RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,23:38   

"For the kids" is not honest enough to allow comments that make her or her position look foolish go through, so this thread is for cross-posting.

--------------
"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: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2007,23:58   

On this thread:

https://www2.blogger.com/comment....2096862

For The Kids says this:

Quote
aka...Forthekids said...
Oh, baloney, Jeremy.

That's a stretch, buddy. The concept of ID is no more religiously motivated than Darwinism.


she was pointed to the wedge document:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

and this passage:

Quote
Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.


She did not allow that post to go through.

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,00:56   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2007,06:58)
On this thread:

https://www2.blogger.com/comment....2096862

For The Kids says this:

Quote
aka...Forthekids said...
Oh, baloney, Jeremy.

That's a stretch, buddy. The concept of ID is no more religiously motivated than Darwinism.


she was pointed to the wedge document:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

and this passage:

Quote
Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.


She did not allow that post to go through.

Well according to her that would count as 'stalking' ...right?

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,01:02   

She's just plain dishonest.

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,01:11   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2007,08:02)
She's just plain dishonest.

Obviously, I was rhetorically poking fun since it’s the only sane response to insanity besides completely ignoring them.

FTK unfortunately suffers a credibility crisis, how to lie without lying, she's got the sincerity side of things down pat though.

Now all she has to do is cover up the truth.

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

   
jujuquisp



Posts: 129
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,01:26   

ForkTheKids is pathetic.  She had the gall to categorize me as "one of them".  What an insult!  BTW, she only let me post once in response to DaveTard's accusation that I stalk him.  She omitted to permit my other posts which provided evidence to the contrary.  She can go fellate the pope, for all I care now.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,01:28   

Crosspost here, so her duplicity is evident.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,08:28   

I thought about starting an Official Forthekids Thread a while back, but she doesn't say enough and hardly allows anyone else to talk. But this thread for cross-posting might be valuable.

She doesn't have much personality. She just seems like a female Joe G.

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,08:32   

Quote
She doesn't have much personality.
Nor would I have thought she would have much influence on anyone with half a brain. But, then, I am so ignorant of real US culture, I am probably wrong ???

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,08:36   

What was the "cootie" thingie with Jujuquisp all about, BTW?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,11:17   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 18 2007,07:32)
Quote
She doesn't have much personality.
Nor would I have thought she would have much influence on anyone with half a brain. But, then, I am so ignorant of real US culture, I am probably wrong ???

I suppose it's true everywhere, but in all my travels around this country, I meet a surprising number of people with less than half a brain.  To them, she probably looks brilliant.

I should also mention that the .4-brainers are in the minority (not always a clear minority, but a minority all the same).

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

   
jujuquisp



Posts: 129
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,12:34   

Quote
What was the "cootie" thingie with Jujuquisp all about, BTW?


They found out about my body lice infestation.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2007,13:08   

Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 18 2007,06:34)
 
Quote
What was the "cootie" thingie with Jujuquisp all about, BTW?


They found out about my body lice infestation.

Mmm'kay???

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2007,11:16   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 18 2007,07:28)
I thought about starting an Official Forthekids Thread a while back, but she doesn't say enough and hardly allows anyone else to talk. But this thread for cross-posting might be valuable.

She doesn't have much personality. She just seems like a female Joe G.

She is one of those 'just folks' types, who can 'see through the BS' and get to the truth.

At least that is how she likes to portray herself.

I think she is a moron, myself.  I'
ve tried to post at her blog about 6 times - none made it through.  Of course...

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2007,14:07   

Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 18 2007,11:34)
Quote
What was the "cootie" thingie with Jujuquisp all about, BTW?


They found out about my body lice infestation.

Now how would FTK have found that out?

:O

--------------
"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: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2007,09:58   

Here:

https://www2.blogger.com/comment....1993673

is taken to task for her coverage of the wedge document:

 
Quote
1) Re your extensive treatment of the "Wedge Document", that must have been on some other sites. A search for "wedge" on this blog reveals three citations.


so she was clearly dishonest when she says:

 
Quote
Richard, the reason why I didn't put your comment about the Wedge document through is because I have addressed that issue so many times in the past that it simply gets tiring. If you're interested in my response about it, go back through my archives and read to your hearts content.


She then says :

 
Quote
Dembski's flatulence comments were the only questionable comments he's ever made beside the silliness of the "vice strategy".


Let's not get into a ~who's the nastiness~ contest because that's one you'll not win.

To be fair, she talks a little about it here:

http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2006....0159138

although she fails to understand causality, it's explicit theism pretending to be science, not science that has theistic implications. Her tail wags her dog.
to which I've replied:

 
Quote
The ID Side has a history of dishonesty & nastiness:

The Wedge document and its true agenda

Dembski's "Street theatre"

The Pianka affair

The Single bottle of malt scotch bet:

The EF: never used, unusable.

Davescot; any comment really!

etc.


--------------
"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: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2007,12:52   

In case this doesn't make it:

DaveScot said:

"Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard. "

There appear to be comments on his blog, Dave. I assume you'll be apologizing?

--------------
"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: Mar. 20 2007,13:08   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2007,11:52)
In case this doesn't make it:

DaveScot said:

"Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard. "

There appear to be comments on his blog, Dave. I assume you'll be apologizing?

I assume now that DaveTard has had this change of heart, he'll unblock everyone he's banned at UD and start spending more time commenting at blogs where people can respond to him, no?

--------------
"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: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2007,13:13   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 20 2007,12:08)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2007,11:52)
In case this doesn't make it:

DaveScot said:

"Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard. "

There appear to be comments on his blog, Dave. I assume you'll be apologizing?

I assume now that DaveTard has had this change of heart, he'll unblock everyone he's banned at UD and start spending more time commenting at blogs where people can respond to him, no?

Indeed. No one could ever accuse DaveTard of being a hypocrite....



*bites tongue*

--------------
"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: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2007,19:27   

FTK has asked about the evolution of the heart.

she has been pointed to this:

http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1047/1/13

--------------
"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: Mar. 22 2007,10:33   

Sometimes RSR's comments do momentarily disappear - I suspect this is due to Pat updating something and to the fact that blogger sucks - blogger sometimes won't let me comment on my own #### blog! :angry:

I think I can access the full PDF of the heart article if people can't get beyond the abstract.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2007,22:16   

This whole thread is worth a read, especially the bit about "Dembski's day job"..

https://www2.blogger.com/comment....5661756

--------------
"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: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2007,00:01   

For The Kids Writes:

http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007....ts.html

Quote
Hard telling what parts of the Bible they do accept. They're not exactly sure. I suppose only the parts that don't conflict with the current beliefs of the "scientific community".


I asked her which bits she believed. She didn't post my comment, nor answer the questions. If she doubts science so much, I'd love to hear her better explanation.

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2007,08:46   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 24 2007,21:16)
This whole thread is worth a read, especially the bit about "Dembski's day job"..

https://www2.blogger.com/comment....5661756

Richard - Good catch - thanks for posting the link.  What is REALLY interesting though,  is who the "Dave" poster is (not DaveScot - him I do NOT want to know).  The Smart Dave asks For The Kids some very good questions, which she dodges, but he calls her and DaveScot out on not answering the questions,  so good job SmartDave.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2007,17:39   

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 27 2007,07:46)
 What is REALLY interesting though,  is who the "Dave" poster is (not DaveScot - him I do NOT want to know).  The Smart Dave asks For The Kids some very good questions, which she dodges, but he calls her and DaveScot out on not answering the questions,  so good job SmartDave.

(steps forward)

I am Spartacus.


    No, *I* am Spartacus . . .


I'm Spartacus. . . .


       I am Spartacus . . . . . . . .

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2007,18:15   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 27 2007,16:39)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 27 2007,07:46)
 What is REALLY interesting though,  is who the "Dave" poster is (not DaveScot - him I do NOT want to know).  The Smart Dave asks For The Kids some very good questions, which she dodges, but he calls her and DaveScot out on not answering the questions,  so good job SmartDave.

(steps forward)

I am Spartacus.


    No, *I* am Spartacus . . .


I'm Spartacus. . . .


       I am Spartacus . . . . . . . .

Spartacus - Good luck with the slave revolt thing, man.  Let me know if I can help.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2007,10:31   

Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/rintoul/rintoul.html

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!

--------------
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: Mar. 28 2007,10:37   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 27 2007,16:39)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 27 2007,07:46)
 What is REALLY interesting though,  is who the "Dave" poster is (not DaveScot - him I do NOT want to know).  The Smart Dave asks For The Kids some very good questions, which she dodges, but he calls her and DaveScot out on not answering the questions,  so good job SmartDave.

(steps forward)

I am Spartacus.


    No, *I* am Spartacus . . .


I'm Spartacus. . . .


       I am Spartacus . . . . . . . .

I'm Spartacus and so's my wife!

--------------
"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: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2007,10:57   

Welcome Dave!

It's great to have another top notch biologist on board*



*Don't read that like I'm also a biologist. I do the Jokes KE turns down.

--------------
"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: Mar. 28 2007,11:05   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2007,09:31)
Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/rintoul/rintoul.html

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!

Congrats on a job well done and welcome aboard!

(It'll be nice to have another bird freak posting here. ;) )

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2007,11:29   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2007,09:31)
Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/rintoul/rintoul.html

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!

Welcome Albatrosity2.  I look forward to your continuing
the outstanding ID takedowns that you posted so well at FTK's blog.

I believe that as Mr. Jefferson once said you are:  "Moving On Up".  That's George, not Tom BTW...

However, I do think you should change your name ASAP to: SmartDave, or possibly DaveSmart, to distinguish yourself from DumbDave, aka DaveScot.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2007,18:38   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 28 2007,10:05)
(It'll be nice to have another bird freak posting here. ;) )

Bah.  Birds are just glorified reptiles.   ;)

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2007,20:07   

Re "Bah.  Birds are just glorified reptiles."

Well, so are we. :)

Henry

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2007,20:29   

I sent it to Wesley. Wesley replied back that he'd get to it in a few days--he's still getting things together after the big cross-country move.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2007,20:44   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2007,10:31)
Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/rintoul/rintoul.html

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!

Good to have you here. You're one of a few dozen science professors who are banned from UncommonDescent.  

Several people here are professors or professional researchers, about half seem to have science degrees, and the rest are knowledgeable amateurs.

We can always use more people who are smart and informed.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2007,20:58   

I was surprised to see FtK sign up, but she's welcome to comment here. I sincerely hope she's much smarter and more knowledgeable than some of her creationist predecessors, such as AFDave.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2007,22:09   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 28 2007,17:38)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 28 2007,10:05)
(It'll be nice to have another bird freak posting here. ;) )

Bah.  Birds are just glorified reptiles.   ;)

Nah, reptiles are just fucked up birds that aren't cool enough to have feathers yet. ;)

 
Quote

Well, so are we.


Nah, we're just glorified bonobos.



--------------
"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: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,00:03   

http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/03/calm-after-storm.html



Quote
Calm after the Storm
I lost it at Humes lecture...seriously.

I've listened to quite a few lectures surrounding the issues in this debate, but the lecture I sat through tonight was by far the most difficult to stomach. In fact, I had to leave my chair at one point because the guy next to me was about to get slapped.

This has ~NEVER~ happened to me before, and I've always been extremely calm at these lectures regardless of how much I disagree with the speaker. I also get quite irritated when I hear someone badgering the speaker etc. even if I agree with their point.

But tonight was different, and I'm trying to sit back and reasonably consider the lecture again to try to figure out what it was that led me to the point of no return.

I think the main reason is this particular speaker has been prefacing his book and lectures with the notion that he is "unbiased" and "fair". He was introduced that way this evening as well. So, you'd hope to actually get an "unbiased and "fair" account. I was still hoping for some semblance of fair reporting when I walked in there tonight, but I was ~seriously~ disappointed. His lecture was worse than the book.

To be honest, I'd rather listen to Dawkins speak again than sit through another Humes lecture, because at least with Dawkins we know what we're getting. He certainly doesn't claim to be "unbiased".

I'd also like to know where one draws the line between describing someone as misleading and being an outright liar. Seriously. I've never heard so many half truths, half of the story, or outright unfair *speculation* in my life.

I had made it through most of the lecture when at one point I simply couldn't take it anymore and turned around to talk to a guy I knew who was sitting behind me. My whispering was getting a bit loud, and the guy next to me (who I recognized from many other lectures) looked at me and gave me an irritated "shhh". I bit back "don't tell me to hush". I seriously cannot believe I said that!!! He told me to go have my conversation outside, and at that point I just got up and left, because staying simply wasn't going to be a good thing.

I did talk to Humes for a second afterward and asked him a question about something he mentioned in his lecture that I still cannot believe he had the gall to relay to the public. After his response, I really lost it and told him I hope the DI gets a hold of his lecture tonight because it was the most misleading portrayal of the issues that I've ever heard.

I'm still in shock. I am always cordial to people regardless of their position in this debate, but tonight I was out of control. I think the reason I got to the point I did is because the man is basically either a liar or clueless.

So, I'm going to take a few days to calm down before I try to put together a review of the lecture. I'm not even sure my notes are worth much because I was pretty much livid throughout his entire spiel. I do plan on calling KU to see how soon they will be posting that lecture, because if this dude is spewing this particular version of supposed facts in regard to ID/creation/evolution, then someone needs to set him straight. Although, thankfully, it doesn't appear that he lectures too often and there were only around 80 in attendance tonight. But, if the Darwinists get a load of the spin he's pushing, they'll undoubtedly put the guy on the payroll (if they haven‘t already). They do love a good spin doctor.

In closing, if there are any DI fellows out there reading this...get a copy of this lecture, and be sure to have a dozen or so barf bags lined up before you listen to it.


Quick DI fellows...to the SpinMobile!

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,07:52   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 28 2007,17:57)
Welcome Dave!

It's great to have another top notch biologist on board*



*Don't read that like I'm also a biologist. I do the Jokes KE turns down.

Don't listen to him Dave.....he's gay.


I'M NOT GAY AND DAVES NOT HERE -RTH

--------------
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: Mar. 29 2007,09:55   

Actually, I was out with my Field Ornithology class, sitting in a blind on Konza Prairie, and watching the display antics of Greater Prairie Chickens in a thunderstorm (this class could hire themselves out as rainmakers...).

Of course, while watching those male birds prance and boom and chuckle and squawk and flail at their pals, all for naught since no female birds showed up at the lek today, we all wondered how the intelligent designer came up with the Greater Prairie Chicken design. Somebody has a sense of humor, for sure!

Or maybe they are all homos...

--------------
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: Mar. 29 2007,11:11   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 29 2007,08:55)
Actually, I was out with my Field Ornithology class, sitting in a blind on Konza Prairie, and watching the display antics of Greater Prairie Chickens in a thunderstorm (this class could hire themselves out as rainmakers...).

Of course, while watching those male birds prance and boom and chuckle and squawk and flail at their pals, all for naught since no female birds showed up at the lek today, we all wondered how the intelligent designer came up with the Greater Prairie Chicken design. Somebody has a sense of humor, for sure!

Or maybe they are all homos...

First gay penguins, now gay Greater Prairie Chickens?

Why do birds hate the American family so?

:angry:

(Naturally this proves Intelligent Design. Just don't, uh, ask me how.)

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,15:14   

More evidence of ID (or just more bird stuff for Arden) - GrrlScientist has posted one of my photos (LeConte's Sparrow) as well as a link to a photo essay about Grasshopper Sparrows. Both of these species are truly Reasonable Kansans.

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/03/lecontes_sparrow.php

enjoy!

--------------
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: Mar. 29 2007,17:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 29 2007,14:14)
More evidence of ID (or just more bird stuff for Arden) - GrrlScientist has posted one of my photos (LeConte's Sparrow) as well as a link to a photo essay about Grasshopper Sparrows. Both of these species are truly Reasonable Kansans.

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/03/lecontes_sparrow.php

enjoy!

I especially like the picture of the little guy in the top photo in this page. I feel like that all the time.

Incidentally, whatever happened to Mommy FTK? Did she look around the viper's nest of secular humanists and devilutionists here and get cold feet?

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,17:52   

Maybe she just wanted to read and make the occasional comment. It's not likely this will become her primary forum, because she can't remove the arguments of informed people when necessary.

That's speculation; I don't know much about FtK, I'm basing this off the behavior of UD, where most of the people with science degrees have been banned.

And banned for the obvious reason. If your site is dedicated to advancing the theory that Honda Accords are powered by leprechauns, and internal combustion engines don't explain horsepower, you're going to need to ban most of the auto mechanics who stop by.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,17:59   

It's not so much banned as "never make it through moderation", especially those that highlight her hypocrisy.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,19:49   

I'm sure the following was merely an oversight on ftk's part, but my comment on this thread never showed up.  I don't know why.

Quote
Wow.  A ginormous amount of flap-doodle.  This for instance:

ftk: <i>We are discovering things all the time that evolution can’t begin to explain...</i>

Yet the rest of the paragraph--and indeed, the comment--seem to contain exactly zero examples of these discoveries.  Frustrating.

ftk: <i>hundreds of articles and books written by ID supporters</i>

Yes, I'm sure you can point me to some of the astounding DISCOVERIES in these papers, wherever they might be when you also point out the new DISCOVERIES in the the literature I have not yet read.

Something to ponder:  saying that the flagellum is IC is not an example of new knowledge.  Um,  "new knowledge" of a positive nature would be an example of new knowledge.  Something along the lines of "wow, the tennets of ID led me to postulate the existence of this anti-body and now I've found it."

ftk: <i>But, let’s say for the sake of argument that ID generates no new scientific research whatsoever. Hypothesis don’t particularly have to generate new scientific research. They merely have to be a true description of what happens in nature. For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this.</i>

This paragraph is a mess.  The first two sentences don't describe a scientific hypothesis.  They do describe something like the sentence, "That table is brown."  You are describing an observation, not an hypothesis and you apparently have an inkling of this in the next sentence about describing nature.

How exactly are we to know if an observation (your: hypothesis) is an accurate description of nature if it is untestable or uninvestigatable?  This is what we mean when we call ID a science-killer.  If all ID can do is generate information that needs no investigation, you know what?  It is boring and by definition would create no new knowledge.  We know the table is brown, no need to investigate.  But if you are asking truly interesting questions, you'll find the need to test them.  This is not what ID does.

And finally, your claim that discovering a new planet, or  moon, or star, or whatever doesn't generate new research is completely inane.  When we discover new moons, we send satellites to them.  When that produces new discoveries of minerals, gasses, or whatever, that generates new missions and new hypothesis about: planet formation, early solar-system make-up, possible extra-terrestrial life, etc.  The discovery of extra-solar planets has led to the testing and corraborating of many ideas in astronomy and cosmology: including star-planet development, pulsar study and more.

Do you really think that NASA scientists and all the world's astronomers just point telescopes at the sky, find a new piece of rock and then are done with it to find another piece of rock?  Is that all you think their jobs entail?

ftk: <i>As far as testable hypotheses, I believe that Behe has certainly provided that in the flagellum, along with the prediction of design in other molecular machines, and he has laid our the reasoning behind his claims.</i>

Are you familiar with the refutations of Behe and with his own continually changing definition of what exactly IC is?

My favorite:

ftk:  <i>But, it’s pretty apparent, that as we see paper after paper coming out trying to refute ID claims, that ID does lead to further scientific research and the advancement of science. I’ve mentioned in the past that Harvard University has a research project regarding the origin of life due to the huge push to refute the ID movement.</i>

So, ID may not generate a noticable, or even visible, amount of research, but it's certainly valid and working because real scientists have decided to do work?  Come on, which ID scientists are involved in the project?  Which ID whizzes are funding this?  Which papers are being written by the ID guys?  That last paragraph is a hoot.


Also, she never provided me with the list of ID books that contain actual research--which she promised to do.  I am saddened beyond belief by this.  No, really; I'm crying.

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

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,19:56   

Quote
Also, she never provided me with the list of ID books that contain actual research--which she promised to do.  I am saddened beyond belief by this.  No, really; I'm crying.


There, there, Blipey. There, there. [pats shoulder]


Hey, I just remembered, whatever happened to that meeting you were supposed to have with Dave Scot? Did that get cancelled? I never heard.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,20:54   

Blipey et al.

I guess we all will have to cry in our beers. FtK has not posted one of my comments (and I have sent her three of them) since I called her out on her lack of understanding of science and the scientific method (in a rather looooong post). Here is the link

http://www2.blogger.com/comment....8695140

I can only speculate as to the reasons for that lack of comment throughput.

Perhaps she is still thinking about that post, and coming to the conclusion that she really doesn't know squat about science, but she does know what she likes (or dislikes, actually). Maybe she is going through a metamorphosis, and will emerge from the chrysalis as a changed and rational being, who finally sees ID as a pseudoscientific disguise of creationism.

Perhaps she is still so upset about hearing Humes' lecture that she is incapable of moderating blog comments for a few days.

Perhaps (and this is most likely) she is peeved at me for joining up here and showing my true colors as "one of them".

At any rate, I am truly saddened by this turn of events. One way to look at it was that her ID blog had its own "pet scientist", who assidously read her posts and commented as necessary. What other ID blog can claim that? Hopefully, she will eventually see the error of her ways and allow me to comment freely again, in the search for the truth that seems to be the Holy Grail of that blogging enterprise.

Or not.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,21:30   

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 29 2007,19:49)
FtK said:

For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this.

Wow. It's hard to believe anyone could say that.

As it stands, there are about 220 known planets.

Here are about 220 scientific papers about them...

http://exoplanet.eu/biblio.php

...In the last three months.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,22:06   

"For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research,"

Anyone who knows how science works can instantly recognize that such a statement is not merely wrong, it's next to impossible. I bet even a layman such as Davescot, whose only exposure to science is reading some old Scientific Americans, could tell you that statement is way off.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,22:11   

Arden asked: Hey, I just remembered, whatever happened to that meeting you were supposed to have with Dave Scot? Did that get cancelled? I never heard.

Not cancelled, just postponed.  I am happy to report that I will be arriving in Austin, TX on May 13th.  I hope Dave doesn't hide at the bottom of beautimous Lake Travis.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,22:21   

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 29 2007,21:11)
Arden asked: Hey, I just remembered, whatever happened to that meeting you were supposed to have with Dave Scot? Did that get cancelled? I never heard.

Not cancelled, just postponed.  I am happy to report that I will be arriving in Austin, TX on May 13th.  I hope Dave doesn't hide at the bottom of beautimous Lake Travis.

This deserves a thread of its own.

Yours,
"a bit touched".  :angry:

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,22:27   

I haven't followed this Blipey and Davescot thing, and therefore I don't have any opinion on it. What I'm about to say isn't directed at anybody in particular, it's just a general statement:

Threats communicated over the internet are bad news and can have legal consequences. Anything the moderators here believe constitutes a threat will be removed immediately.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,22:34   

Quote
ftk: We are discovering things all the time that evolution can't begin to explain...

Yet the rest of the paragraph -- and indeed, the comment -- seem to contain exactly zero examples of these discoveries.  Frustrating.


Examples of things evolution can't explain: Quarks. Neutrinos. Volcanoes. Ringed planets. Gamma rays. Astronomical red-shift. Retrograde moons. Relativity. Quantum mechanics. Supernovae. Trans-finite set theory. The periodic table of the elements.

Does that help? :)

Henry

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,22:46   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 29 2007,21:27)
I haven't followed this Blipey and Davescot thing, and therefore I don't have any opinion on it. What I'm about to say isn't directed at anybody in particular, it's just a general statement:

Threats communicated over the internet are bad news and can have legal consequences. Anything the moderators here believe constitutes a threat will be removed immediately.

We're all pacifists here ('cept Lenny). BLipey will go in with a family pack of cheesypoofs. I l believe that Dave threatened BLipey with fisticuffs, but we all know that if you are that weight you should ease into strenuous exercise. I hope they meet and chat. We're all human.

--------------
"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: Mar. 29 2007,22:51   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 29 2007,21:27)
I haven't followed this Blipey and Davescot thing, and therefore I don't have any opinion on it. What I'm about to say isn't directed at anybody in particular, it's just a general statement:

Threats communicated over the internet are bad news and can have legal consequences. Anything the moderators here believe constitutes a threat will be removed immediately.

Am I supposed to have absolutely no idea what you're alluding to here?  ???

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,23:10   

I'm not alluding to the Blipey / Davescot thing really because I don't know what that thing is. I seem to remember something about a fight, I don't know how they set it up, or how the discussions were transmitted, I'm not saying Blipey threatened Davetard or vice versa, I'm just saying, as far as communications and ass-whoopings are in the air somewhere, I'd like everybody to avoid anything that may constitute a threat being posted here. I've been busy lately, and I haven't seen anything here and thought 'that's a threat', but what goes on here can potentially have legal implications and so I thought I'd mention that the internet isn't without consequences. Really, I'm thinking of a friend in Charlotte. He had a bad breakup, and the girl's crazy brother started sending him threats via email, and my friend found out the threats were being sent from a computer at Microsoft, and long story short, the threatener no longer works at Microsoft. I'm not accusing anybody, I don't know what's going on, I just wanted to mention that whatever happens, now or in the future, I'd like everyone to be conscious not to use this board to convey any threats. Just an FYI, not about anything in particular.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,23:26   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 29 2007,21:34)
Quote
ftk: We are discovering things all the time that evolution can't begin to explain...

Yet the rest of the paragraph -- and indeed, the comment -- seem to contain exactly zero examples of these discoveries.  Frustrating.


Examples of things evolution can't explain: Quarks. Neutrinos. Volcanoes. Ringed planets. Gamma rays. Astronomical red-shift. Retrograde moons. Relativity. Quantum mechanics. Supernovae. Trans-finite set theory. The periodic table of the elements.

Does that help? :)

Henry

Yes, I'm very aware of things that ToE can't (and doesn't purport to) explain, though I'm pretty sure FTK is unaware of said things (and explanations).

I'm frustrated that she doesn't bother to detail any of the things "We are discovering...."

Ah well, I'm sure she's working hard on producing tht list.

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

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,23:27   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 29 2007,21:46)
We're all pacifists here ('cept Lenny).

"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun".

(grin)

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2007,23:34   

Way back in the good old days of UDoJ: the Sting Operation, DaveTard told me to look him up when I was in Austin.  Since I'll be passing through Austin on my show tour, I'm going to take him up on it.

I merely want to see how he behaves in person as none of know anything about that situation.  I have a list of questions that I'll try to get him to answer.  As I'm certainly no biologist, most of the questions are philosophical, political, or behavioral in nature.

Of course, in the same thread, DaveTard threatened to thrash me with chainsaws.  So, it could be fun.

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

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2007,02:41   

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 30 2007,06:34)
Way back in the good old days of UDoJ: the Sting Operation, DaveTard told me to look him up when I was in Austin.  Since I'll be passing through Austin on my show tour, I'm going to take him up on it.

I merely want to see how he behaves in person as none of know anything about that situation.  I have a list of questions that I'll try to get him to answer.  As I'm certainly no biologist, most of the questions are philosophical, political, or behavioral in nature.

Of course, in the same thread, DaveTard threatened to thrash me with chainsaws.  So, it could be fun.

He boasts he 'carries concealed' ......so if he invites you to feel his equalizer, don't look straight at his crotch.

He may be just wanting to do a bit of male bonding and is probably thinking about firing at the inuit/polar bear target  he floats off the back of his scurvy sloop, so as long as he doesn't want to hold your arm when you shoot it should be OK.

When you see him ask him if he has any hot stock picks for creationist/ID bio-tech startups .......new species without RM+NS and anti chance worship amulets ..that sort of thing.

Or where he can get virgin birth prevention kits or 'rising after death' protectors .....oh and SPEAKING OF RISING AFTER DEATH WHERE does he get his illicit Viagra from?

ROLFING HOMOS. 'ROUND THESE PARTS I PREVENT VIRGIN BIRTHS ALL BY MYSELF. ITS A THANKLESS JOB BUT SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT.-dt

HO RAH SEMPER TURD *fart*

--------------
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 01 2007,17:41   

Well, I have joined you all in the list of folks who ridicule FtK and thus will have their comments banned at her blog. So much for the "slightly neurotic obsession for finding truth" that she claims to have. Truthiness, perhaps. Without real commenters, that blog will degenerate into a conversation between Larry Fafarman and her, which is a black hole of vacuity if e'er there was one!

I have a backlog of at least three comments that I sent before my fall from grace, so I will dig those up and post them here when I get the time, since this post is for crossposting items that never get to her comment board. But frankly, I'm not sure if it is worth it, since all it does is attract attention to a fairly standard parroting of creationist canards, gushing over the latest DI press releases, and the occasional right-wing rant. Do we really want to attract more attention to that?

Frankly, almost every item she posts could be answered the same way. All you have to do is ask "What is the evidence for that assertion?" (or perhaps, "On what planet did the evidence for that assertion originate?"). Then she will ignore that question and proceed to the next post. Not a lot of room for real intellectual interchange, alas.

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

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

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

Quote
Without real commenters, that blog will degenerate into a conversation between Larry Fafarman and her, which is a black hole of vacuity if e'er there was one!


This is certainly nothing new.  Welcome, Albatrossity2, to the world OF IDiots.  Most, if not all, ID blogs (not to mention books, conferences, and other events) involve the same sort of incestuous participation (or lack thereof).

For other not-so-stunning examples visit: <a href="www.uncommondescent.com" target="_blank">Uncommon Descent</a>, <a href="www.intelligentreasoning.com" target="_blank">Intelligent Reasoning</a>, or <a href="www.overwhelmingevidence.com" target="_blank">Overwhelming Evidence</a>.

I would like to thank you, Albatrossity2, for being outraged at these people.  But, I would also like to remind you to take them with the grain of salt which they deserve.  Otherwise they will drive you crazy.  They are not to be taken seriously.  That is, until they want to educate your children--then make a fuss and their stupidity will become obviousl (even to the American judicial system).

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,08:57   

She *must* protect her worldview. It is so fragile, being based on a barley relevant work of fiction written long ago. I suspect she knows she is dishonest, though.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,11:07   

See

http://www2.blogger.com/comment....0867407

wherein DT gets all sciency with his physician (single experiment, no controls = proof positive), appears to believe that hyperproteinemia is a good thing, and endorses a dietary product that has "some enzymes" which he apparently believes will survive digestion in the stomach and get to the right place to "accelerate fat burning". Lots of good stuff here.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,11:17   

BEEFCAKE, BEEEEEEEFCAKE!!!!

BloaterTard.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,11:58   

Dave,

The reason I haven't put your comments through is because I've been watching you ridicule me here and at RSR while at the same time trying to act as though you are interested in carrying on a sincere conversation with me on my blog.

I decided long ago that I'm not going to deal with those who are insincere.   There is no point in it.

I had been putting every single one of your comments through, although your first attempt at conversation with me was to refer to me as "Eff" the kids.  I looked past it and thought perhaps you really were interested in understanding the general public and how they feel about these issues.  

But, since then I've found that you are not sincere.  

I have your comments waiting on hold and have not deleted them.  If I ever feel that you are making an attempt at sincerity again, I'll put them through.

I very much enjoyed our conversations when you displayed some semblance of respect for me.  

Any of you who take the time to go through my blog archives will see that I regularly carry on lengthy conversations with those who treat me with respect.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,12:12   

FtK

Cart before horse.

When my comments were going through on your blog, I didn't post here. When they stopped going through, this seemed like an appropriate place to comment.

Oh, and BTW, it is not "ridicule" to point out truths such as your tendency to ignore questions and move to the next post, your tendency to link uncritically to anything posted by Luskin or Egnor, and your recycling of creationist deceptions. Ridicule is usually fact-free and malicious. In other words, it is what DaveScot does. But I'm sure he is "sincere", so that makes it all better.

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

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,12:28   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,11:58)
Dave,

The reason I haven't put your comments through is because I've been watching you ridicule me here and at RSR while at the same time trying to act as though you are interested in carrying on a sincere conversation with me on my blog.

I decided long ago that I'm not going to deal with those who are insincere.   There is no point in it.

I had been putting every single one of your comments through, although your first attempt at conversation with me was to refer to me as "Eff" the kids.  I looked past it and thought perhaps you really were interested in understanding the general public and how they feel about these issues.  

But, since then I've found that you are not sincere.  

I have your comments waiting on hold and have not deleted them.  If I ever feel that you are making an attempt at sincerity again, I'll put them through.

I very much enjoyed our conversations when you displayed some semblance of respect for me.  

Any of you who take the time to go through my blog archives will see that I regularly carry on lengthy conversations with those who treat me with respect.

I am also a member of the general public. Please don't think that you speak on my behalf.

Can you explain why I can't find a single pro-ID site that allows general comments and critical posts, while #### near every anti-ID site does so?

A few years ago I was also an ID suporter. It didn't take long once I started to "follow the evidence no matter where it leads" to see exactly which side had the evidence.

No matter what you pretend to stand for, you are ignoring mountains of evidence and pointing at molehills of philosophy/apologetics/analogy to counter it.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,12:59   

That's incorrect.  You didn't start posting here when I decided to put your comments on hold.  Your first post appeared some time ago, and I overlooked that one.  Your second post came when I signed up here.

Apparently, for some strange reason, you felt that would be a good time to come in here and join in the juvenile attacks on people whose views differ from their own.

I'd imagine it was an ego thing.  You saw that they were congratulating the "Dave" who was discussing various issues with me, and you decided to let them know it was you.  That way you could receive your accolades in person.

BTW, it's interesting that you bring up DaveScot and act as if I would allow him to ridicule others merely because he supports ID.  I believe you probably recall that I don't allow ridicule regardless of who it's coming from.

BTW, I signed up here for occasions such as this.  If I feel I am being unjustly accused of something by various posters in this forum, I may choose to comment on it.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,13:07   

Hello and welcome FTK. Please note that all your posts go through instantly, although if they contain profanity they may get moved to "the bathroom wall".

I look forward to your contributions, in this thread and others.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,13:10   

Stephen,

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

Miraculously, after months of not being able to post at PT, suddenly I'm allowed to comment again.

You may believe that only ID blogs moderate or ban because obviously that is where you're most likely to be banned from posting.  I doubt you'd find yourself in the position of being banned at an anti-ID blog or forum.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,13:12   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:10)
Stephen,

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

Miraculously, after months of not being able to post at PT, suddenly I'm allowed to comment again.

You may believe that only ID blogs moderate or ban because obviously that is where you're most likely to be banned from posting.  I doubt you'd find yourself in the position of being banned at an anti-ID blog or forum.

Nice of you to take the moral high-ground and show us how it should be done!

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,13:19   

Thanks for the welcome, Richard.  

My contributions to this forum will be sparse.  I find no reason to carry on sincere conversations with people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,13:24   

Quote
I look forward to your contributions, in this thread and others.


Whilst in no way wishing to cramp FTK's style, I have no great expectations of a meeting of minds. Let's see.

Unfortunately for FTK, ID is defunct as a political movement (and then limited to the US) and never was science, so I wonder if FTK has any thoughts on what strategy they might try next and why?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,13:30   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:10)
Stephen,

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

Miraculously, after months of not being able to post at PT, suddenly I'm allowed to comment again.

You may believe that only ID blogs moderate or ban because obviously that is where you're most likely to be banned from posting.  I doubt you'd find yourself in the position of being banned at an anti-ID blog or forum.

Hi FTK.
I honestly hope that you do stay around for awhile.
Lenny Flank was also banned from PZMyers site (but I doubt you will consider Lenny an ally).

Maybe you missed the part where I said that I originally came "here"* as an ID suporter. I was convinced (at the time) that evolution was rubbish and ID was the way forward. I found that I had been lied to. You have been too. Just really do check out the evidence and arguments. This side is far more honest and open.

*Here=evolutionist/science sites and not specifically this one.

As an experiment FTK, name me one ID site that is as open to critics as this site. I will guarantee that you will not find one.

If you are genuinely searching FTK, you are in for a shock.

Best wishes.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,13:31   

Quote
...people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.


How on earth can you debate issues "respectfully". If I am wrong, I expect people to tell me I am wrong, and I wouldn't respect someone who patronised me by equivocating on their opinion to avoid hurting my feelings.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,13:40   

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 02 2007,13:31)
Quote
...people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.


How on earth can you debate issues "respectfully". If I am wrong, I expect people to tell me I am wrong, and I wouldn't respect someone who patronised me by equivocating on their opinion to avoid hurting my feelings.

I think that you may have hit upon something there.
Most of the population do not think that way. They will make conversation around a bar and not expect to be held accountable on "niggling" details. I think that is the way normal people behave. Coming to a site like this is a culture shock for the "average Joe". It certainly was for me.

I am not objecting, just looking/saying.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,13:43   

Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,13:46   

Actually, Stephen, I thought after posting my comment that I sometimes do refrain from unadorned honesty, especially when talking to my mother :)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,13:50   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,12:59)
Quote
That's incorrect.  You didn't start posting here when I decided to put your comments on hold.  Your first post appeared some time ago, and I overlooked that one.  Your second post came when I signed up here.

snip...

I'd imagine it was an ego thing.  You saw that they were congratulating the "Dave" who was discussing various issues with me, and you decided to let them know it was you.  That way you could receive your accolades in person.

Quote
That's incorrect.  You didn't start posting here when I decided to put your comments on hold.  Your first post appeared some time ago, and I overlooked that one.  Your second post came when I signed up here.

snip...

I'd imagine it was an ego thing.  You saw that they were congratulating the "Dave" who was discussing various issues with me, and you decided to let them know it was you.  That way you could receive your accolades in person.


Wrong again. My first post addressing you directly, which is what I thought we were talking about, came after you blocked my comments. Revisionist history only works if the folks who were involved have died, and rarely works on the internet, where everything is archived for everyone to see. It is harder to pin down, however, when my comments don't appear on your blog, because then nobody knows when I submitted them!

And yes, I admit I was pleased that all of my efforts to bring a note of reason to the ReasonableKansans blog were noticed here. That is not the same thing as signing up just to collect my "accolades", however. I came out of the closet because I despise anonymity, and because I was actually hoping that you had seen the light and would be willing to discuss things here in an open forum. Hope springs eternal...

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

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,14:02   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,08:43)
Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.

FTK

You certainly don't need my permission for whatever you wish to do. I have no ambition to convince you of anything. You have the opportunity to broaden your outlook or not,as you choose.

I doubt you will find any comment of mine that contains vulgarity or nastiness, but I will certainly apologise if you prove me mistaken.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,14:03   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:43)
Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.

FTK,

Could you please consider this?

Scientific arguments are not about polite debate. Somebody spends time discovering evidence and then spends time to prepare and present it. At any time their hard work can be ridiculed and/or torn to shreds by counter evidence. Scientists accept this.

Science is not a polite conversation. Accept that or do not post on blogs that have scientists posting science.

I was also shocked at the way conversations happened on science blogs when I first started posting. BTW you really should check the talkorigins site before making arguments that got refuted years ago.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,14:11   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,12:59)
BTW, it's interesting that you bring up DaveScot and act as if I would allow him to ridicule others merely because he supports ID.  I believe you probably recall that I don't allow ridicule regardless of who it's coming from.

From your Blog:

Quote
DaveScot said...
Curious about what school district in their right mind would include a book on family illustrating a homo household for students only five years old I googled Lexington "David Park" and found it was Lexington, Massachusetts. Figures. I wonder if the parent can get a fair trial in that homo haven where the jury won't be a jury of peers but rather a jury of queers. ROFLMAO - I crack me up. Am I allowed to use the word "queer" here or is calling a poofter a queer considered name-calling?




.....

Quote
Forthekids said...
Holy crap, Dave. You are going to get me in all kinds of trouble...

I'm going to have to post a disclaimer somewhere...

"I will not be held responsible for what comes out of DaveScot's mouth".

LOL...

8:02 AM


OH NO! THE IRON FIST OF FTK!

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,14:15   

Dave wrote:
“My first post addressing you directly, which is what I thought we were talking about, came after you blocked my comments.”

This is the first sentence in your second post here:

“Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet!”

I noticed another post soon after that one, so at that point I started holding your comments on my blog.

you wrote:
“When my comments were going through on your blog, I didn't post here. When they stopped going through, this seemed like an appropriate place to comment.”

Your comment I highlighted above came *before* I started holding your comments on my blog.  Of course no one here will take my word for it, but in your first post you did not mention that I had banned you, neither did you state that I wasn’t responding to you.  

I actually enjoyed our conversations and I had thought you were sincere.  I was mistaken.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,14:20   

Richard,

You might notice that DaveScot got the point.  I haven't seen anything inappropriate since that post.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,14:27   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:20)
Richard,

You might notice that DaveScot got the point.  I haven't seen anything inappropriate since that post.

You don't allow, or you don't allow any more? No double secret moderation for DaveTard.

You seem to take umbrage over people saying nasty things elsewhere. I've highlighted to you numerous indiscretions from Dave in various blogs and yet he still posts on your blog. I'm having trouble understanding how this is not a double standard. Please help, FTK!

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,14:32   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:15)
Dave wrote:
“My first post addressing you directly, which is what I thought we were talking about, came after you blocked my comments.”

This is the first sentence in your second post here:

“Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet!”

snip

I actually enjoyed our conversations and I had thought you were sincere.  I was mistaken.

What part of "addressing you directly" is unclear to you?  Was that post addressing you directly (i.e. commenting on things you said on your blog)?  Or was it addressed to Richard and J-Dog and others? Since I was the one writing it, I'll have to vote for door #2 and conclude that I was not, at least in my own mind, addressing you directly.

But we digress, per usual, by focusing on nit-picky he-said/she-said sideshows.

You can bet that I am sincere; I sincerely desire a better understanding of the issues, both for me and for you. I don't know how insincerity can be the accusation when I post public messages on blogs that I know you read. How sneaky is that?

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,14:33   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2007,15:07)
Hello and welcome FTK. Please note that all your posts go through instantly, although if they contain profanity they may get moved to "the bathroom wall".

I look forward to your contributions, in this thread and others.

I won't bother to defend our moderation policy vs that of ID blogs', the difference is obvious.

I will remind everyone, though, that there is one basic rule here--discuss things respectfully with each other as you would in, say, a college classroom. Unnecessary insults will be moved to the bathroom wall.

(I know that rule has been absent lately on that thread where GoP, Skeptic, Lenny etc intersect, but I'll deal with that shortly.)

   
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,14:44   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 02 2007,16:03)
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:43)
Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.

FTK,

Could you please consider this?

Scientific arguments are not about polite debate. Somebody spends time discovering evidence and then spends time to prepare and present it. At any time their hard work can be ridiculed and/or torn to shreds by counter evidence. Scientists accept this.

Science is not a polite conversation. Accept that or do not post on blogs that have scientists posting science.

I was also shocked at the way conversations happened on science blogs when I first started posting. BTW you really should check the talkorigins site before making arguments that got refuted years ago.

Science gets heated sometimes, and it's impolite in the sense that scientists routinely challenge each others' fundamental beliefs, but it still needs to be respectful in the college classroom sense I mentioned.

To assist this discussion away from meta-issues about moderation and sincerity and things like that, and onto the meat of the scientific, legal, and political issues ID raises, I'll post here some questions for FtK to get the ball rolling:

1 ID claims to be revolutionary science. Real scientific revolutions lead to what Kuhn called 'normal science', where the new theory is used to solve lots of unsolved problems. ID isn't solving any problems. The ID journal PCID hasn't published an issue in a year and a half. What's wrong?

2 If William Dembski's work is a revolution in Information Theory, why has he never even been mentioned in an IEEE ITSOC publication? Not even once?

3 The Discovery Institute spends ~$4 million per year. A biology lab which spent that kind of money could hire 30-40 postdocs and would generate over 50 scientific publications per year. The discovery institute's money has generated 0 publications in the last year. Does that seem funny to you?

4 No matter how disturbing or unwanted, scientific revolutions only make headway when the revolutionaries convince their colleagues of its merits. The big bang, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics theory, none of these theories advanced by the lobbying of school boards. Rather, the researchers showed that the new hypothesis got results, and after a period of resistance, their colleagues relented. How are IDers hoping to achieve that without any new results in biology?

5 ID supporter and super-religious guy David Heddle used to be a nuclear physicist at Cornell. After much exposure to Dembski's works, he eventually concluded last year that
a) some ID efforts made christians look like fools
b) ID things like Irreducible Complexity aren't real science and don't lead to real experiments
c) Dembski's math is bogus
d) ID really is religious
e) the School Board efforts were a disaster
and finally "I am embarrassed by the ID movement: its tactics as well as the lack of intellectualism of many (though not all) of its leaders."

(http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/09/color-me-id-cynical.html)

Feel free to explain why Mr. Heddle is wrong on any of those points. Especially c.

(and if Dave Heddle wants to complain that I misrepresented anything he said, he's welcome to do so. It isn't my intention to quote mine. The 'S' in my name is followed by 'teve', not 'alvador'. )

6 The guy who proved the No Free Lunch theorems says Dembski's math doesn't prove anything. Is he wrong about his own theorem?

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,14:59   

That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.

Nor have I ever seen the sarcasm, ridicule and habitual poking fun of others who hold difference scientific perspectives or religious ideals at any of the aforementioned places where scientific issues are usually addressed.  

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:04   

"difference (sic) scientific perspectives"

As in redefine science to allow, astrology, etc?

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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:20   

Quote
In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...

Well, if you'd like to inject a little science into our forum here, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people to discuss with. AFDave sure did.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:34   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,16:59)
But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.

I have.

And not just that one.

Or that one.

Or that one.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:42   

FtK, do you have any scientific training?

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:43   

Dave wrote:
“What part of "addressing you directly" is unclear to you?”

It was very clear that you were trying to get around the topic at hand.  I merely decided to stick to the original conversation and emphasize why I am not putting your comments through moderation at my blog.

you wrote:
“Was that post addressing you directly (i.e. commenting on things you said on your blog)? Or was it addressed to Richard and J-Dog and others? Since I was the one writing it, I'll have to vote for door #2 and conclude that I was not, at least in my own mind, addressing you directly.”

It really makes no difference who you were addressing.  It’s irrelevant.  You decided to post on this forum and chime in with the others.  It’s a bit hypocritical to assert that you are someone who is sincere and respectful and then find you here joining in with those who are not interested in respectful dialogue.

“You can bet that I am sincere; I sincerely desire a better understanding of the issues, both for me and for you. I don't know how insincerity can be the accusation when I post public messages on blogs that I know you read. How sneaky is that? “

It’s not “sneaky” at all.  Obviously, I can come here and read all of your comments about me as you join in with others who are prone to inappropriate ridicule.   It shows me that you aren’t sincere, because if you were, you would find more appropriate venues in which to discuss the scientific issues surrounding this debate.

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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:50   

FtK said,
Quote
It really makes no difference who you were addressing.  It’s irrelevant.  You decided to post on this forum and chime in with the others.  It’s a bit hypocritical to assert that you are someone who is sincere and respectful and then find you here joining in with those who are not interested in respectful dialogue.
in regards to this:
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2007,07:31)
Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/rintoul/rintoul.html

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!

Ah, I see. The ridicule contained in the post above is what made FtK decide to hold up Albadave's posts. His association with CBEBs, I assume, necessarily makes him insincere.

Come on FtK, bring undo me the science! Show me a peer-reviewed paper that you've read and found impressive!

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:52   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,15:43)
It shows me that you aren’t sincere, because if you were you would find more appropriate venues in which to discuss the scientific issues surrounding this debate.

Like Uncommon Descent, for example.

There really isn't a 'debate' other than creationists trying to create a cultural movement.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:55   

Richard,

It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard.

I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended:

“Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

And, here.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,16:01   

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

Behe, would like to create his own scientific definitions.

Quote
I said, "Intelligent design does meet that?" And you said, "It's well substantiated, yes." And I said, "Let's be clear here, I'm asking -- looking at the definition of a scientific theory in its entirety, is it your position that intelligent design is a scientific theory?" And you said, going down to line 23, "I think one can argue these a variety of ways. For purposes of an answer to the -- relatively brief answer to the question, I will say that I don't think it falls under this." And I asked you, "What about this definition; what is it in this definition that ID can't satisfy to be called a scientific theory under these terms?" And you answer, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there's not -- I can't point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."

A Yes.

Q So for those reasons you said it's not -- doesn't meet the National Academy of Sciences definition.

A I think this text makes clear what I just said a minute or two ago, that I'm of several minds on this question. I started off saying one thing and changing my mind and then I explicitly said, "I think one can argue these things a variety of ways. For purposes of a relatively brief answer to the question, I'll say this." But I think if I were going to give a more complete answer, I would go into a lot more issues about this.

So I disagree that that's what I said -- or that's what I intended to say.

Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?

A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.



It sure is tough sneaking Jebus in.

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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:55)
Richard,

It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard.

I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended:

“Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

And, here.

Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

"Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial. "

Cute comment... a real classic for this particular forum.

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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,16:20   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:16)
"Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial. "

Cute comment... a real classic for this particular forum.

Exceeded only by the cuteness of the commenter. Shall I assume that you indeed have no science to present here, and are simply on a cultural crusade?

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,16:25   

It's one of Bill O'Reilly's Culture warriors!

Quick, secular progressives, hide! (no bloviating or being a popinjay)

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,16:54   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers,

snip...

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...

FtK

I won't call it BS yet, but I have to admit that I am skeptical about the claim that you have read peer-reviewed papers. That skepticism is based on two independent lines of evidence.

1) In my all-too-brief time commenting on your blog, I quickly discovered that your attendance at lectures, reading of books, and forays into blogs had not resulted in any obvious understanding of evolution, much less science in general. You showed, and I commented about it here

http://www2.blogger.com/comment....1678622

that you actually don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis. So what, exactly, did you get from any peer-reviewed article you read?

2) It is my experience that science majors have lots of trouble with peer-reviewed primary literature. It is my experience that graduate students in biology have lots of difficulties in navigating a primary literature paper. It is my experience that reading the peer-reviewed literature is a skill that can be learned, but it takes time, and it takes effort. Where and when did you put in that sort of time and effort?

So yeah, I'd be real interested in hearing about any peer-reviewed articles in biology that you might have encountered, and extremely interested to hear about what you learned from those.

Take your time, I know you have lots of other questions to answer. But also remember that I am not the only one asking this question; argystokes would also like to know about this as well!

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

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,17:19   

FtK:
Quote
Obviously, I can come here and read all of your comments about me as you join in with others who are prone to inappropriate ridicule.


Not all ridicule is inappropriate.

You have been asked several times to provide some scientific content for ID.  You have been asked whether you actually have any science training or whether you have invested the necessary time and preparation to be able to intelligently digest the primary biology literature.

You have ignored all these relevant and non-ridiculous questions in your own attempt to sling criticism with Teh Big Boyz.

Hint: don't give up your day-job, which obviously is neither comedy nor science.

Rephrased: you have long shown yourself to be an entirely appropriate object of ridicule.  If you would like to shed that particular skin, do the requisite work and demonstrate that you have earned the respect--rather than the ridicule--of those that actually have done the work.

Or keep on as you have started out.

As much as we would enjoy it, on one level, if you wised up, we'll still enjoy it, on an entirely different level, should you choose not too.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:03   

Dave wrote:
"that you actually don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis. "

Yes Dave, you caught me in an error.  Obviously, I should not have used the word hypothesis in that particular example, though it would be useless to try to convince you that I do know what the word means.  It's one of the first things you learn in high school biology class, so I'd guess that most people are able to use that particular word appropriately.    

You and I both know that I wrote three lengthy posts that evening in response to some of your comments.  You also know (because I mentioned it) that I fell asleep with my laptop still in my lap that night because I was up too late putting together responses to your posts like I promised I would.  Some of you seem to have an excessive amount of time to spend in these Internet blogs and forums whereas I have a life outside of cyberspace and have to squeeze in time when I can.  I was tired and made an error - simple as that.

I also remember that you used the word "prove" when talking about scientific evidence one time, and you know that the word "prove" in not appropriate in that type of discussion.  So, we all make mistakes occasionally.

Granted, I would hope that I don't know as much about science as you do seeing as you are a biology professor.  But, nonetheless, I think I have the right to discuss these issues and also consider the position of your opponents as well.  Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it.

I'm sure it is comforting to believe that everyone who disagrees with you simply "doesn't understand how science works", but I have a hard time believing that to be true.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

Oh, btw, yes, I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles.  Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me.  I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject.

Obviously, there were things in some of those articles that I would have had to ask more questions about to completely understand, but overall I was able to comprehend the content.

But, I can ~guarantee~ you that this is the very last place on earth I would discuss anything in those articles.

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:20   

Quote
Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it.


Then you're certainly running low on tenable excuses.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:24   

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

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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:26   

FtK, you don't seem interested in discussing the science, just in badmouthing us. So let's drop the complaining and talk about the science. Some questions about the science:

1 ID claims to be revolutionary science. Real scientific revolutions lead to what Kuhn called 'normal science', where the new theory is used to solve lots of unsolved problems. ID isn't solving any problems. The ID journal PCID hasn't published an issue in a year and a half. What's wrong?

2 If William Dembski's work is a revolution in Information Theory, why has he never even been mentioned in an IEEE ITSOC publication? Not even once?

3 The Discovery Institute spends ~$4 million per year. A biology lab which spent that kind of money could hire 30-40 postdocs and would generate over 50 scientific publications per year. The discovery institute's money has generated 0 publications in the last year. Does that seem funny to you? (edit: 0 *scientific* publications. They write a lot of articles in National Review and the Weekly Standard etc, but those aren't scientific publications)

4 No matter how disturbing or unwanted, scientific revolutions only make headway when the revolutionaries convince their colleagues of its merits. The big bang, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics theory, none of these theories advanced by the lobbying of school boards. Rather, the researchers showed that the new hypothesis got results, and after a period of resistance, their colleagues relented. How are IDers hoping to achieve that without any new results in biology?

5 ID supporter and super-religious guy David Heddle used to be a nuclear physicist at Cornell. After much exposure to Dembski's works, he eventually concluded last year that
a) some ID efforts made christians look like fools
b) ID things like Irreducible Complexity aren't real science and don't lead to real experiments
c) Dembski's math is bogus
d) ID really is religious
e) the School Board efforts were a disaster
and finally "I am embarrassed by the ID movement: its tactics as well as the lack of intellectualism of many (though not all) of its leaders."

(http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/09/color-me-id-cynical.html)

Feel free to explain why Mr. Heddle is wrong on any of those points. Especially c.

(and if Dave Heddle wants to complain that I misrepresented anything he said, he's welcome to do so. It isn't my intention to quote mine. The 'S' in my name is followed by 'teve', not 'alvador'. )

6 The guy who proved the No Free Lunch theorems says Dembski's math doesn't prove anything. Is he wrong about his own theorem?

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:28   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 02 2007,13:30)
Lenny Flank was also banned from PZMyers site

Actually I don't know if I was banned (although I do recall PZ mentioning something about it).  Since I've never tried to POST at PZ's blog, I simply don't know if I can or not.


As for FTK's whining, I grew tired, decades ago, of listening to the fundies and their interminable martyr complexes.  Cry me a river, FTK.  (shrug)

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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:29   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,16:18)
Oh, btw, yes, I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles.  Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me.  I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject.

Obviously, there were things in some of those articles that I would have had to ask more questions about to completely understand, but overall I was able to comprehend the content.

But, I can ~guarantee~ you that this is the very last place on earth I would discuss anything in those articles.

A nearly-nonmoderated forum with a mix of scientists and laypeople is certainly a bad place for discussing the peer-reviewed literature. Better to do it behind the curtains of comment-screened blogs. So the truth gets out, ya know.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:31   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:43)
Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate?

I would think that the word "science" would be at the top of the list --- it's entirely irrelevant to this "debate", since the IDers consistently and adamantly refuse to, ya know, *present* any.  (shrug)

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:34   

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

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

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:36   

Stevestory wrote:

"FtK, you don't seem interested in discussing the science, just in badmouthing us."

Oh, I'm sorry, was I unclear as to my reason for being here?  I'm certainly not here to "discuss science" with any of you.  

I've been reading threads here for some time now due to my sitemeter picking up on your regulars who apparently found it thrilling to post rude comments on my blog.  Before that time, I didn't even know this place existed.  Obviously, there is nothing of value coming from this site.

I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.  You're clearly into attack, ridicule and spin.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:38   

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

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

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

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

If you ever want to discuss the science, you know where to find us.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:39   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,15:55)
Richard,

It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard.

I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended:

“Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

And, here.

From the trial transcript:

Quote

Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?

A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?

A Yes.

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."

That's the scientific theory of astrology?

A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A I'm sorry?

Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A It seems like that.

Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?

A Yes.

Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.

A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Q Page 132, line 23.

A Yes.

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

A That's correct.

Q Not, it used to be, right?

A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.

A I'm sorry?

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?

A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.

Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.

THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.


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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:42   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:36)
Oh, I'm sorry, was I unclear as to my reason for being here?  I'm certainly not here to "discuss science" with any of you.  

And who can blame you.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:46   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:36)
I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.  You're clearly into attack, ridicule and spin.

(sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo !!!!!!!!!!

Well, my dear, go ahead and stamp your feet and shout "YOU'RE ALL JUST A BUNCH OF BIG MEANIES !!!!" at us, get it all out of your system, and then go away.

Thanks.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

Lenny,

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

Clearly he's talking about history.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

Clearly he's talking about history.

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

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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

Clearly he's talking about history.

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

Thanks.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

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

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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

Not a problem, Lenny.  Consider it done.

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

Stevestory wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

Bah. I knew it looked familiar.

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

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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

(snicker)  (giggle)

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

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

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

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

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

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

-3, -24

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

Well, let's ask Werner Von Braun:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With kindest regards.

Sincerely,

(signed) Wernher von Braun



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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

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

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

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

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

Latest poll on faith, evolution, etc.

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

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

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

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

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

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

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

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

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

    
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

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

I remarked earlier:

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


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

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

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

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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

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

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

Louis

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,06:50   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,22:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.

Nor have I ever seen the sarcasm, ridicule and habitual poking fun of others who hold difference scientific perspectives or religious ideals at any of the aforementioned places where scientific issues are usually addressed.  

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...

:O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O

she said **** ***** and *****

She's a witch, shes a witch, burn her ban her I say.


Of course ftk, it may be that the only honest peer review you will ever get in your vacuous insouciant life  of your ......er 'actual honesty' will probably be here and now.

Have a shit free day.

--------------
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 03 2007,07:16   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:03)
Dave wrote:
"that you actually don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis. "

Yes Dave, you caught me in an error.  

snip...

I'm sure it is comforting to believe that everyone who disagrees with you simply "doesn't understand how science works", but I have a hard time believing that to be true.

If that was the only "error", I wouldn't have made the conclusion that your scientific understanding was negligible. The comments where I discussed that particular error contain multiple observations, all consistent with the hypothesis that your scientific understanding is negligible.

In addition, on two previous comment threads at your blog, I posed some problems to see if you knew anything about how evolution works, and also to see if you had any critical thinking skills. One of those problems is an example that I have used in my freshman biology class. Neither you nor DaveScot, who dropped into that particular comment thread, came close to giving me a useful answer.To his credit, after some snarling ad hominem putdowns, Dave did google an appropriate scientific paper and paste some comments from it (without thinking about the content, unfortunately)

So I actually have lots of observations to support that conclusion. In addition, I don't believe that everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant about science; that is putting words in my mouth again. I give folks the benefit of the doubt; they have to prove their ignorance. And I will change my mind about you, if you ever give me any evidence otherwise.

--------------
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 03 2007,09:17   

This is what PZ actually says about FTK's status:

Quote

These are a few annoying people I'm putting up with for now, but might throw into the hoosegow soon.

For the Kids
AKA FtK A particularly contemptible creationist who specializes in smarm and ooze. As you might guess from the alias, she thinks she's acting out of concern for children. Not a frequent commenter, though, so I haven't done much about her yet; she's been trolling Skatje's blog, though. Skatje thinks she's creepy.


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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,09:47   

Dammit Arden, why do you always have to let FACTS get in the way of a really good error? ;-)

Ok FTK,

I want to discuss science with you. I haven't bothered to read all the previous excitement so I don't know who was being rude to whom, when, how or why. Thus we can dispense with all that sort of thing.

So to kick of a really good scientific discussion:

With regards to the development of self replicating systems, what do you think about the relative roles of out of equilibrium systems (i.e. systems comprised of non linear dynamic processes like for example the Belousov Zabotinsky reaction, which itself is not an abiogenetic precursor per se, just an example of an out of equilibrium system which exhibits order) and self organising systems under thermodynamic control (i.e. spontaneous processes with a negative free energy change, for example crystallisation or surfactant aggregation and micelle formation) in the development of self replicating systems? While we're on the topic: Do you think micellular (or similar) encapsulation, while obviously an important step, was a vital step in the development of discrete self replicating systems, or are there other mechanisms you can think of for maintaining the discreteness of such a system?

Cheers

Louis

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,09:53   

Quote (Louis @ April 03 2007,10:47)
Dammit Arden, why do you always have to let FACTS get in the way of a really good error? ;-)

Ok FTK,

I want to discuss science with you. I haven't bothered to read all the previous excitement so I don't know who was being rude to whom, when, how or why. Thus we can dispense with all that sort of thing.

So to kick of a really good scientific discussion:

With regards to the development of self replicating systems, what do you think about the relative roles of out of equilibrium systems (i.e. systems comprised of non linear dynamic processes like for example the Belousov Zabotinsky reaction, which itself is not an abiogenetic precursor per se, just an example of an out of equilibrium system which exhibits order) and self organising systems under thermodynamic control (i.e. spontaneous processes with a negative free energy change, for example crystallisation or surfactant aggregation and micelle formation) in the development of self replicating systems? While we're on the topic: Do you think micellular (or similar) encapsulation, while obviously an important step, was a vital step in the development of discrete self replicating systems, or are there other mechanisms you can think of for maintaining the discreteness of such a system?

Cheers

Louis

If she wants to talk about science, we've got some good questions up for her. I want to see her explanation for how Wolpert doesn't understand his NFL theorem.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,09:55   

Awwwwww but STEEEEEEEEEEEVE!!

Okay!

Louis

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,10:11   

Quote (stevestory @ April 03 2007,09:53)
 
Quote (Louis @ April 03 2007,10:47)
Dammit Arden, why do you always have to let FACTS get in the way of a really good error? ;-)

Ok FTK,

I want to discuss science with you. I haven't bothered to read all the previous excitement so I don't know who was being rude to whom, when, how or why. Thus we can dispense with all that sort of thing.

So to kick of a really good scientific discussion:

With regards to the development of self replicating systems, what do you think about the relative roles of out of equilibrium systems (i.e. systems comprised of non linear dynamic processes like for example the Belousov Zabotinsky reaction, which itself is not an abiogenetic precursor per se, just an example of an out of equilibrium system which exhibits order) and self organising systems under thermodynamic control (i.e. spontaneous processes with a negative free energy change, for example crystallisation or surfactant aggregation and micelle formation) in the development of self replicating systems? While we're on the topic: Do you think micellular (or similar) encapsulation, while obviously an important step, was a vital step in the development of discrete self replicating systems, or are there other mechanisms you can think of for maintaining the discreteness of such a system?

Cheers

Louis

If she wants to talk about science, we've got some good questions up for her. I want to see her explanation for how Wolpert doesn't understand his NFL theorem.

Actually, I think this is wrong, for a couple* of reasons.

1) She is a layperson, so the demands are unreasonable.
2) "X can't explain Y" is so Intelligent Design. Let's hear competing theories, but they must be theories, mind you.
3) Perhaps she has some questions of us that would broaden her (and my) understanding. Let's have them, we've got some really bright guys and girls her.

*Edit: Couple being 'three', apparently..

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,10:13   

You're right. I was being unfair. Sorry FTK. Have you got any scientific questions for any of us?

Louis

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,10:17   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 03 2007,04:43)
   
Quote (argystokes @ April 02 2007,19:54)
Also, I wonder what she thinks of rocket scientists, of whom I suspect there are very few YECs. Perhaps rocket science is no design detectology.

Well, let's ask Werner Von Braun:

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

etc etc etc etc..

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

With kindest regards.

Sincerely,

(signed) Wernher von Braun



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

Wow !!!

Werner Von Braun father of the ICBM  AND ID!!!!!!

bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


8 miles high and falling fast .......yeee har.

.....Must have been one of his duds.....it blew up on the launch pad....Dembski and Behe get nasty burns...god ...oh .....er the designer refuses to attend court to state his case to end argument for ever. Leaves ID in tatters supported only by a rusted on backwash loony fringe.

Ex Nazi rocket scientist discovered to be founding father of ID.

Stories of U boats with billions in gold bullion to found a 5th Reich resurface after Bill Dembski applies his EF filter to Von Braun’s unpublished manifesto for Designer World; a utopian walled state within a state where dissent is crushed through a Matrix like thought control PC/TV screen spewing Designer Party propaganda into every home.

NEWSPEAK reports 91% success.

The Designer Party demands 100% before implementing the final solution.

Designer Party broadcasts called DOG casts are carried on every news channel and the Designer’s message completely permeates every corner of society.  ‘Bless us O Designer’ is printed on Designer currency and his corporate symbol (a capital D with a semicolon in yellow or after dark a snake eating its own tail) is placed all over the country, people have T shirts printed with it and give them away on street corners along with the Designer Parties little black book a plagiarized reprinting of the Gospel according to Judas where the Designer Party apparatchiks have their names replace the Apostles ….William, Michael, Casey, Davetard, Sal etc.

What is left of government allows the Designer Party to take over the delivery of social security which is renamed as WHAMO.

Meetings are called once a week on Designer day where Designerists call the Party faithful to order and intone serious messages that scare children and cause them to grow up, get drunk and not wear undies to nightclubs and post the photos on MySpace.

TV's in Elevators and other public spaces urge followers of the Designer Party on as they go to their workstations to wage a cyber war on reality.

Whole countries disappear in a sea of useless noise as the Designer Party takes over the world’s most powerful democracy and fills the airwaves with manufactured homogenous drivel to both titillate and bore and totally mask the body count.

Forming an unholy alliance with a sinister cabal of corporations seemingly much more powerful than the mysterious Designer who seems to be permanently absent with only his press office able to issue ‘news releases' the Designer Party shows His agenda has perfect resonance with Halliburton's and Microsoft's corporate aims .....a monopoly on oil requiring helicoptor gunships to recover and Saint Bill the 1sts ascendency to ...er sainthood. .

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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,11:18   

Quote (k.e @ April 03 2007,10:17)
8 miles high and falling fast .......yeee har.

.....Must have been one of his duds.....it blew up on the launch pad....Dembski and Behe get nasty burns...god ...oh .....er the designer refuses to attend court to state his case to end argument for ever. Leaves ID in tatters supported only by a rusted on backwash loony fringe.

Ex Nazi rocket scientist discovered to be founding father of ID.

Stories of U boats with billions in gold bullion to found a 5th Reich resurface after Bill Dembski applies his EF filter to Von Braun’s unpublished manifesto for Designer World; a utopian walled state within a state where dissent is crushed through a Matrix like thought control PC/TV screen spewing Designer Party propaganda into every home.

NEWSPEAK reports 91% success.

The Designer Party demands 100% before implementing the final solution.

Designer Party broadcasts called DOG casts are carried on every news channel and the Designer’s message completely permeates every corner of society.  ‘Bless us O Designer’ is printed on Designer currency and his corporate symbol (a capital D with a semicolon in yellow or after dark a snake eating its own tail) is placed all over the country, people have T shirts printed with it and give them away on street corners along with the Designer Parties little black book a plagiarized reprinting of the Gospel according to Judas where the Designer Party apparatchiks have their names replace the Apostles ….William, Michael, Casey, Davetard, Sal etc.

What is left of government allows the Designer Party to take over the delivery of social security which is renamed as WHAMO.

Meetings are called once a week on Designer day where Designerists call the Party faithful to order and intone serious messages that scare children and cause them to grow up, get drunk and not wear undies to nightclubs and post the photos on MySpace.

TV's in Elevators and other public spaces urge followers of the Designer Party on as they go to their workstations to wage a cyber war on reality.

Whole countries disappear in a sea of useless noise as the Designer Party takes over the world’s most powerful democracy and fills the airwaves with manufactured homogenous drivel to both titillate and bore and totally mask the body count.

Forming an unholy alliance with a sinister cabal of corporations seemingly much more powerful than the mysterious Designer who seems to be permanently absent with only his press office able to issue ‘news releases' the Designer Party shows His agenda has perfect resonance with Halliburton's and Microsoft's corporate aims .....a monopoly on oil requiring helicoptor gunships to recover and Saint Bill the 1sts ascendency to ...er sainthood. .


k.e. - Nicely done - Are you working on the sequal now?

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,11:49   

Quote (J-Dog @ April 03 2007,19:18)
Quote (k.e @ April 03 2007,10:17)
8 miles high and falling fast .......yeee har.

.....SNIP ... Designer Party shows His agenda has perfect resonance with Halliburton's and Microsoft's corporate aims .....a monopoly on oil requiring helicoptor gunships to recover and Saint Bill the 1sts ascendency to ...er sainthood. .


k.e. - Nicely done - Are you working on the sequal now?

ftk provided the inspiration or agravation its hard to tell sometimes...

...all that is required is an insult to my intelligence which as you can probably tell by my counter-insults are more insult than intelligence.

If you want more dig me up some delicious fresh tard...snicker.


MY INTELLIGENCE IS SOMEWHERE NORTH OF NEVERLAND  NEAR THE BIT WHERE THE GREEN WIGGLY LINE MEETS THE BLUE BIT. LORFING I INSULT MYSELF SOMETIMES-dt

--------------
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 03 2007,13:19   

Louis writes:
Quote (Louis @ April 03 2007,10:13)
You're right. I was being unfair. Sorry FTK. Have you got any scientific questions for any of us?


But if you already have all the answers , why would you have any questions?

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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,13:36   

I think PZ sums her up pretty well:

For the Kids
AKA FtK A particularly contemptible creationist who specializes in smarm and ooze.

It was interesting to watch "Dave" (Albatrossity2) post on her lame blog, but she came here with a chip on her overweight shoulder, and she can leave with a kick to her no doubt expansive backside.  

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,13:54   

ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,14:01   

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.

yeah, whatever. Your stereotypical nerdy scientist invented your modern way of life. What you've done?

EDIT: And threats of violence? I guess we should expect no less when logic fails you.

EDIT EDIT: And you've not addressed a single substantive point on this thread. Do you think your stereotypical nerdy scientist will fail to notice, and note such a data point?

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Ever meet AFDave FTK? That's what lies ahead on the road you are travelling. Your behaviour here reminds me so of him.

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,14:07   

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

So you are really good looking. I can easilly accept that. Now, are you willing to answer any serious questions?

Before you make an argument though, check it out on talkorigins first. Chances are, it is already on there. I found that quite embarrasing.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,14:26   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers...

Really?

What was the last peer-reviewed paper that you read, and could you give us a quick summary of it?

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,14:29   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:19)
Thanks for the welcome, Richard.  

My contributions to this forum will be sparse.  I find no reason to carry on sincere conversations with people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.

Yeah....

So what is your position on people who simply ignore contrary evidence?

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,14:35   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:43)
Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.

There's that strange right-wing obsession with potty-mouth.  Oh, they can claim that we are all deluded, deceived, all liars, incompetents, stupid, childish, etc. But boy if you toss out the a-word, they don't wanna talk to you meanie-heads no more!

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,14:44   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:03)
Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it.

So, do you think one has to be a genius to engage in 'rocket science'?  I ask because, first of all, 'rocket scientists' are primarily engineers, which are applied scientists (that is, they take the primary research that others have done and apply it to particular problems).  Sure, there are physicists involved, but I don't suspect it is terribly difficult to plug numbers into alread-developed formulae to figure things out, providing you have the appropriate training.

Plus, I purchased this compendium of information on the Saturn 5 rocket - 4 DVDs with something like 16 hours of footage.  And I was surprised to see how many failures there were on the project - valves not working and causing explosions, welds not holding, incorrect values being employed producing catastrophic failures in test engines and fuel tanks and all kinds of stuff.

When you only focus on the successes, it sure is impressive to be called  a 'rocket scientist'. If you look at the big picture, they re really no 'better' than any other scientist.

And it is a HUGE misconception that biology is so easy.  If that were the case, people like3 Dembski would not still be relying on asinine english language analogies.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,14:49   

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

Steve Story and I are both north of 6'2....

OH MY GAWD I SOUND LIKE DAVETARD!

In other generalization news.. those little Asians sure do love photography..... and electronics.

Narrow minds with broad bushes..

--------------
"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 03 2007,14:50   

Quote

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.


I suppose it's vastly easier for FTK to collect dirty words than actually, you know, refute the scientific challenges to ID. That'll win over lots of converts, and temporarily distract people from her own dishonest nonsense.

Quote

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  


Please. The Mister Tough Guy routine doesn't work for Dave Scot, what make you think YOU can pull it off?



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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,15:13   

Quote (slpage @ April 03 2007,14:26)
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers...

Really?

What was the last peer-reviewed paper that you read, and could you give us a quick summary of it?

Somehow I think it's all hot air. In some ways it's like teenagers boasting about how many cigarettes they smoke, but in reality they don't smoke at all.

Guess how many peer reviewed papers I read last night?

I'd propose a wager as to FTK's response, but there's too many people here who'd know a sure thing when they saw it :) and the odds would have to be looonnggg.

IDers think if you have the slightest veneer of science (the verbal equivilent of the lab coat, chucking around the phrase "peer reviewed article") then somehow ID will become science and it's practitioners scientists. Like sombody here pointed out, IDers are cargo-cultists.

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

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,16:54   

As a non-science type guy I think it is a shame that FtK will probably not contribute here.
Although she only repeats the standard ID memes I am curious around her non-questioning of the ID leaders in non-scientific areas. A good example is the PT detailed take down of Well's book. Except for a brief flurry about the drawings of THOSE embryos. There has been silence.

Even if I didn't understand the take-down myself, the silence from those on the ID side should be telling in itself and I would be asking why.

I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.

Michael

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,17:01   

Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,16:54)
As a non-science type guy I think it is a shame that FtK will probably not contribute here.
Although she only repeats the standard ID memes I am curious around her non-questioning of the ID leaders in non-scientific areas. A good example is the PT detailed take down of Well's book. Except for a brief flurry about the drawings of THOSE embryos. There has been silence.

Even if I didn't understand the take-down myself, the silence from those on the ID side should be telling in itself and I would be asking why.

I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.

Michael

POST OF THE DAY

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,17:35   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 03 2007,15:01)
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.

yeah, whatever. Your stereotypical nerdy scientist invented your modern way of life. What you've done?

EDIT: And threats of violence? I guess we should expect no less when logic fails you.

EDIT EDIT: And you've not addressed a single substantive point on this thread. Do you think your stereotypical nerdy scientist will fail to notice, and note such a data point?

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Ever meet AFDave FTK? That's what lies ahead on the road you are travelling. Your behaviour here reminds me so of him.

AFDave gets killed when he puts forth really horrible YEC 'science' arguments. FtK is choosing to avoid this fate, apparently. I'm hoping that changes and she wants to start talking about papers, data, predictions, and the like. We need some red meat. Arguing about science has been a little thin since AFDave.

By the way, you're all encouraged to seek out and invite creationists here. With no creationists here, all we get to do is laugh amongst ourselves about what they post on UD, OE, etc. Sure, it's fun, but it gets a little old.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,17:38   

Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
A good example is the PT detailed take down of Well's book.

I'm sure you meant Wells's or Wells'.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,17:46   

Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.

Michael

I wouldn't say it's dishonest. I think if you see Philip Johnson, a retired lawyer who's never calculated (delta)S once in his entire life, and he claims that all the scientists in the world are wrong about SLoT, I think if you see that and it doesn't immediately occur to you that Philip Johnson probably has no idea what he's talking about, you're not so much dishonest, it's just that for whatever reason you don't have the brains god gave a goose.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,17:52   

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

Photos, please.

I'm already on record as saying I'd "do" Ann Coulter, so I have no problem sleeping with the enemy. . . . .

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,17:58   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 03 2007,17:52)
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

Photos, please.

I'm already on record as saying I'd "do" Ann Coulter, so I have no problem sleeping with the enemy. . . . .

Proof that no bible = no morality.


*Hides Grandma*

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,18:00   

Quote (stevestory @ April 03 2007,17:46)
 
Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.

Michael

I wouldn't say it's dishonest. I think if you see Philip Johnson, a retired lawyer who's never calculated (delta)S once in his entire life, and he claims that all the scientists in the world are wrong about SLoT, I think if you see that and it doesn't immediately occur to you that Philip Johnson probably has no idea what he's talking about, you're not so much dishonest, it's just that for whatever reason you don't have the brains god gave a goose.

For me it's the "and now what" factor.
Electromagnetism and electricity discovered? Check
And now we've got tv, computers, modern world.

SloT disproves evolution? Ok, accepted for purposes of argument.
So now what? What ya got instead? How do you explain evolution/Slot and with a pathetic level of detail please!

ID proves designer designed? Hum, ok.
And what changes? ID only claims to "Detect design" remember (well, depends on who you ask really!). It's a simple yes.no. Does not move things on much really!

Self replicating machines become self aware? Erk!
I welcome our new nano-bot masters with open arms!

Before the internet I expect the only place with the levels of concentration of  irrational people we see at UD were asylums!

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,18:26   

Since our moderation policy here was attacked recently, I'll point out that in 9 months as moderator, I have banned as many people as Davetard banned yesterday.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,18:30   

Quote (stevestory @ April 03 2007,18:26)
Since our moderation policy here was attacked recently, I'll point out that in 9 months as moderator, I have banned as many people as Davetard banned yesterday.

Fascist!

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,19:21   

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

Thanks for the update, but science is all about hypothesis and observation.

Hypothesis:  On diet to slim down

Observation:



Conclusion:  Perfect match for DaveTard and/or Family Size bag of Cheesy Poofs

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,19:40   

Your a cruel cruel caveman caveman.

Ftk good luck with the threats and boasts, the more the better are you sure you're not ...er gay? a homo? er a dyke no no no a lickalottapussie .....F%ck..a boy  ambidexterous?

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

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,19:40   

Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2007,10:38)
Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
A good example is the PT detailed take down of Well's book.

I'm sure you meant Wells's or Wells'.

Written language has never been my strong suite

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,20:08   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 03 2007,17:52)
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

Photos, please.

I'm already on record as saying I'd "do" Ann Coulter, so I have no problem sleeping with the enemy. . . . .

This is actually starting to look like some kind of fetish of yours, Lenny...

Well, that and that whole reptile thing.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,20:40   

Another rebuttal to her bullshit for FTK to ignore:

 
Quote
FTK - have you considered that the 130+ people who left comments are not a representative sample of the population of planet earth, or of the USA?
Ballpark figures here:
Atheists comprise approximately 10% of the US population. And yet over 50% of the US population accepts the theory of evolution. Call it fifty. Let's see then, if we assume that all atheists accept evolution, that means that 44% of American non-atheists accept evolution. Hand-in-hand? I don't think so.
Geez. Use your head. My brother's gecko could have figured this out.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 3, 2007 05:29 PM


Or you can flip it around, and assume FTK was sharing with us the profound insight that the nonreligious tend *not* to Creationists. Brilliant.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,21:17   

reposted from Pharyngula:

Quote
Interesting that most of the comments on this thread are from atheists. Evolution...atheism. The two *always* seem to kinda go hand in hand, no? If ya don't like the god thing, you've obviously gotta hang with the evolutionists regardless of whether they're right or not.

Of course, you'll always have a few like Humburg to parade around.

Posted by: Forthekids | April 3, 2007 04:27 PM |


Quote
Forthekids, please learn how to count. Your comment was number 123. There were 122 comments before you. Those 122 comments came from about 119 different people. Of them, even if you include the buddhist as an atheist, only 55 identified as atheists. 55 of 119 is 46%, Therefore, you were wrong to say "most of the comments on this thread are from atheists."

Posted by: steve s | April 3, 2007 10:15 PM |


The atheists, in case anybody wants to check behind me, were Nicole the Wonder Nerd
Azkyroth
Flex
Eamon Knight
Dianne
Beren
Bob
Millimeter Wave
Dr. Frank
Amenhotep
Paul
thwaite
Grimmstail
Sanguinity
John
Speedwell
Mark UK
Dan
Richard Uhrich
Simon
Jujuquisp
Woodwose
Sciencebreath
Ha Milton
wjv
Steve Smith
Fatboy
Andre Izecson
xebecs
N
Keanus
Richard Harris, FCD
Brian
Berlzebub
Ros
Commissarjs
Brock Tice
clevo
ZacharySmith
Richard
kemibe
Paul
josh
Jane E Valentine, F.C.D.
Alex
marijane
Captured Shadow
rmhj
Bossy Joe
Richard(re his dad)
Martin C
Thickslab
Margaret
James Orpin
Carolyn

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,21:20   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 03 2007,17:58)
Photos, please.

I'm already on record as saying I'd "do" Ann Coulter, so I have no problem sleeping with the enemy. . . . .[/quote]
Proof that no bible = no morality.


*Hides Grandma*

Sorry, when it comes to a conflict between the wee-wee and the noggin, the wee-wee wins every time.

I was designed that way.

:)

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

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,21:24   

Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2007,10:46)
Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.

Michael

I wouldn't say it's dishonest. I think if you see Philip Johnson, a retired lawyer who's never calculated (delta)S once in his entire life, and he claims that all the scientists in the world are wrong about SLoT, I think if you see that and it doesn't immediately occur to you that Philip Johnson probably has no idea what he's talking about, you're not so much dishonest, it's just that for whatever reason you don't have the brains god gave a goose.

I think that it is dishonest stupidity is not an excuse. If you support the minority position and blog on it, it is your responsibility to ensure that your side covers all of the bases. We see EF, NFL, SLoT and the rest of the Creationist cannards being brought up again and again without the criticisms being addressed. When a substantial (substantial in the number of pages not content) piece of creationist/ID work is produced the PT crowd will fisk it in no time flat. Isn't it dishonest of the ID to only pick and choose to what they respond. Isn't it dishonest of the people like FtK to not take them to task for not responding.

Michael

- I personally think that there is nothing wrong in a non-expert questioning an expert but you do have to listen to the answer.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,21:28   

An interesting comment on that Pharyngula thread

Quote
I don't think my comment will be seen by many, but here goes...
I am an MD and a neurologist. I am appalled by Michael Egnor.
As a brain surgeon, he should know better than anyone how awful a job the ventricular system of the brain is. The Aqueduct of Sylvius, through which all the spinal fluid flows, is thin as a hair. Not surprisingly it often clogs, messing up the function of the whole brain(I won't even venture a guess how many such cases he must have seen in his career). If a human engineer built something like this he would get fired on the spot.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

Posted by: mndarwinist | April 3, 2007 09:21 PM |


I was reading at a coffeeshop in Chapel Hill when a friend of mine came in with a 13 year old girl. My friend had been hired to help the girl with homework and such. The girl was adorable and friendly, but she had a really annoying, kind of 5-year-old way of talking. I asked my friend if there was something wrong, and she said that the girl had been born with some kind of clog in this spinal cord duct, and she had numerous developmental disabilities as a result.

Really intelligent design, huh.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,21:29   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 03 2007,20:40)
Atheists comprise approximately 10% of the US population. And yet over 50% of the US population accepts the theory of evolution. Call it fifty. Let's see then, if we assume that all atheists accept evolution, that means that 44% of American non-atheists accept evolution. Hand-in-hand? I don't think so.
Geez. Use your head. My brother's gecko could have figured this out.

Ironically enough, it was a very similar observation on my part that played a part in PZ getting all pissed off at me over at PT . . . . . .

If we need at least half the population to win a political fight, and if at least two out of every three of that half of the population are theists, then it would seem that we, uh, need the political support of those theists to win.  And screaming "religion is stupid!!!!" at them at every opportunity, probably isn't going to, um, do anything useful to gain that political support.

I bet even a gecko could figure that out.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,21:44   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 03 2007,15:49)
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

Steve Story and I are both north of 6'2....

Actually I'm only 6'.

Wouldn't be much good in a fight at the moment. One good shot to the liver and I'd crumble like feta chese.

FtK said:

Quote
I'm a 5'10" blond.
...
Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  


If it's reasonable for FtK to think of us as stereotypical scientists, I suppose it's reasonable for us to think of her as a stereotypical blonde, isn't it?

Works for me.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,21:47   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 03 2007,20:08)
This is actually starting to look like some kind of fetish of yours, Lenny...

Well, that and that whole reptile thing.

Well, ya know, I guess I just have a soft spot in my heart for scaley cold-blooded unfeeling unemotional creatures, like, uh, snakes and fundies.

:)


Actually, since my teen days, I always considered a conservative religious girl a good score ---- several of my early girlfriends were church girls (my father was a Nazarene minister at the time).  So uptight and so repressed, but once that repression fell away, oooooh la la . . . . . . . .

They were also pretty easy marks, since church doctrine taught that holding a sin in your heart was just as bad as acting it out in reality . . . So I'd say to her, "Surely you must at least have THOUGHT about what it would be like to, uh, ya know, do it" . .  and when she tentatively replied, "Well, yes . . . ", then the deal-closer was "Well then heck, you've already sinned in your heart, so what difference does it make anymore if you go ahead and do it -- you already need forgiving anyway, right?"

Worked every time.

(big fat evil grin)

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,23:00   

Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

Awesome!  We have the female version of DaveTard.  Threatening violence in response reasoned argument....  That's awesome!

You know, she only lives about 2.5 hours away from me; I should visit her as well as the Tardmeister.  Same deal, if she wants to discuss science and education, great...or she can pick the weapons (Dave chose chainsaws).

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

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,00:34   

Quote (blipey @ April 03 2007,23:00)
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)
ROTFL...

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

Awesome!  We have the female version of DaveTard.  Threatening violence in response reasoned argument....  That's awesome!

You know, she only lives about 2.5 hours away from me; I should visit her as well as the Tardmeister.  Same deal, if she wants to discuss science and education, great...or she can pick the weapons (Dave chose chainsaws).

Hmmm. I read that differently. Maybe lenny's getting to me.

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,06:51   

Hey FTK,

I still want to discuss science with you if you are up for it. My question was perhaps a little unfair, I was being slightly cheeky I admit. How about you pick a topic and we can discuss it? Sound fair? If it's outside my expertise (and a lot is) I'll happily admit it and try to find you someone who can give better info than I can.

Please discuss the science FTK and ignore the banter. After all you've posted to this thread since I posted my request to discuss the science, and yet you haven't started any scientific discussion at all. It's possible you missed my post, so I'm restating my offer.

Louis

P.S. Please refrain from silly stereotypical nonsense like "all science types are weak little nerds", I would hope that as you are a serious person here to discuss serious science you wouldn't need to resort to such cheap tactics.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,06:58   

Albatrossity2,

Yeah when one has all the answers already it is kinda hard to have a discussion. But I'm an optimist. I live in hope!

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

Lenny,

There's nothing like a good bit of repression and guilt to get the juices flowing. It's like Woody Allen said "Is sex dirty? Sure, but only if you do it right!".

I think it's a testament to just how fucked up we are as a species that the most enjoyable life affirming act we can commit is regarded as "dirty". Not only that a huge number of people get more excited the more "dirty" they think it is!

Weird.

Louis

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

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,07:21   

"I'm already on record as saying I'd "do" Ann Coulter, so I have no problem sleeping with the enemy. . . . . "

Oh, Lenny!  Have some standards, please!  :(

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,08:40   

I suspect that Lenny et al. have given FtK plenty of ammunition so that she can now focus on how "offensive" we all are, and thus continue to ignore any and all substantive discussion of science. Even on her own blog it was hard to keep her on track; as is typical of the ID/creationists she would focus on some small detail, comment on that extensively , and repeatedly ignore the bigger questions about the science and/or her lack of understanding about reality. Sometimes she would even start two or three new threads with a new blog post, apparently in the vain hope that I would forget about the old outstanding questions that she was ignoring. With all of the comments here about body shapes and sizes, even if she shows up here again, there is no chance that she will even mention science.

But all of this attention has had some good effects; she is apparently so busy reading here and commenting elsewhere that she is ignoring her own blog. Nothing "new" has appeared there in a couple of days. Or maybe Luskin and Egnor haven't posted on ENV (gotta love that acronym!) for a couple of 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

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,10:02   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 04 2007,08:40)
But all of this attention has had some good effects; she is apparently so busy reading here and commenting elsewhere that she is ignoring her own blog. Nothing "new" has appeared there in a couple of days. Or maybe Luskin and Egnor haven't posted on ENV (gotta love that acronym!) for a couple of days...

Well, now that the Antichrist PZ Myers has now devoted a whole thread to uh, honoring Mommy FTK, we can expect her to get even busier today.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,11:48   

Arden,

Perhaps they are wise words. It really doesn't take a genius to understand the very basics of any topic. Which immediately  begs the question as to why Behe, Dembski, Berlinski....allllll the way down the educational line to DaveScott, O'Brien, and FTK etc simply don't.

One would have thought that such a "damning indictment" would, if true of all biology (which let's be honest it ain't), demonstrate a fortiori that the aforementioned ID|Cists were morons of the first stripe.

Is there no end to the dumb these people exhibit?

Louis

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

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,12:01   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2007,10:49)
Writing in Latin doesn't make you sound any smarter, Robert.

Writing in any language does not make you sound smart, Arden.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,12:15   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 04 2007,19:01)
Writing in any language does not make you sound smart, Arden.

Ooooooooh! Handbag!

Saucer of milk for one. Etc.

Any substantive comment to make Robert? Anything? Anything at all? Just more of your usual asinine one liners from a mind as shallow as a puddle of dried spit then? Thought so.

Will someone wake me up when these dishonest, pig ignorant ID creationists-masquerading-scientists actually do something interesting and significant?

On that subject: FTK, any science you want to discuss or is Albatrossity2 correct in his estimation?

Louis

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

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,12:24   

Quote (Louis @ April 04 2007,12:15)
Ooooooooh! Handbag!

Saucer of milk for one. Etc.

Any substantive comment to make Robert? Anything? Anything at all?

...

Louis

I agree with FtK that the learning curve for biology is not nearly as steep as the physical or mathematical sciences.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,12:28   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 04 2007,12:24)
Quote (Louis @ April 04 2007,12:15)
Ooooooooh! Handbag!

Saucer of milk for one. Etc.

Any substantive comment to make Robert? Anything? Anything at all?

...

Louis

I agree with FtK that the learning curve for biology is not nearly as steep as the physical or mathematical sciences.

Apart from the parts of biology that contain math and physics..

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,12:33   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 04 2007,12:24)
I agree with FtK that the learning curve for biology is not nearly as steep as the physical or mathematical sciences.

Of course you do. I also believe that you will defend that position just as efectively as ftk did (no more-no less).

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,12:46   

And on what basis do you or FTK make such a claim?

You do realise that simple reiteration of your claim in English doesn't constitute evidence don't you?

Louis

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8826
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,15:32   

By the way, many of the things I'm moving from here to the Bathroom Wall don't violate any rules, I'm moving them to keep them in context with some posts which do.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,15:33   

Ohhhhh - the bathroom wall is using its urinal cake powers to draw the off topic posts in.


Bye, Robert!

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,19:47   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 04 2007,08:40)
I suspect that Lenny et al. have given FtK plenty of ammunition so that she can now focus on how "offensive" we all are, and thus continue to ignore any and all substantive discussion of science.

I suspect that FTK would continue to focus on how "offensive" everyone is (like she did with her very first posts), and would continue to ignore any and all substantive discussion of science (like she said she would in her very first posts), even if I et al had never even been born.  (shrug)

I view FTK (and all the other IDers) as entertainment value.  Nothing more.  A few years ago, they were a serious threat, not to science, but to the very core of democracy.  Back then, it was worthwhile (indeed, vital)to fight them.

Now, they are just a sewing circle, and I am just laughing at their antics.

If you think you are going to change them with scientific discussion, well, good luck to you.  I've been fighting them for 25 years, and I never found "science" very useful to do it.  After all, this fight simply isn't about science -- none of the IDers were won to ID because of science, and none of them will be won AWAY from it because of science, either.

But by all means enjoy yourself trying.  :)

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

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,20:47   

"I view FTK (and all the other IDers) as entertainment value.  Nothing more."

Jeez, Lenny, I was just thinking the same thing about this blog.  

I've been highly entertained the last couple days watching you guys act like complete goofballs.  Some of you are just weird, but a few of you are actually pretty funny.

But, Dave's right.  I really should be getting back to my own blog and work on my review of the Humes lecture.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10074
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,20:49   

Or, you can ask science questions of scientists, rather than theologians...



P.S - isn't it great how all your posts here go through, instantly?

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