,04:58   

Yes, yes, yes! DaveScot is moderating the wrong blog.

He should be moderating a blog named Common Descent!

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,05:32   

I don't think Mr Scott is not operating in a vaccuum and not a day goes by where someone over there doesn't say something like "I'm going to tell Bill on you, Dave Scott!".  

I'd pay top dollar to read the email between Mr Scott and Dembski.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,05:49   

One thing I really find unfathomable about UD is how DaveScot repeatedly abuses and bans everyone there, and yet they always come back, grovelling and begging to be let back in. All these frustrated creationists, all so upset that they're banned from a cheesy garage outfit like UD. Why they all think they need to belong in a club like that, no matter how shabbily they're treated, is beyond me.I guess it's because it's all they have. They're on this Mission From Jesus to Defeat the Wicked Evilutionists, and it's the only 'club' they have. I guess they figure that however much of a tyrannical nutjob DaveSpringer/Scot/Otto is, God wants them to stick with it.

Plus, it is funny how when these people come onto PT and start arguments they always whine about how they're treated, but when they get much worse treatment at UD, they suck it right up.  :p

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

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,07:22   

One could (and some have) make the argument that they receive just as shabby a treatment by their religion, yet they keep going back to that.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8944
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,07:57   

Qualiatative, banned at 10:16pm last night, was back by 10 am this morning. Has DaveScot been reined in?

   
stevestory



Posts: 8944
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,08:16   

Dave Springer (DaveScot) apparently doesn't know how the word random is used:

Quote
First of all prove it’s random. As far as physics can tell us, at the atomic scale and upwards there is no such thing as random - every effect has a cause and this chain of cause and effect is in principle traceable back to the origin of matter. There is some debate whether quantum events are truly random but the mutations you refer to are chemical changes at the atomic scale and completely deterministic as far as anyone knows.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,08:25   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2006,13:57)
Qualiatative, banned at 10:16pm last night, was back by 10 am this morning. Has DaveScot been reined in?

I've seen several banned people pop up again a day or two later. Maybe there's an implicit policy that banning is only temporary for IDC types -- sort of a disciplinary smack on the wrist to keep them in line. Maybe it's only permanent for us evilutionists.

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,08:49   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2006,14:16)
Dave Springer (DaveScot) apparently doesn't know how the word random is used:

TBH. I don't think that I do either.
Do you have an easy to understand explanation?

I know the coloquial meaning of random, but I suspect that is as relevant as the coloquial meaning of theory.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,14:04   

Actually, Stephen, I think the common-usage meaning of random is closer to what we mean in the context of "random mutation" than DaveScot's hyper-scientist definition above. Determinism doesn't really come into it. After all, a coin-flip, an exemplar of "randomness," is perfectly deterministic. However, it's the result of a "butterfly effect"-like series of deterministic causes that is, in practice, unknowable before the event.

In the same way, a mutation is random, with regard to the effect on phenotype. No part of neo-Darwinian theory requires that the causes of the point mutation, or whatever it may be, be "random" in the philosophical sense DS is using, which is better phrased 'non-deterministic." He's employing his stock-in-trade: aggressive obfuscation.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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